Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Prototype Concorde's At Museums In 70s? True  
User currently offlineSoundtrack From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 284 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4966 times:

I have run into a few photos of I'm guessing prototype Concorde at a British/UK museum in the mid 1970s.

1. Does anyone know if they are still there - or was this a momentary exhibit?
2. Since I have your attention - did Concorde do many UK shows in the 70s?

Help appreciated - THANKS in advance.

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePhilb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4943 times:

The two British prototypes were at Duxford and Yeovilton by summer 1976 where they remain on display

User currently offlineFlySSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7379 posts, RR: 57
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4937 times:

The British prototype of Concorde is G-BSST 001.
Roll out : Sept.19 1968
First flight : April 9th 1969
Last Flight : March 4th 1976.
836 hours of flight
438 Landings.
Preserved at Yeovilton.

Then there is 1 pre-serie aircraft : G-AXDN 01
Roll out : Sept 20th 1971
First flight : Dec.17th 1971
Last flight : Aug.20th 1977
632 hours of flight
273 Landings.
Preserved at Duxford

A third aircraft was used for test flight. The first Serie aircraft : G-BBDG 202
Roll out : Sept 1st 1973
First Flight : Feb 13th 1974
Last Flight : Dec.24th 1981
1282 hours of flight
633 landings.


The aircraft was used for spares by BA.
It has now been restored and is displayed at the Brooklands Museum.


User currently offlineSoundtrack From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4933 times:

Thanks Phil.

So they have been on display for 30 yrs...

Do they remain in original colors (test, BAC, or BA)?


User currently offlineSoundtrack From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4933 times:

I have some footage where someone told me the Concorde in that shot is at the FLEET AIR MUSEUM.

Is this true?

Thanks!


User currently offlineSoundtrack From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4918 times:

Thanks also SSC...


Anyone know how OFTEN the Concorde flew in Air Shows in the 70s?

I have not seen much written or described about this - was it common, uncommon.

Doing research project - thus the interest in this. thanks


User currently offlinePhilb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4907 times:

Not seen either for many years but they are both still in the BAC/Aerospatiale schemes as far as I know - they never wore any other.

Strictly speaking, G-BSST and F-WTSS were the prototypes. G-AXDN and F-WTSA were hybrids - different visors, slightly longer but much less like the production aircraft than the following three,
F-WTSB, G-BBDG and F-WTSC (later converted to production standard for Air France).

XDN and TSA were, in effect, second stage prototypes, one for each country, each used as much in the developmental programme as prototypes and retired at about the same time as the first two, leaving the next three to complete development flying prior to service entry of the definitive model.


User currently offlinePhilb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4906 times:

Yeovilton is the Fleet Air Arm Museum. I was there when G-BSST landed on a very murky day in 1976.

It is actually owned by the London Science Museum and is on permanent loan to the FAA Museum.

Air show appearances were restricted by the development programme but Farnborough and Paris appearances were de riguer.


User currently offlineSoundtrack From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4903 times:

Ok thanks Phil! - you have confirmed what I was asking about.

If anyone else knows about Concorde's Air Show appearances in the 70s- kindly answer.

Did it ever show up at Air Tattoo? Other shows in UK or globally.

thanks!


User currently offlinePhilb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4885 times:

This link will give you more
http://www.concordesst.com/history/70s.html


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9483 posts, RR: 42
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4871 times:

Quoting Philb (Reply 7):
It is actually owned by the London Science Museum and is on permanent loan to the FAA Museum.

Ah, I've always wondered how on earth the Navy got hold of that! There's some other really good stuff there.

I don't know anything about its appearances at airshows, apart from seeing one overflying Edinburgh in formation with the Red Arrows at the opening of the Scottish Parliament, but this is an excellent place to start:

Quoting Philb (Reply 9):
This link will give you more
http://www.concordesst.com/history/70s.html


User currently offlineVC10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1397 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4862 times:

When the aircraft flew to FAA Museum it was not the best of days with rain and low cloud, and the Landing was perhaps not one of Trubshaws best.

