Jenkingeorge From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2007, 34 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 28187 times:
I was reading this earlier in a magazine...
A group founded by former pilots and executives have identified one which they claim could fly again within 3 years. The scheme is estimated to cost £10 - £15 million, of which, £1 million has been donated by Sir Richard Branson.
"Save Concorde" has the backing of some 30,000 supporters and is currently in talks with other major investors for the scheme.
The Concorde they claim that could fly again is at the French Air and Space Museum, Paris. ( F-BTSD I guess?) However, there is French bureaucracy that stands in their way.
The French bureaucracy has no responsibility in the fact that Concorde will never fly again.
Since Concorde flights were ended almost four years ago, we can read here and there, every three months that a group of ...............* (choose what you want in the list below) want to bring back Concorde in the air.
It won't just happen.
Concorde is not a "simple" DC3. It's not a matter of "age".
However, It is true that the only 2 AF Concorde in "flyable" conditions are F-BTSD (stored at Le Bourget) and F-BVFC (stored at TLS by Airbus).
Connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13 Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 27084 times:
I tend to think of Concorde like Princess Diana: let the dead rest and keep the memories.
There's no bl**dy CofA anymore. The beast, beautiful as it was, required maintenance by
very specialised technicians -- as I'm sure GDB will underline once again in this thread at
Concorde, like it or not, may have been a one-time thing. The economic hurdles to a future
SST, as well as environmental ones, are simply put quite large. In a carbon-trading future,
could anyone realistically afford it ? An SST BJ, maybe. One that slinks along at M=1.4/1.6
or so. And only for a very select few -- which makes it less likely on a business-case basis.
Concorde ain't comin' back, except in your dreams.
Jenkingeorge From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2007, 34 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 26898 times:
Oh, pitty but I did wonder whether they would really get her going again. I just went off the fact that they are getting the Vulcan flying again so I thought that they would shurley be able to get Concorde up!?! But there are those of us who are optimists, and I am one, so I will always hope...
(and I have heard that they are hoping to get the Vulcan flying beofre '07 is out)
Moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3765 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 26764 times:
Quoting Jenkingeorge (Reply 11): I just went off the fact that they are getting the Vulcan flying again so I thought that they would shurley be able to get Concorde up!?!
The people dealing with the Vulcan restoration were there from the very moment the aircraft was retired from RAF service - they took the aircraft, every spare part they could get from anyone (RAF, Rolls Royce, individual contractors), set up idling support lines with the various parts suppliers, scrounged all the service manuals, blueprints and modification documents and sat down and spoke with various authorities right from the get go. It was a concerted effort to get her flying from the moment the wheels touched the ground for the last time in RAF service.
The Vulcan to the Sky people were *extremely* smart.
Thats why the Vulcan will fly again, and its also why Concorde won't.
Poitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 26632 times:
I would guess that the manufacturers of the engines, servos and other vital supplies would stonewall supplying spare parts to any aircraft such as the Concorde that could crash full of people. There is an extremely high liability. While the Vulcan may or may not ever make it back into the air, if it does, it will have just two or three people on it. On the other hand, the temptation to sell rides on the Concorde to help pay the expenses would be just too much for the manufacturers to want to risk the liability of what if something goes wrong.
As to Concorde flying again well I have learnt never to say never, but it was an extremely complex aeroplane using what is to day very old technology, and you have to remember that even the youngest of crews that flew are now in their 50s well in the UK anyway, and there is no simulator for them to refresh themselves on. It was a aeroplane that did not like to be left sitting idle for too long as this would normally result in hydraulic and/or electrical problems.and even the good ones have been idle for along time
Mind you nothing is impossible if there is a will,and after all nobody initially thought the airlines would operate it for more than 5 or so years ,and look how wrong they were
Falstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 5878 posts, RR: 28 Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 26576 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 12): Concorde's next flying mission will be transporting snowballs from Hell.
Or maybe we'll get to see her flying with some pigs.
All kidding aside. I was involved with an organization that operated a large steam locomotive. In the late 80s and all of the 1990s she went on some great trips on mainlines and branches of the NS, BN, and UP. Costs were high as was the skill level needed to operate and maintain such a machine. Eventually costs caught up and in 2001 the locomotive probably dropped her fire for the last time. Insurance premiums became the biggest expense even though a claim was never filed.
Smaller steam engine operators are much more successful, especially when operating on property the company that operates them own. UP, which is a large operator, has the money, the man power and their insurance covers their operations. A third party operating on their property pays high insurance bills if UP allows them to operate at all.
