Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Was One Concorde Not Saved For Demos?  
User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9986 times:

Looking back at the discontinuing of scheduled Concorde service, it seems to me that there would have been the resources, and that some organization could have taken the initiative to keep one Concorde in serviceable condition for airshows and other demonstrations, and/or perhaps as a test bed.

Further, I understand that if you only use necessary personnel for such flights, and don't fly paying passengers, you don't have to maintain the same level of safety certification (for example, but not limited to, when you put an "Experimental" sticker on the fuselage of an A/C by the door.) So couldn't most of those pending and cost prohibitive safety/overhaul directives that helped to ground them been circumvented if one or two birds had been destined to become only demonstration or promotional A/C?

Also, if I recall how things went, it seems to me that British Airways and Air France were extremely possessive about their birds at the time when the axe fell, and took the attitude of "if we are not going to fly them, nobody is going to fly them." I wonder if it was therefore somewhat conspiratorial that the A/C were made unserviceable so quickly

I find it very short-sighted that the Concordes were all so quickly and unceremoniously hobbled. Because of this haste and disrespect, I understand that none of them could be resurrected now (due to drained hydrolics, un-maintained or removed engines and avionics.) without major expense.

Does anyone know what condition the one is in that they tow around at CDG and have washed, etc?

I know that it's not nearly as expensive to keep an old Connie flying, for example. (There is a beautiful one in TWA colors in this database.) Perhaps I can't accept the realities of the expense of such an endeavor with regard to Concorde, because I am still so stunned by the loss.


I come in peace
67 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSandyb123 From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 1133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9989 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Short answer.... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Sandyb123



Member of the mile high club
User currently offlineFlySSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7428 posts, RR: 57
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9942 times:



Quoting SSTsomeday (Thread starter):
Does anyone know what condition the one is in that they tow around at CDG and have washed, etc?

The Concorde displayed at CDG is F-BVFF (cn 215). It was retired from service by AF in June 2000 for a "C " check. Just like BA's G-BOAA / AB, It was never modified with the tank liners when the other Concorde returned to service in 2001.


User currently offlineDivemaster08 From Cayman Islands, joined Jul 2008, 342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9921 times:

Well BA were soo against VS getting their aircraft that they made sure that when they were retired, all the hydralics and parts were disconected and drained to make sure that VS couldnt get its hands on them.

Also as Airbus wasnt going to be making anymore parts for the concordes (Aerospatile and BEA were absorbed into Airbus). so getting parts was going to be very expensive!

I however think that this was a shame. The only supersonic aircraft that flew in commerical service and it is now kept to the ground where she will spend the rest of her days.
I mean we have lancaster bombers and spitfires flying around (along with older aircraft) for display purposes and yet this magnificent bird is kept to the ground!



My dream, is to fly, over the rainbow, so high!
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9898 times:



Quoting Divemaster08 (Reply 3):
I mean we have lancaster bombers and spitfires flying around (along with older aircraft) for display purposes and yet this magnificent bird is kept to the ground!

A Lancaster or Spitfire takes a crew of, say, half a dozen volunteers with some time and tools to keep running. They were built using 60 year old technology and to function well in war time.

The Concorde took a significant chunk of Airbus, BA, and AF engineering and maintenance to work, plus an absolutely outrageous fuel bill. If anyone was willing to cough up the $$$, sure, but it's a *huge* $$$.

Tom.


User currently offlineFlySSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7428 posts, RR: 57
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9866 times:



Quoting Divemaster08 (Reply 3):
Well BA were soo against VS getting their aircraft

In any case, VS proposal to operate Concorde was nothing but a big joke !


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9545 posts, RR: 42
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9848 times:



Quoting Divemaster08 (Reply 3):
Well BA were soo against VS getting their aircraft that they made sure that when they were retired, all the hydralics and parts were disconected and drained to make sure that VS couldnt get its hands on them.