Afterwards, when asked about this, he said that the cloud base was low and the runway somewhat short, but what really put him of was that as they broke cloud and neared touchdown, there was some nice fellow [not his exact words] waving some bats at him, It was pointed out this was a naval base and that is how they did it on carriers, but his looks expressed exactly what he thought of that point of view

littlevc10


User currently offlineFlySSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7379 posts, RR: 57
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4844 times:

Quoting Philb (Reply 6):
Strictly speaking, G-BSST and F-WTSS were the prototypes. G-AXDN and F-WTSA were hybrids - different visors, slightly longer but much less like the production aircraft than the following three,
F-WTSB, G-BBDG and F-WTSC (later converted to production standard for Air France).

Not exactely.

Prototypes : F-WTSS / msn001 & G-BSST / msn002
Pre-Serie : F-WTSA / msn02 & G-AXDN / msn01

Serie : F-WTSB / msn201 & G-BBDG / msn202 both used for test flights, never for commercial services.


F-WTSC/F-BTSC was one of the oldest Concorde built and had a funny history.

She was "born" in Toulouse on December 22, 1974 as "msn 203", F-WTSC.
She was the 4th Concorde built in Toulouse, the 7th of the 20 a/c (10 in France, 10 in GB, including the 2 prototypes and pre-series aircraft).

F-WTSC was 970 kg heavier than the other Concorde built later and was originally due to be delivered to Pan AM.

She took the air for the first time on January 31st 1975.
Though she was not supposed to join the AF fleet, she was one of the only 2 Concorde (along with F-WTSB) to wear the "old" Air France colors, but never operated any commericial flight for AF under that livery.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jean-François Denis




From May 28th 1975 to August 2nd 1975, she was used for an intense serie of endurance test flights and AF Crew certification :

15 return flights CDG-DKR-GIG
12 return flights CDG-LIS-CCS
4 return flights CDG-YQX
1 return flight CDG-DKR
3 "loops" CDG-North Atlantic Ocean-CDG
3 "loops" CDG-Mediterranean sea-CDG

All flights were operated with AF Cabin crew and an average number of 80 PAX (invited by AF).
Those flights were also used for training the AF F/A to the new service on board, in "real" conditions.

F-BTSC was delivered (short term lease) a first time to AF on January 5th 1976, but as she was still wearing the "old" AF colors, the official first Commercial flight AF085 CDG-DKR-GIG on january 21st 1976 was operated by F-BVFA.

On May 26th 1976, F-BTSC operated the flight AF200 CCS-CDG NONSTOP . The 7780km/4836mi were covered in 4h19, including 3h37 at a supersonic speed.
This is the record, never broken, of the longest ever nonstop Concorde flight.

After F-BVFB & FC were delivered to AF, F-BTSC was returned to the manufacturer in Toulouse on Dec.8th 1976.

On June 14th 1979, at IAD, 2 tyres of the main gear of AF's Concorde F-BVFC burst during the take off run ...
Pieces of tyres and metal debris showered under the left wing and were heavy enough to puncture it. As a result, fuel tanks suddenly burst open and fuel started to flow out. Fortunately this time, it had not ignited and the aircraft landed back safely at IAD.

http://concordesst.com/accident/pictures/wing.jpg

F-BVFC was grounded to be repaired. AF needed a replacement aircraft and on June 16th 1979 F-BTSC was leased back to Air France.
But before that date, F-BTSC was painted in a new livery and used for the movie "Airport 80 Concorde".


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alain Iger



On July 23rd 1980, after an aborted take-off, F-BTSC skidded off the Runway at GIG. All on board are safe and the a/c was not damaged.

After the decision to stop the production of Concorde on September 21st 1979, The three unsold French aircraft F-BTSC, F-BTSD & F-BVFF will be sold for a symbolic French Franc to AF, while the 2 last British aircraft G-BOAG & G-BOAF will be "sold" to BA for a symbolic 1£.

On October 23rd 1980, F-BTSC becomes officially the property of Air France.

Concorde line CDG-IAD is closed on March 29th 1981.

After the lines to CCS and GIG are closed on April 1st 1982, F-BTSC is retired from service by AF and stored at CDG.

4 years later on April 28th 1986, F-BTSC returns to service.