A steam locomotive and the Concorde are two different animals, but both have a lot of things in common. They both are expensive and well engineered pieces of transportation equipment. Both cost a lot to operate and a hell of a lot to insure. Both require a set of skills to operate and maintain, that few people have. Getting a Concorde up and running is one thing, but finding a entity who will operate it is another. Finding someone to insure it will be even tougher.
I am no expert, but those are the obstacles I see. I would love to see one fly again, but I am not keeping my fingers crossed.
Quoting FlySSC (Reply 4): Concorde is not a "simple" DC3. It's not a matter of "age".
Plus there are lots of DC-3s still flying around. That goes back to my steam engine thoughts. There are a lot of smaller and less complex steam locomotive operating today. They are easier to repair, operate and cost less. In the 1980s and 1990s lost of organizations restored large mainline steam locomotives and ran them on excursions. There are still some operating, but many of them are now sitting cold. There are lots of smaller and less complex aircraft still in the air today that are older than the Concorde. Age isn't the issue it is operating costs.
That, and as you said, insurance. Insurance companies do not like insuring things that nobody can quantify, and there was just not enough experience with Concorde to provide a good database. If it hadn't been for the Paris crash the Concorde could at least present an unblemished record, but that went up in smoke (literally.) The fact that Concorde was so much different than any other civil airplane means that if any insurance company looks at it they would only do so at prohibitive rates; i.e. the highest operating cost would be insurance. It isn't like JT's 707 at all.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12956 posts, RR: 79 Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 25483 times:
Want to see another Concorde flight?
(That's subsonic, airshow appearances only-the best you'd get).
That will be AT LEAST £100 million, probably nearer £150 million, please.
These are serious figures estimated by those who are best placed to make such an evaluation, so not including anyone from any of this campaigning groups.
Why so much?
For the same reason that BA, who investigated such a thing in 2003 found.
That will be the cost of re-instating the unique support network both BA and AF used, 4 years gone now.
So any idea that even if possible, an 'airshow' Concorde would be economically viable, was clear even before Concorde finished service.
BA found then, (and they knew more about this than anyone), that running an airshow Concorde would cost-once you got those initial start up figures I mentioned above out of the way, around the same to run a single non pax carrying Concorde as a revenue earning fleet.
Vulcan is a lot easier-and this effort is very late, almost collapsed last year, since many more were built, the spares holding is huge, many more people were intimate with the type, compared to Concorde.
Vulcan is also an order of magnitude less complex than Concorde, while all civil airliners are 'complex' they are usually built in the 100's or 1000's, not just 16 production, 14 service aircraft, that was Concorde. And operated by many more carriers when exponentially more people familiar with the type.
Concorde was also much more complex than a normal jetliner, if anyone doubts that, think of the flight envelope of a Mach 0.85 jetliner, and the Mach 2.04 Concorde.
In December 1997, the people who maintained the NASA Space Shuttle visited us at BA, they felt that Concorde, while in no sense a spacecraft, was still the nearest air vehicle they could investigate to look at issues like spares support, aging, maintaining expertise, when you are dealing with a small number of unique vehicles that were long out of production.
Consider this when assessing how likely a non airline organisation could operate a Concorde.
In service, with the support network fully intact and functioning, Concorde was much more expensive to operate, required many more man-hours, really ran on the expertise of a small number of people.
And constantly threw up challenges that tested even our large group of ex BAC types, who'd helped to build the things, before joining BA.
It won't happen folks, I was in the BA Concorde Engineering dept from April 1997, to the very last flight of G-BOAF to FZO on 26th Nov 2003.
Everything I saw then, convinced me that Concorde could only be operated by the airlines who had brought it in the first place.
I also saw how increasingly hard it became to support Concorde technically towards the end.
The idea of a bunch of amateurs with the odd retired, should know better, type, is laughable.
The CAA will NEVER wear it-if he had been serious, (but he wasn't), Branson was also told as much by the authorities in May 2003. Oddly enough, he failed to mention this.
Both the seemingly defunct, paranoid, SCG, and this latest bunch, should not be taken seriously, what very few ex Concorde people they have, themselves retired before the period when events conspired to end Concordes service life a few years early (had they not happened, Concorde would have retired by now anyway).
VC-10 is right to never say never, but the chances of any kind of Concorde return to flight is extremely slim, and with every day that passes, it gets slimmer still.
I know many do not want to hear this, even so, we are talking, even if we could somehow magic away the huge costs, serious engineering and certification issues, no room for hopes or dreams here, it's about what is possible, no other BS counts for anything.
