Ray's Estimate of Concorde's Descent Time

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rayjohn01
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Estimate Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around estimating the descent time of the Concorde from an altitude of 6000 feet if its engines were to cut out while flying at the speed of sound. Participants explore various factors influencing glide performance, including glide ratio, drag forces, and emergency procedures, with a focus on the implications of time during such an event.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Ray inquires about descent time estimates, noting a wide range of responses from less than 1 minute to over 7 minutes.
  • One participant cites a glide ratio of 8 for the Concorde, suggesting a descent time of about 2 minutes based on a glide distance calculation at an estimated speed of 300 mph.
  • Another participant proposes that the best tactic for the pilot would be to trade speed for altitude, suggesting a potential descent time of around 4 minutes.
  • Ray expresses concern about the lack of emphasis on time in discussions about glide ratios and emergency procedures, indicating that time is crucial in emergencies.
  • Ray attempts a calculation based on drag proportional to speed, estimating a total descent time of around 80 seconds, assuming a free fall scenario after reducing speed to stall.
  • One participant argues that as a pilot approaches stall speed, drag increases significantly, suggesting that gliding at a speed above stall is necessary for effective descent.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the descent time, with differing estimates ranging from about 80 seconds to 7 minutes. Multiple competing views remain regarding the factors influencing glide performance and the importance of time in emergency situations.

Contextual Notes

Discussions include assumptions about glide ratios, drag forces, and the impact of speed on descent time. There are unresolved mathematical steps in the calculations presented, and the scope of the discussion is limited to the specific scenario of the Concorde's descent without engine power.

rayjohn01
Messages
283
Reaction score
0
Does anybody have a reasonable estimate of the following, If the Concorde was flying at 6000 ft at velocity of sound ,and it's engines cut out , how long would it take to reach the ground doing the best it could to delay the inevitable ? I've seen answers ranging from <1min to > 7 mins .
Ray.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
According to http://aerodyn.org/HighLift/ld-tables.html site, the Concorde has a glide ratio of 8 (not all that good), meaning for every 8 feet forward it must go down 1 foot. 8 x 6,000 is 9 miles. At 300 mph (guess), that's 1 minute, 48 seconds. Starting at mach 1 will add a some to the distance, an extra mile or two, but with no propulsion, it will quickly drop to its glide speed and not add much to the time. Figure about 2 minutes total.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since drag forces typically go up as nonlinear function of speed (and I mean more than in direct proportion to speed), the pilot's best tactic would likely be to trade that supersonic speed for altitude by pulling back on the yoke, and then glide back down at a speed not too much above stall speed. My intuition says maybe four minutes.

Anybody else ever see Bob Hoover flying that twin-engine Shrike at an airshow, turning the engines off for fast, quiet, low passes in front of the audience?
 
russ and Jan-

Thanks guys you can see how the guestimates differ, ( the 7 min answer seemed to assume some swap of speed with height based on energy, but it neglected the drag losses.
I visited a 'flying site' which talked of glide ratios etc etc for several hundred posts -- and not one mentioned TIME -- even the 'emergency procedures' omitted time , and yet this seems crucial in an emergency. If I was flying I would sure like to know whether it was 2 or 7 minutes.
I tried a caculation based on drag proportional to speed ( conservative I think) to reduce speed to stall at the same height, and then free fall.
to do this I assumed that free fall in a nose down attitude could reach 1000 ft/sec to define the drag force, I could not get much over 80 seconds total.
Ray
 
Last edited:
rayjohn01 said:
I visited a 'flying site' which talked of glide ratios etc etc for several hundred posts -- and not one mentioned TIME -- even the 'emergency procedures' omitted time , and yet this seems crucial in an emergency. If I was flying I would sure like to know whether it was 2 or 7 minutes.
In an emergency, distance, not time is the critical factor. A pilot is well-trained and decisive: he doesn't need time to think about his decisions. He already knows what to do.
and then glide back down at a speed not too much above stall speed.
You were good up until there. As you approach stall speed, drag goes up much faster than lift. As you can see from http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/lift_drag.htm graph, the best L/D ratio is at relatively low angle of attack (0 in that case), which means speed well above stall speed (something like 50%). A jet that stalls at 200kts (with no flaps) would glide at around 300. Also, flaps would probably not improve the ratio (maybe just a knotch or two of flaps) - they provide more lift, but a lot more drag.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
Replies
15
Views
13K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K