She operates her first "World tour", chartered by American express Travel from Nov.22nd to Dec.9th 1988 :
CDG-DKR-GIG-IGU-SCL-LIM-ACA-HNL-PPT-NAN-GUM-CNX-BKK-MAA-SAH-LXR-CAI-CDG !!!!

On May 2nd 1989, Pope J.P.II becomes the first "supersonic" pope when he flies on board F-BTSC from RUN (Saint Denis/Réunion) to LUS (Lusaka/Zambia). A supersonic flight of 1h19mn.

From Feb 1st to Feb 18th 1994 : second "World tour" for F-BTSC :
CDG-JFK-LAS-HNL-PPT-NOU-SYD-DPS-CMB-MCT-CAI-CDG.

On July 25th 2000, F-BTSC was not supposed to fly. AF4590 was initially programmed with F-BVFC.
But On July 24th, it was decided that F-BVFC would replace F-BVFA for the regular AF002 so it would give time to repair a minor technical problem on FA.
In the morning of July 25th, the work on FA was not finished yet, so F-BVFC operated AF002 to JFK while F-BVFB was heading back to CDG as AF001.

F-BTSC was finally chosen to operate AF4590 ...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © PASSET Laurent



[Edited 2006-10-28 21:19:13]

User currently offlinePhilb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4760 times:

From where do you get the idea that 'TSC was originally for Pan Am? It was built and completed as the last development aircraft, mainly for route proving and other trials and was the same spec originally as 'BDG and 'TSB - a pre production series 100, never intended for passenger service and numerically balanced the complete airframe built in the UK for long term fatigue tests at the Royal Aircraft Establishment.

It first flew on the date you state, just under a month before the first BA aircraft (27/2/75) and 9 months before the first AF machine (27/10/75)

It was not converted to a series 101 - the AF designation - until early 1980 when AF had decided to purchase the aircraft, though they had used it many times before on lease, indeed it became their second aircraft delivered when it went to them on lease on January 6 1976, returning it to Aerospatiale on December 8 that year.

Are you seriously trying to say that an airframe designated for Pan Am was built and flew before aircraft for the manufacturing countries????

In fact Pan Am never ordered any Concordes. They OPTIONED aircraft and the options were cancelled on 31 January 1973.

Had everything gone to plan for Concorde Pan Am, having placed its first options for 6 of the aircraft on June 3 1963 - the same day BA and AF placed options for 6 each - and followed this with options for two more, would have received aircraft designated type 103 and the third production series aircraft built. It is unclear where this would have been built as the dual line production plans changed from time to time as options were taken up then cancelled.

As the cockpit instrumentation would have had to be in US units there was an original plan (around 1966) to build all aircraft for the USA at Filton - and I have that from a meeting I had with Brian Trubshaw in 1981 and from an address he gave at UMIST Manchester in the same year, but for how long this idea survived I have no knowledge.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13045 posts, RR: 78
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4711 times:

Philb, Pan Am had long wanted to start commercial services on the same day as AF and the then BOAC.
All this of course ended in Jan 73, when they bailed out.

However, planning up to then, in the latter stages, might well have included a lease to PA, allowing them to commence a service, as things stood then.
Planning constantly changed, were revised, but 203, F-BTSC, was parallel to 204 G-BOAC, as Concorde 202 and 201, were the first production machines-though as you state, not up to full production standard.

As it was, neither 201, 202 or 203, commenced commerical service, G-BOAA (206) operated BA's first.
But it might have been planned as such at some time.

Another way of looking at this, was the idea that Pan Am would recieve the third production Concorde, which you can call 203.
But then Pan Am also strongly wanted an APU, I've seen BAC drawings of such a tailcone installation from 1970, using either the French APU as used on RAF VC-10's, or a US unit similar to the unit on the C-5 Galaxy.
I've also seen contemporary documents on PA's desire for production aircraft 3, from 1964 and 1970.

They were dead serious and commited to Concorde until the 1971-72 period, in fact not taking up options to production, 9 months before the oil crisis, due to internal PA cash flow problems, the cost and delays of 747 introduction-and the excessive numbers ordered, as well as a general turning against SST's of the period, which must have had influence on PA, as Juan Trippe's influence waned.

