assess the airframe’s durability. It was subjected to repeated ‘flights’, or cycles – fuselage stresses represented those encountered during a real flight. A conservative margin of error was applied so that the aircraft was deemed safe to make 6,700 flights, or fly until 2008. Of note, when British Airways eventually revamped its Concorde marketing strategy and appreciated how very profitable it was, the airline gave some thought to extending the limit. To explore this, the final Concorde built – G-BOAF (216) – was suitably fitted with strain gauges and measuring equipment to examine the life of the aircraft. As a result, the manufacturers deemed that Concorde’s life could be extended to 8,500 flight cycles or until approximately 2015.
The sixth Concorde airframe built was the British static fatigue test airframe – seen here in its specially built facility at the Royal Aircraft Establishment’s Farnborough facility. At the time, fatigue testing of the Concorde airframe was most complex and exhaustive ever carried out BAE Systems
The matter of control
While the Airbus A320 is widely believed to have been the first commercial aircraft to pioneer ‘fly-by-wire’ controls, such technology was in fact employed on Concorde. The system used electrical signalling between the control column, rudder bar and the flying controls rather than direct mechanical linkage. On Concorde, however, it was duplicated with a standby mechanical system to provide back-up in the event of a failure. Notably, this was never utilised during the aircraft's service life. Most airliners have ailerons for lateral control, elevators for longitudinal control, and leading-edge slats and trailing edge flaps to increase lift during take-off and landing. However, as Concorde’s wing met both the aircraft’s high- and low-speed demands, the only moving surfaces were elevons – combined elevators and ailerons – located on the trailing edge. These were driven by the aircraft’s three hydraulic systems, as were the distinctive droop nose and visor, and undercarriage.
The twin-wheeled nose landing gear retracted forward into the fuselage, while the four-wheel main units retracted sideways into the central section. The aircraft was also equipped with a small gear unit in the tail to protect the rear fuselage in the event of an over-rotation during take-off or landing. At both BAC
Filton and Sud Aviation Toulouse, flight simulators played an important role in the development programme, enabling significant investigation to be made into flight deck layout, SST (supersonic transport) flight control systems and handling characteristics, well in advance of the first aircraft’s maiden flight.
In addition to its obvious function of supplying the engines, Concorde’s fuel system also performed a vital role in trimming the aircraft. The fuel was contained in 17 tanks, occupying some 60% of the wing and nearly half the underfloor volume of the fuselage. The system consisted of four main tanks, feeder tanks for each of the four engines, and a series of transfer tanks that were critical in managing the aircraft’s centre of gravity (CoG) throughout its speed regime.
The full-scale fuel flow test rig constructed at Filton was complete enabling the manufacturer to test the jets fuel system at all attitudes, pressures, temperatures and rates of temperature change it would experience in flight. BAE Systems
One of the quirks of Concorde’s design was that the centre of lift (CoL) shifted backwards as the aircraft went supersonic — this was countered by pumping fuel aft to the rear trim tanks during acceleration, and then forwards again as the jet slowed to subsonic speeds. Such tanks accommodated around 33 of the 95 tonnes of fuel carried by the aircraft, though only 20 tonnes were typically moved during flight, shifting the CoG by 6ft. Such was the complexity of the system that BAC constructed a 227-tonne full-scale replica at Filton, Bristol.
The rig, which was a movable platform, could test all fuel system functions under simulated altitudes, temperatures, and attitudes from 16° nose down to 50° nose up pitch, with up to 10° of roll. This enabled the manufacturer to replicate in-flight conditions and was instrumental in developing a host of modifications. It was one of several such rigs employed during