What controls and instruments were in Concorde's cockpit?

Concorde’s cockpit combined familiar control columns, rudder pedals, four throttles and analogue flight instruments with specialised controls for Mach 2 operation. These managed variable engine intakes, reheat, fore-and-aft fuel transfer, centre-of-gravity trim, the droop nose and visor. A captain, first officer and flight engineer worked across three stations.

How was the Concorde cockpit and flight deck laid out?

Concorde had two forward-facing pilot seats and a flight engineer’s station behind them on the right, facing a large side panel. For readers of our Aviation & Real-World Flying coverage, the key distinction is that this was a three-crew flight deck designed before integrated glass displays and two-pilot system automation.

Not every photograph shows the same Concorde control panel. Prototype and pre-production cockpits differed substantially from production aircraft, while British Airways and Air France equipment changed through service modifications. A reliable panel reference should identify the aircraft, operator and approximate period.

What were the main Concorde controls?

The pilots used conventional-looking controls connected to an advanced analogue flying-control system, while several additional controls dealt with Concorde’s delta wing, engines and restricted forward visibility.

• Control columns: Pitch and roll commands operated the elevons along the wing’s trailing edge. Elevons combined the jobs normally performed by elevators and ailerons.
• Rudder pedals: These controlled yaw through the rudder and incorporated wheel-braking inputs for ground operation.
• Four throttle levers: Each Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593 engine had its own lever. Associated controls selected reheat, Concorde’s term for afterburning, and reverse thrust.
• Nosewheel steering: A steering control gave the crew precise directional control while taxiing the long aircraft.
• Airbrake control: The airbrakes increased drag for deceleration and descent; they were not conventional lift-dump spoilers used as primary roll controls.
• Undercarriage and brake controls: These covered landing-gear selection, anti-skid operation and associated indications.
• Droop-nose and visor controls: The nose could be placed at an intermediate take-off setting or lowered further for landing, with the visor sequenced to restore the pilots’ view.

The elevons were hydraulically powered through three independent systems identified as Green, Blue and Yellow. Our explanation of the delta wing, variable intakes, reheat and fuel-transfer trim covers why Concorde needed these specialised controls in addition to ordinary airliner equipment.

Did Concorde have flaps?

No. Concorde had no conventional trailing-edge flaps or leading-edge slats; its ogival delta wing developed low-speed lift through a high angle of attack and strong vortex flow.

The trailing-edge surfaces were elevons, not flaps. During approach, the pilots monitored an incidence indication and flew with the nose noticeably high. Lowering the droop nose improved the view of the runway but did not act as a lift-producing flap.

This distinction catches out simmers because a simulator’s generic flap command may still animate an invisible or fictional surface on a simplified Concorde model. That reflects the add-on’s configuration, not the real aircraft.

What did Concorde shift fore-and-aft to keep its centre of gravity?

Concorde shifted fuel fore-and-aft between its tanks to move the aircraft’s centre of gravity; it did not move the wing, passenger cabin or a ballast weight.

As Concorde accelerated through the transonic region, the aerodynamic centre of pressure moved rearwards. Fuel was pumped towards the aft trim tank so the centre of gravity also moved aft within a scheduled safe range. During deceleration, fuel was transferred forward again for subsonic flight and landing.

The flight engineer controlled and monitored this process using the fuel-system schematic, pumps, valves, quantity gauges and centre-of-gravity indication. Transfer trim reduced the need for sustained elevon deflection, which would have produced drag, but it was too slow to replace the elevons as the aircraft’s immediate pitch control.

“Keeping the centre of gravity” can therefore be misleading: the crew did not hold one fixed position. They moved it to the appropriate target range for the aircraft’s speed and configuration while also feeding four engines and maintaining lateral balance.

What was on the Concorde instrument panel?

The captain and first officer each had a largely analogue set of primary flight and navigation instruments, supported by shared engine instruments, warning panels and standby indications.

Concorde was mostly analogue, but not entirely devoid of electronic displays. Its weather radar used a screen, while the inertial navigation equipment had numerical displays and control units. It did not have the integrated primary-flight, navigation and engine screens associated with later glass cockpits.

Long-range guidance came from inertial navigation systems, backed by conventional radio aids and approach equipment. Later safety, communication and navigation modifications mean that individual cockpit photographs may show equipment absent from an earlier production fit.

Did Concorde have autopilot?

Yes. Concorde had autopilot, flight-director and autothrottle systems, with modes for controlling attitude, heading, speed, altitude, navigation and approach flight. Suitably equipped and approved aircraft also had automatic landing capability.

This was not a modern flight-management system that ran the whole aircraft. The automatic flight controls did not perform the engineer’s fuel-transfer work, configure the nose and visor or diagnose every system fault. The engine intakes had their own automatic control system, but the crew still monitored them closely.

What was on the Concorde flight engineer panel?

The Concorde flight engineer panel concentrated the aircraft systems that required active configuration, cross-checking and fault management throughout the flight.