Then we have the issue of what really was the first definative production Concorde, some within BA always considered 206, G-BOAA, as the first true production machine, pointing out 204 G-BOAC's differences-including some structural ones, and like 203, higher weight.
Before the events of 2000 and 2001, along with the desire to reduce charters, G-BOAC was thought possibly to be quietly retired and stored prior to the full retirement of the fleet-whenever that would be.

But then, I consider the 'Prototypes' to be 'Technology Demonstrators', what we call the pre production machines as Prototypes, 201 and 202 as pre-production.

G-BSST, at Yeovilton, is well worth visiting, I did last year, even considering the test equipment installed, it looked most unlike the production Concordes I was familiar with, beyond the external differences, but also in what systems were viewable inside.
Over 30 years, it's presence has no doubt greatly increased the earnings of the FAA museum, allowing great investment into the core subject of Naval aviation, something that Brooklands want to repeat-and that is well worth a vist too.


User currently offlineFlySSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7379 posts, RR: 57
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4662 times:

Quoting Philb (Reply 13):
From where do you get the idea that 'TSC was originally for Pan Am?



Quoting Philb (Reply 13):
Are you seriously trying to say that an airframe designated for Pan Am was built and flew before aircraft for the manufacturing countries????

PanAM was the very first airline to place options for 6 Concorde (3 from BAC & 3 from AS), on June 3rd 1963, well before AF ( 8 a/c on Jan.30th 1964) and BOAC (8 a/c on April 14th 1964).
If the case of AF and BOAC at those dates, it was not even "options", firmly placed, but a "declaration of intention to order the aircraft.

Note also that PanAm paced another oprtion for 2 more aircraft (1 from AS & 1 from BAC) on July 24th 1966.

The firm orders from AF & BA were placed on July 28th 1972 for 4 (AF) & 5 (BA) aircraft.

As GDB said, PanAm wanted to start its transatlantic Concorde service on the same day as AF & BOAC, that's why F-BTSC (msn 203) was planned to be leased temprarily to PA, as msn 204, 205, 206 were already reserved for AF and BA.


User currently offlinePhilb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4656 times:

I agree that Pan Am's intention, back in June 1963 had been to start service in parallel with the then BOAC and AF but, even by 1970, there were real doubts as to the commitment of the UK government to the project and to the commitment of even BOAC and AF.

In July 1972, probably under government pressure from both sides of the Channel, BOAC and AF signed for 5 and 4 aircraft respectively.

These became G-BOAA - G-BOAE and F-BVFA- F-BVFD respectively. For publicity and marketing purposes the first BOAC aircraft was to be registered G-BOAC followed by A, B and D - in what proved to be a futile exercise after the formation of BA, long before G-BOAC took to the air.

Pan Am (and TWA) were key option holders and, as soon as BOAC and Air France had signed, they were pressured to convert their options to orders. Both airlines were fairly broke as, as you say, they had overstretched themselves putting the 747 into service with seats they couldn't fill due to the high ticket prices which regulators on both sides of the Atlantic imposed.

During six months of intensive negotiations it became clear that the only profitable operation of Concorde would be as a "Super First Class" aircraft with tickets at a premium above normal first class prices. Range was also a problem.

After a very public negotiation and intense media interest the two airlines pulled out in January 1973 as the first production airframes against the BOAC and AF aircraft were being laid down.

From the time of the first British doubts about Concorde, under the Wilson Government of 1964, it had been agreed with the French exactly which aircraft would be built. Four initial prototypes, two of which would be built to launch the aircraft as soon as possible, two to incorporate developmental changes and to be major test platforms.

Three further development aircraft were sanctioned to be "mules" to be much nearer the production standard, to be able to carry out pre-operational trials, to demonstrate to airlines and to be able to be modified to test changes demanded by customer airlines. F-BTSC was the last of these.

The Conservative Government had agreed with the French in 1972 that true production aircraft would not be built "on spec" - in other words an airframe would be only built against a firm order, thus no aircraft were ever built as "destined for Pan Am". As you say, Pan Am would have received the third production aircraft, but this would have been a true production machine, following on from the first for BOAC and AF.

Imagine the furore in the UK had Pan Am received an aircraft numerically ahead of BOAC, after the years of political wrangling and the accusations about waste of tax payer's money. The reaction in France would have been worse and far more jingoistic.