They stopped VS getting their hands on them by saying "thanks for asking but... no".  Smile

Let's not forget that BA and AF own the aircraft so its really up to them what happens to them. From what the experts here have said, it wouldn't be able to operate supersonically and many feel it's better to retire them than parade them has tired old has-beens, "limping" around airshows.

Quoting Divemaster08 (Reply 3):
The only supersonic aircraft that flew in commerical service

The only supersonic aircraft that flew in significant commercial service. The Tu-144 did it for a short while.


User currently offlineSpencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9820 times:

It wouldn't be impossible considering what they've done with the Vulcan. But yeah, it would be a severe dig into someone's pocket. I really do miss the old girl and am very glad I got to shoot her. Just wished I had flown her....
Spencer.



EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9545 posts, RR: 42
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9779 times:



Quoting Spencer (Reply 7):
It wouldn't be impossible considering what they've done with the Vulcan. But yeah, it would be a severe dig into someone's pocket.

It's not just the money, it's the expertise, too. The Vulcan wasn't supersonic, wasn't variable-geometry, wasn't FBW, didn't have fuel trim and computer-controlled variable intakes, for example. Plenty of people from Avro and the RAF with Vulcan and general experience were around to help.


User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1735 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9774 times:

Not to be lacking respect to these machines, and to the ones that conceived, built, flew and maintained them, but Lancasters, Spitfires, DC-3s and the like, and even the Vulcan are much simpler machines to be kept flying.

Look up for threads that appeared sooner after Concorde ceased flying, or just before it was retired. There is a member here, GDB, who whas an engineer at BA, overlooking Concorde's return to service after the AF accident, and also Concorde's retirement too soon after. He explained in depth why, what, how and the like about the necessity to retire Concorde... And not without emotion, sometimes.

And believe me, when the space shuttle is retired from service, quite soon, there will not be an example kept fit for flying.


User currently offlineAF2323 From France, joined Aug 2007, 122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9713 times:



Quoting SSTsomeday (Thread starter):
I understand that none of them could be resurrected now (due to drained hydrolics, un-maintained or removed engines and avionics.) without major expense.

Actually, there is one Concorde still "alive", F-BTSD, at the air and space museum of Le Bourget. Although not in flying condition, the plane is kept in good condition by the "ME-QN" Concorde mainenance group. I think this is the only one that could be flying someday, but money is still the problem here.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9545 posts, RR: 42
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9699 times:



Quoting Aircellist (Reply 9):
And believe me, when the space shuttle is retired from service, quite soon, there will not be an example kept fit for flying.

 checkmark  That would be a sight at airshows. Of course, you'd need a 747 to tow it.  Smile


User currently offlineDivemaster08 From Cayman Islands, joined Jul 2008, 342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9568 times:



Quoting David L (Reply 6):
The Tu-144 did it for a short while.

Ok i didnt know that.
I thought that the Concordski never got into commerical service. Thinking of the incident at the paris airshow and that it was still in testing so hence why i said concorde was the only supersonic aircraft in commerical service. My Bad



My dream, is to fly, over the rainbow, so high!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31422 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9543 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Divemaster08 (Reply 3):
Well BA were so against VS getting their aircraft that they made sure that when they were retired, all the hydraulics and parts were disconnected and drained to make sure that VS couldn't get its hands on them.

I imagine draining the systems of their fluids would be more an act of long-term preservation then one of "active denial" to a potential suitor.


User currently offlineLHR27C From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 1279 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9538 times:



Quoting SSTsomeday (Thread starter):

Also, if I recall how things went, it seems to me that British Airways and Air France were extremely possessive about their birds at the time when the axe fell, and took the attitude of "if we are not going to fly them, nobody is going to fly them." I wonder if it was therefore somewhat conspiratorial that the A/C were made unserviceable so quickly

This is completely untrue. BA were always very supportive of Concorde and tried very hard to get Airbus to continue providing the necessary technical support for the operation after AF decided to retire their fleet in early 2003. Airbus refused to do so, and were not going to allow any other manufacturer to provide the support either, so BA had no choice but to retire the fleet.