• Fuel and centre of gravity: A large schematic represented 13 fuel tanks, pumps, valves, transfer routes and engine feeds. Quantity and centre-of-gravity indications showed both how much fuel remained and where it was distributed.
• Variable engine intakes: Indicators and controls covered the intake ramps and spill doors that slowed and conditioned supersonic airflow before it entered each engine. Automatic scheduling handled normal operation, with monitoring and backup provisions for faults.
• Hydraulics: Pressure, quantity and isolation controls served the independent Green, Blue and Yellow systems.
• Electrical power: Generator, battery, bus and distribution controls allowed the engineer to connect supplies, isolate faults and reconfigure the network.
• Air and pressurisation: The panel covered pneumatic supplies, cabin pressure, air conditioning and temperature control.
• Engine support and fire protection: Starting, fuel feeds, fire detection, extinguishing and related warning indications were grouped with the other system controls.
• Undercarriage and brakes: Brake temperatures and associated system conditions could be checked after take-off and during preparation for landing.

The dense fuel and intake panels were operational workstations, not decorative banks of gauges. They explain much of the three-person crew requirement and the workload described in our account of what made Concorde demanding to operate.

How did Concorde’s flight-deck alerts work?

Concorde used master attention indications, dedicated warning and caution lamps, aural alerts and individual system gauges rather than a modern centralised ECAM or EICAS display.

An alert directed the crew towards the affected system panel, where the underlying pressure, temperature, valve position or electrical state had to be interpreted. Acknowledging a master alert did not repair the fault; the source indication remained until the condition was corrected or isolated.

A credible Concorde flight deck alert simulator should reproduce more than recognisable warning sounds. It should model:

• the condition that triggers each warning or caution;
• the master alert and its acknowledge or reset behaviour;
• the relevant annunciator and system indication;
• the dependency on electrical, hydraulic, fuel or intake configuration;
• the alert clearing only when the source condition permits it; and
• a lamp-test function that illuminates indicators without creating real failures.

Alert labels, sounds and fitted safety equipment can differ with operator and service period. Treat recordings or photographs from one aircraft as evidence for that configuration, not automatically for every Concorde cockpit.

Which controls mattered during each phase of flight?

The crew’s attention moved between panels as Concorde changed speed, aerodynamic trim and nose configuration.

1. Before engine start: The flight engineer configured electrical, fuel, pneumatic and hydraulic systems while the pilots prepared flight instruments, radios and navigation equipment.
2. Taxi and take-off: The crew selected the prescribed nose and visor position, checked the powered flying controls and used reheat for take-off according to the operating procedure.
3. Transonic acceleration: Intake and engine indications became critical while fuel transfer moved the centre of gravity aft through its scheduled range.
4. Mach 2 cruise: The crew monitored Mach, temperature, engine condition, intake operation, fuel distribution and centre of gravity while the automatic flight controls reduced routine workload.
5. Deceleration and descent: Fuel moved forward as the aircraft returned to subsonic trim, with speed and heating limits closely observed.
6. Approach and landing: The nose and visor were lowered as required, and the pilots used incidence, ILS and radio-altimeter information during the high-angle-of-attack approach.

How accurately do Concorde cockpit simulators reproduce these systems?

Concorde simulations range from visual cockpit recreations with decorative switches to systems-level aircraft that model fuel transfer, intake scheduling and the flight engineer’s workload.

Our examination of a detailed simulated Concorde flight deck shows the breadth of brake-temperature, cabin-pressure, intake, engine, hydraulic and fuel instrumentation that a serious model must cover. For panel familiarisation in an older simulator, the FSX Concorde package with virtual-cockpit gauges provides a practical reference, although an add-on’s implementation should never be treated as proof of real-aircraft behaviour.

What common simulator problems should you check?

The most common problems come from simplified aircraft systems or generic simulator commands that do not match Concorde’s design.

• A flap command appears to work: The real aircraft had no flaps. Check whether the add-on has incorrectly retained a generic flap system or merely assigned the command to another animation.
• The centre of gravity never moves: Confirm that the model supports fuel-transfer trim and that its required pumps and valves are configured. A visually detailed but simplified aircraft may not simulate it at all.
• The nose moves but the visor does not: Detailed models may treat the visor, intermediate nose position and full landing droop as separate stages rather than one generic command.
• A master warning will not clear: Acknowledge the alert, then correct or isolate its source. Repeatedly pressing reset should not extinguish a genuine system condition.
• The intake indicators never change: A cosmetic panel may not model ramp and spill-door scheduling, particularly through transonic acceleration.
• A modern GPS appears in the cockpit: This may be a simulator convenience rather than an authentic part of the selected aircraft and service period.

A convincing exterior and complete-looking instrument panel are not enough. Functional fuel transfer, variable intakes, reheat logic, droop-nose sequencing, automatic flight controls and meaningful engineer-panel indications are the clearest signs that the Concorde cockpit has been modelled rather than merely drawn.