Had Pan Am had a change of heart and had wished to lease an aircraft they would have had to negotiate with either BOAC or AF for one of their slots - or persuaded the consortium to upgrade one of the 4 developmental aircraft. As the airline lost interest at around the time 'TSC's first metal was being cut, this never arised.

The conundrum about which was the first true production machine won't ever be solved. Brian Trubshaw couldn't answer the question in 1981 and I doubt we'll ever reach a definitive answer 25 years on from my conversation with him.

My magazines and newspaper cuttings of the period 1972-1977 don't help, my memories of visits to the BAC/BAe facility at Fairford and BA at Heathrow don't either.

How many mods G-BBDG received during the period it was used for BA's familiarisation and handling trials to bring it to as near to production standard aren't in the public domain to my knowledge.

I had conversations with BA engineering staff at the time who were on the acceptance team and they said that regular changes were made bringing the aircraft as near to production standard as possible within the limitations of the core airframe.

Why 'TSC and 'BOAC were heavier also seems to be lost in the mists of time.


User currently offlinePhilb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4646 times:

Sorry SSC, you are incorrect re options. BOAC, Air France and Pan Am all announced options for 6 aircraft on Jume 3 1963.

The 1964 dates for BOAC and Air France are dates when the two airlines added extra options and reconfirmed their interest.

The June 1963 option date by all three airlines is widely quoted on the Net but, more importantly is shown in contemporaneous publications such as Flight and Air Pictorial.

I also have the benefit of memory, being 16 at the time and very much into aviation.

If you read my last post you will see why your last paragraph states something that just isn't so.


User currently offlineFlySSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7379 posts, RR: 57
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4622 times:

Quoting Philb (Reply 16):
Imagine the furore in the UK had Pan Am received an aircraft numerically ahead of BOAC, after the years of political wrangling and the accusations about waste of tax payer's money. The reaction in France would have been worse and far more jingoistic.

I doubt it would have been a problem ...
For most of the people, an aircraft is just an aircraft ! Most of them don't even know that aircraft have series number !

Quoting Philb (Reply 17):
Sorry SSC, you are incorrect re options. BOAC, Air France and Pan Am all announced options for 6 aircraft on Jume 3 1963.

The 1964 dates for BOAC and Air France are dates when the two airlines added extra options and reconfirmed their interest.

That's not the informations I have.
Here is the entire list of options placed for Concorde by airlines, and cancellation dates :

June 3rd 1963 - Pan Am for 6 aircraft - 3 from AS* / 3 from BAC* - Cancelled on Jan. 31 1973
July 24th 1963 - Continental for 3 a/c from BAC - Cancelled March 1973
Oct.7th 1963 - American Airlines for 4 a/c from AS - Cancelled in Feb. 1973
Oct.16th 1963 - TWA for 4 a/c from BAC - Cancelled in Feb. 1973
Dec.4th 1963 - MEA/Air Liban for 2 a/c from AS - Cancelled in June 1973
Jan.16th 1964 - American Airline for 2 more a/c from AS - Cancelled in Feb.1973
Jan.30th 1964 - Declarartion of Intention from AF to purchase 8 a/c from AS - Order for 4 aircraft confirmed on July 28th 1972.
April 14th 1964 - Declaration of Intention from BOAC to purchase 8 a/c from BAC - Order for 5 aircraft confirmed on July 28th 1972.
March 19th 1964 - QANTAS for 4 a/c from BAC - Options never officially cancelled.
March 30th 1964 - TWA for 2 more a/c from BAC - Cancelled in Feb. 1973
Jul. 15th 1964 - Air India for 2 a/c from BAC - Cancelled Feb. 1975
Sept. 30th 1965 - Japan Air Lines for 3 a/c from AS - Cancelled in 1973
Dec 1st 1975 - SABENA for 2 a/c from AS - Cancelled in Feb. 1973
June 28th 1966 - Eastern Airlines for 2 a/c from AS - Cancelled in Feb. 1973
June 29th 1966 - United Airlines for 6 a/c from BAC - Cancelled in Nov. 1972
Jul. 24th 1966 - PanAM for 2 more a/c - 1 from BAC & 1 from AS - Cancelled on January 31st 1973
Aug. 15th 1966 - Eastern Airlines for 2 more a/c from AS - Cancelled in Feb.1973
Sept. 1st 1966 - Braniff for 3 aircraft from AS - Cancelled Feb. 1973
Feb. 16th 1967 - Lufthansa for 3 a/c from AS - Cancelled Aptil 1973
March 1st 1967 - Air Canada for 4 a/c from BAC - Cancelled June 1972
April 28th 1967 - Easter Airlines for 2 more a/c from AS - Cancelled in Feb 1973
July 24th 1972 - CAAC for 2 a/c from AS - Cancelled in Dec. 1979
Aug 28th 1972 - CAAC for 1 a/c from BAC - Cancelled Feb. 1980
Oct. 8th 1972 - Iran Air for 3 a/c from BAC - Cancelled in Feb. 1980.