BA also investigated, at great length, the possibility of keeping an aircraft flying for airshows etc, but came to the conclusion that it would be economically out of the question.

Quoting Divemaster08 (Reply 3):
Well BA were soo against VS getting their aircraft that they made sure that when they were retired, all the hydralics and parts were disconected and drained to make sure that VS couldnt get its hands on them.

If VS had got their hands on the aircraft, they would be in museums right now, just in VS colours. The entire VS proposal was a massive publicity stunt with no proper backing and just another attempt by Branson to gain some more media exposure. Branson even went to Airbus himself and was told they would not be providing technical support, whatever the airline... yet continued to bleat on knowing full well his airline would never be able to fly the aircraft.



Once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned forever skyward
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2858 posts, RR: 48
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9512 times:



Quoting SSTsomeday (Thread starter):
Perhaps I can't accept the realities of the expense of such an endeavor with regard to Concorde, because I am still so stunned by the loss.

That is the closest you have come to the right answer, sadly.

Quoting Divemaster08 (Reply 3):
I mean we have lancaster bombers and spitfires flying around (along with older aircraft) for display purposes and yet this magnificent bird is kept to the ground!

All of which are orders of magnitude cheaper to maintain and operate.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 4):
A Lancaster or Spitfire takes a crew of, say, half a dozen volunteers with some time and tools to keep running. They were built using 60 year old technology and to function well in war time.

The Concorde took a significant chunk of Airbus, BA, and AF engineering and maintenance to work, plus an absolutely outrageous fuel bill. If anyone was willing to cough up the $$$, sure, but it's a *huge* $$$.

 checkmark  Ghastly expensive.


User currently offlineAmbanmba From Australia, joined Jan 2008, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9423 times:



Quoting Divemaster08 (Reply 12):
I thought that the Concordski never got into commerical service.

It did indeed go into a brief stint of commercial service.

A few years ago I read a fascinating book about the Tu-144 by Howard Moon. The book also included some great photos. I did a quick check on Amazon and it's out of print, but there are plenty of copies floating around.

http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-SST-Tec...UTF8&s=books&qid=1226789184&sr=8-3

Would be a great book for anyone interested in the Tu-144 and also the "Techno Politics" of the cold war era.

I am in no way related to the author/publisher and stand nothing to gain from sales of this book  Smile



Concorde 300/10/19/20/21/30/40/80 707/17/27/37/47/57/67/77 AT7 146 CRJ DC3/9/10 DHC8 F100 L1011 MD11/80 S340 T154M Y7C
User currently offlineJetJeanes From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1434 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9409 times:

Are there not still 2 concordes that are in a hangar and can be in flying order within a short time.And is there still not a sim that crews still train in???


i can see for 80 miles
User currently offlineFlySSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7428 posts, RR: 57
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9372 times:



Quoting LHR27C (Reply 14):
BA were always very supportive of Concorde and tried very hard to get Airbus to continue providing the necessary technical support for the operation after AF decided to retire their fleet in early 2003.

Wrong.
The decision to retire Concorde from service was taken jointly by AF & BA after Airbus announced their intention to stop their technical support.
AF decided just to stop 6 months before BA.
During the 27 years they operated Concorde, BA & AF worked in close cooperation and agreed from the very beginning that if Concorde would be retired from service, both airlines would do it at the same time.


User currently offlineLHR27C From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 1279 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9344 times:



Quoting FlySSC (Reply 18):

Wrong.
The decision to retire Concorde from service was taken jointly by AF & BA after Airbus announced their intention to stop their technical support.
AF decided just to stop 6 months before BA.
During the 27 years they operated Concorde, BA & AF worked in close cooperation and agreed from the very beginning that if Concorde would be retired from service, both airlines would do it at the same time.

This isn't true. Why would Airbus suddenly announce their intention to stop technical support if both airlines were happily operating the aircraft? Can you imagine the reaction if BA and AF were running a successful Concorde operation, and Airbus turned round and said sorry we're not going to support it any more?