Fairchild24 From Sweden, joined Jul 2007, 99 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 24949 times:
Well,Never say never
The Concorde at TLS is standing there with all vital parts coverd, The windows are sealed, the tyrers are coverd with aluminium blankets and they have some kind or humidity control in the cabin.
and if Russia and US is able to get a Tu-144 in the air why not the mighty Concorde,
Radial engine does not leak oil, they only mark there territory
Cloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 742 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 24564 times:
What is the status of the TU-144 anyway? I know Nasa was using it for a bit.
Do I think the Concorde could be made to fly again? Yes. Do I think it could be financially and logistically possible? Yes. We got it in the air the first time. It may be complex, but we have plenty of Supersonic Aircraft flying today in the military. It's no so specialized it will be lost.
The problem is there are too many egos, too many business interests that would be hurt for it to really happen. If the Concorde was up and flying again, then it would reflect badly on those who can't offer anything close to it. It would be bad to see it stealing the thunder form you regular offerings. And it could be potential marketing disaster if, god forbid, something did happen again. I would look bad for the engineering if a bunch of non-professionals or enthusiasts were making something far more complex and technical fly, and might prove all the theories about why something is technically impossible wrong. Insurance is always a great excuse, because there's no way to verify it, and everyone believes that insurance is ALWAYS a problem. But there are companies that do specialize in this stuff. Cheap it isn't but it isn't impossible. There would be huge potentials in marketing and promotion for it, and even some business practicality, too. But again, all that would be dangerous to the current business interests, who don't like change, because change always puts their advantage at risk. If the Concorde were to fly again, it would probably not be BA or AF who would do it, and that would more than likely have a negative effect on them. So why risk it? Just make sure none ever fly again.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6484 posts, RR: 41 Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 24347 times:
Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 21):
The problem is there are too many egos, too many business interests that would be hurt for it to really happen
You should re-read GDB's post #18 again. Here is someone who knows what he is talking about, while you clearly do not. I see no egos or business interests that would be hurt by Concorde flying again; I know of no aviation enthusiast who would not like to see it. But it is just too expensive a proposition, and is highly unlikely to happen.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
You are quite correct in saying that it would have to be a government project to get Concorde into the air again and not wishing to stir things up , but you never know what the French long term plans are.
The insurance premium alone would be a problem for any private group as many groups who fly restored aircraft in Europe are finding out already.
However say a private group did get one airborne, are there enough big airshows in Europe that could afford to have it at their event? Not many, I would say, and not enough to cover the yearly running costs, so it flies passengers on round the bay charters, but why, it would not be able to fly supersonic well no faster than mach1.3 nor get to 60,000ft so what would they be paying probably over a £1000 a trip for and even if they did, for how many years would they be willing to do.
No, the best chance of seeing Concorde flying again would be as a short term research project or if the French President wanted to have the only supersonic Presidential aeroplane in the world .
She was a beautiful aeroplane to fly, but was always tempermental and required a lot of expertise from both flight and ground crews to make here the limited success she became. I think both the manufacturers and the two airlines did a marvelous job to keep her going for so long, and almost without loss, so lets us remember her as she was in here glory days, and accept that all things have to come to an end sometime.
Let us hope though that the museums have enough money to spend, so as to keep their aircraft in good condition here for future generations to see in all her glory.
This is from someone who spent 23 years with the old girl and loved every moment [ well almost every moment as she could scare the life out of you on times] but you always forgave her, and like many of my colleagues I would like to see her stay retired and well maintained ,even if it only means people can admire her on the ground as even here she still is an amazing machine to look at
[Edited 2007-07-09 00:08:29]
25 Moo: That particular Tu-144 was mothballed in a particular state, with ongoing maintenance and a complete spares catalogue. The return to flight cost of t
26 THEENGINEER: Some people really don't want to get it. Everything has its end. I would personally support this action if it would be 10 years ago.
27 EGTESkyGod: Oh, dear............... The fact that there are no spare parts left, the fact that Airbus won't support her maintenance issues, the fact that all the
28 Gh123: I met some guys in a pub back in the UK about a month ago - They were saying that the Vulcan will fly again very soon but I think that they had to se
29 Cloudboy: Would you really love to see it? Everyone who seems absolutely convinced that there is no reason to refly the Concorde loves to throw this in, as tho
30 Bond007: When 'everyone seems absolutely convinced' about something, there's usually a good reason. In this case the chances of Concordw flying again are almo
31 Embajador3: With all due respect, it would such a waste. Those millions could be used to help people scape poverty, to help fight cancer and other diseases, etc.
32 Cloudboy: Everyone was convinced the world was flat. Everyone was convinced man couldn't fly. And everyone was convinced the Concorde couldn't even be built. M