*AS = Sud Aviation / Aérospatiale France.
BAC = British Aircraft Corporation.


User currently offlinePhilb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4579 times:

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 18):
I doubt it would have been a problem ...
For most of the people, an aircraft is just an aircraft ! Most of them don't even know that aircraft have series number !

Then you know absolutely nothing of the furore that the whole of the Concorde programme caused from time to time in, particularly, the UK both politically and economically.

You need to have an understanding of the time, the politics and the employment situation of the 1960s and the early 1970s.

Concorde was a mainstream news item, particularly in the UK, from 1964 onwards, (the inception of the first Wilson Government).

I lived through that period. In 1964 I was studying Government for A level exams and Concorde was a case study I did regarding international treaties and, in particular, the Common Market and joint projects.

From 1965 onwards I had various connections with the aviation industry and an ongoing interest as an enthusiast. From the early 1970s I had good contacts with BOAC and some of the people working on Concorde acquisition.

As I said before, the dates regarding 'TSC's build, its purpose and the date of Pan Am's withdrawal of options don't fit your model.

As to the option dates, what is your source? Do a search on the Net and you'll find many instances of the announcement in June 1963 being listed, see for instance http://www.salon-du-bourget.com/concorde_history.htm.

Both Flight International (June 13 1963) and Air Pictorial (July and August 1963) show that Pan Am optioned 6 aircraft on Monday June 3 1963 at the Paris Air Salon, Le Bourget. BOAC and Air France followed suit the same day with 6 options each. Juan Trippe got in with a written option a few hours ahead of the European airlines to hit the headlines for a very political reason.

Pan Am needed a bigger, longer range and faster aircraft than any version of Concorde then under discussion or development. He was very much in favour of what became the B2707 project and always admitted he optioned Concorde as a "hedge and lever" - hedging against the failure of the US to produce an SST, spending dollars in Europe to lever the Kennedy government to back an American SST.

In the short term he got his way. Just one day later (June 4 1963) Kennedy announced that the USA would build an SST and the airframe manufacturers entered a competition for government funding.


User currently offlinePhilb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4544 times:

Just a side note, interestingly the French language version of the Salon du Bourget Concorde pages gives the date of the signature (as opposed to the announcement) of the options as June 15 1963 :

15/06/1963 BOAC et Air France ainsi que Pan American signent des options d'achat


User currently offlineScarebus03 From Ireland, joined Apr 2005, 303 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4517 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Can anyone tell me which prototype is on display at Le Bourget?

Brgds
SB03



No faults found......................
User currently offlinePhilb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4497 times:

001 F-WTSS

The rest of this post is to pad out because, according to the rules, the definitive answer is "too short and probably not of any higher value to the topic in hand" whatever that gobbledygook means.

[Edited 2006-10-29 16:34:34]

User currently offlineFlySSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7379 posts, RR: 57
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4476 times:

Quoting Philb (Reply 19):
As I said before, the dates regarding 'TSC's build, its purpose and the date of Pan Am's withdrawal of options don't fit your model.



Quoting Philb (Reply 13):
From where do you get the idea that 'TSC was originally for Pan Am?

http://www.concordesst.com/203.html

http://www.geocities.com/worldplus24/1976-concorde-commercial.html


User currently offlinePhilb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4457 times:

Concordesst is a very good source of info but in places misses items and is not 100% definitive.

The geocities site is another that has bits and pieces picked from other sites, some correct, some incorrect.