The events are complicated, but it was AF who set the early retirement in motion. They never really recovered after the return to service and were not running a profitable Concorde operation (various factors such as US businessmen boycotting AF over Iraq etc), also haunted by several mechanical failures. I believe it was one final technical fault that really worried AF and in early April they announced a very rapid retirement so that they ended Concorde operations in May 2003. Airbus were then unwilling to provide technical support for one airline operating five airframes.

BA, running a more successful operation since the return to service, immediately went to Airbus to see how long they could get support for. The latest they could get was October 2003.

It was definitely AF, not some random Airbus decision out of the blue, that was the first push to the early retirement. There is some evidence that Airbus were not too willing to keep supporting Concorde, but it was AF who made the first move.



Once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned forever skyward
User currently offlineEDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 9124 times:



Quoting LHR27C (Reply 14):
and were not going to allow any other manufacturer to provide the support either,

Would such obstruction on the part of Airbus not constitute an illegal restriction of trade under EU law?

Quoting David L (Reply 8):
wasn't variable-geometry, wasn't FBW,

Neither was Concorde. Of course there were many areas where Concorde, even by today's standards represented a very complex piece of engineering, the cockpit technology however was in the main from an only slightly later era than the Vulcan.


User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 9105 times:



Quoting David L (Reply 6):
Let's not forget that BA and AF own the aircraft so its really up to them what happens to them.

Well, I would argue that, if it is, this should not be the case. How is it that buildings/landmarks which are wholly privately owned can be deemed national monuments or part of national heritage whereby their owners do NOT have domain over whether or not they can be altered or destroyed? I can't imagine why the same kind of protection would not be afforded to Concorde.

Quoting Divemaster08 (Reply 3):
Well BA were soo against VS getting their aircraft that they made sure that when they were retired, all the hydralics and parts were disconected and drained to make sure that VS couldnt get its hands on them.

I have suspected something like this...

Quoting David L (Reply 6):
From what the experts here have said, it wouldn't be able to operate supersonically and many feel it's better to retire them than parade them has tired old has-beens, "limping" around airshows.

I would vote to have one operating, even sub-sonically, if a society or club of some kind could raise the money to do so... But I see their point.

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 9):
Lancasters, Spitfires, DC-3s and the like, and even the Vulcan are much simpler machines to be kept flying.

Yes - this is a reality.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
I imagine draining the systems of their fluids would be more an act of long-term preservation then one of "active denial" to a potential suitor.

Actually what I understood is that draining certain systems and keeping them that way for any length of time invites internal corrosion/deterioration that is very prohibitive/expensive to inspect and correct after the fact (but I am no engineer).

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 18):
The decision to retire Concorde from service was taken jointly by AF & BA after Airbus announced their intention to stop their technical support.



Quoting LHR27C (Reply 19):
I believe it was one final technical fault that really worried AF and in early April they announced a very rapid retirement so that they ended Concorde operations in May 2003.

What I recall is that Concorde had been struggling to make a profit post-911 due to fewer premium fliers and a sustained spike in fuel costs. THEN either Airbus or some governing body came up with a mandatory $200 million overhaul directive (this was post fuel tank lining) and both airlines threw in the towel rather than shoulder that additional, specific expense. Do I have that right?

What I DO remember is that I had about 120,000 Delta F.F. points and was saving to get 200,000 so I could fly AF Concorde to Paris... But - I'm not bitter...
 whiteflag 



I come in peace
User currently offlineB727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 9079 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
I imagine draining the systems of their fluids would be more an act of long-term preservation then one of "active denial" to a potential suitor.



Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 21):
Actually what I understood is that draining certain systems and keeping them that way for any length of time invites internal corrosion/deterioration that is very prohibitive/expensive to inspect and correct after the fact (but I am no engineer).

Correct. Draining the system wether it be a fuel or hydraulic system is more detrimental to the system than leaving the system full. O-rings , hoses, and other sensitive componets will dry out and rot. The next time they are tried to be used, it will look like a fire sprinkler has gone off around it. Better bring some buckets and a lot of towles!!!