As stated before, 'TSC was designed as a 100 series (i.e. not quite production standard aircraft), one of three to be used for demonstration/trials. The agreement to build it went back as far as late 1967, early 1968 (dates vary in different accounts) long before any orders were assigned to line numbers.

It was built as a non specific airline model, it was started at the time Pan Am cancelled its options and after an agreement between the two governments that aircraft after the 3 100 series would only be built to order.

It was not converted to airline standard (type 101) until after its second lease to Air France terminated on 11/06/79 at which time AF entered into negotiations to buy the aircraft outright.

At one tonne heavier than the airline series aircraft I'm sure Pan Am would have been deliriously happy to have accepted an albatross to be their flagship aircraft.

The story is nonsense, has no basis in contemporary media and was probably invented when someone wondered why the French built two 100 series against one from the UK.

As to the geocities site - it is a pastiche of truth and fiction. For instance it can be read to imply that G-BOAC was a 100 series aircraft:

"F-BTSC, initially intended for Pan Am, was 970kg heavier than the other Concordes (like G-BOAC) being a 100 version."

This could also be read as all other Concordes were, like G-BOAC, lighter. It is bad phrasing by someone trying to write a very potted history with little research and using any and every source.

I'm surprised you are using it as a basis of proof as your statement:

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 15):
PanAM was the very first airline to place options for 6 Concorde (3 from BAC & 3 from AS), on June 3rd 1963, well before AF ( 8 a/c on Jan.30th 1964) and BOAC (8 a/c on April 14th 1964).
If the case of AF and BOAC at those dates, it was not even "options", firmly placed, but a "declaration of intention to order the aircraft.

is totally contradicted by the first sentence in the piece you highlight:

"Alongside BOAC and Pan Am, Air France (AF) outlined its interest well ahead of the development of the Franco-British supersonic airliner project, signing an reservation for six airplanes on 03 June 1963."

There is a great deal of scrambled history in both books and on the Internet. When I make a statement about historic fact on this forum, it is based on documents, media, if possible experience of the time, cross checked with information that was later published and verified by sources known to be accurate.


25 GDB : I doubt that PA would have seen the 203 airframe as an 'albatross', since when we say it was (like 204), heavier by around a tonne than later aircraft
26 Philb : My point about 'TSC and Pan Am was that, as they already had significant questions about the type's range, why would they accept what was a heavier ai
27 Gordonroxburgh : Concorde is a big topic, but here some info Production aircraft 3 and 4 were designated for the route proving flights, while 1 and 2 did the technical
28 Scarebus03 : Thanks Philb,
29 Philb : Gordon, Just to clarify are you saying that a/c 1 was F-WTSB/201, a/c 2 was G-BBDG/202, a/c 3 was F-WTSC/203 and a/c 4 was G-BOAC/204? In that case wa
30 Gordonroxburgh : Philb Your right about the numbers. G-BOAC (a/c4) was closest in spec to F-WTSC (a/c 3) but a full upgrade to BA spec was planned into its use, howeve
31 Philb : Thanks Gordon. This whole topic turns up new info every time it's aired.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Concorde At AMS In 1995 posted Tue Aug 26 2003 19:53:29 by Martin21
New Evidence: AF At Fault In Concorde Crash posted Sat Apr 7 2001 06:03:01 by Republic
NWA Ticket Office Bombing In 70s At CPH posted Mon Feb 5 2001 02:33:42 by VirginA340
NZ Might Charge At Check-in For Express Check posted Sun Oct 8 2006 05:25:20 by 777ER
Unknown 747 At AGT In Paraguay? posted Thu Sep 28 2006 22:04:03 by CODCAIAH
Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US? posted Wed Sep 27 2006 03:59:28 by Remcor
LAN Airlines: Why No Pics At Heathrow In Database posted Sun Sep 10 2006 12:28:18 by BA787
Liquid Testers At Security In Japan posted Mon Aug 14 2006 09:43:57 by CX777Fan
Expansion Leads To More Hiring At UPS In RFD posted Fri Aug 4 2006 22:35:15 by KarlB737
AC 767 At YHZ In 1987. posted Wed Aug 2 2006 16:26:01 by Bmacleod