I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 9074 times:



Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 21):

What I DO remember is that I had about 120,000 Delta F.F. points and was saving to get 200,000 so I could fly AF Concorde to Paris

...you would've only needed 40K more miles than you had, not 80K.

Quoting LHR27C (Reply 19):

This isn't true. Why would Airbus suddenly announce their intention to stop technical support if both airlines were happily operating the aircraft? Can you imagine the reaction if BA and AF were running a successful Concorde operation, and Airbus turned round and said sorry we're not going to support it any more?

FlySSC is correct.

AF got spooked after the F-BTSD (yes, I know what registration I just typed people, spare me) incident and more or less decided that they'd had enough. BA wanted to continue, true; but their decision to end the service, and their approach to Airbus, was indeed done jointly.


User currently offlineB727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 9068 times:



Quoting LHR27C (Reply 19):
This isn't true. Why would Airbus suddenly announce their intention to stop technical support if both airlines were happily operating the aircraft? Can you imagine the reaction if BA and AF were running a successful Concorde operation, and Airbus turned round and said sorry we're not going to support it any more?

Isn't that basically what Boeing did when they took over Douglas? They basically stopped supporting the MD-11 line so they could promote the 747 or 777. Wouldn't be far fetched to see Airbus doing the same thing to promote some of their aircraft. Although I think Boeing is wishing that they hadn't done that now.



I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
25 FlySSC : At the end of 2002, AF & BA studied the possibility to create a subsidiary airline (owned 50% by AF & 50% by BA) dedicated to Concorde operations. Th
26 FlySSC : This incident on F-BTSD occured in Feb 2003 : important fuel leak, engine N°3 shut down, diverted to YHZ. The decision to retire Concorde from servi
27 GDB : As one was in the BA Concorde Engineering operation at the time, I can state with confidence, from what I saw and heard, not from any bullshit from Br
28 Hoppe777 : Great posts guys, although saddening it does bring some clarity to me as to why things happened the way they did. I stilll remember walking to work an
29 FlySSC : In 1999, several events were organized to commemorate the 30 years of Concorde 1st flight ... In this occasion, I remember we were told during a meet
30 David L : Which part? It had a moving nose/visor and was FBW. But that isn't the case.
31 LHR27C : To be honest, with the level of technical knowledge required to support the Concorde operation, and the amount of information Airbus had about the ai
32 SSTsomeday : Seems like an appropriate effort. Many airlines who operate similar A/C types collaborate on maintenance, training, etc. I remember the KSS group in
33 Sevenforty : Well I just think it's incredible that an aircraft that cost so much to develop and construct and was so technically advanced (even to this day for a
34 GDB : Sevenforty, when the retirement was announced on 10th April 2003, one post on here I think said it the best, from an enthusiast too, rather than an in
35 Tdscanuck : Boeing still supports MD-11's today. I think you're confusing supporting the production line with supporting the aircraft in service. Boeing still pr
36 B727LVR : You are correct sir, I was confusing the two different lines.
37 SSTsomeday : But what I expected, though, was a successor to Concorde, notably the 2707, to take supersonic flight to the masses as well as finally bring a profit
38 Post contains links Mortyman : I remember in the late 90's or early 2000's there were two Concorde's at the same time at Sola Airport, Stavanger in Norway. The ques were loooong to
39 Sevenforty : I know GDB, you're right. I suppose it's just because I'm still reasonably young (!!) and not very practical. Concorde was just such an exciting airc
40 Cpd : Oh, that's never going to lift off again - there is no way it will happen. And even if it did look like happening, the powers that be would put a ver
41 FlySSC : F-BVFC stored by Airbus in TLS is also regulary maintained. But jut like SD or any other Concorde, it will never ly again.
42 GDB : Funny you should mention the lack of a successor SSTSomeday, since it is nearly exactly 10 years since it became clear than there would be a big gap -
43 MD-90 : Would it be fair to call those intake ramps in the engines "variable-geometry?" Obviously the wing wasn't, but the nose and intake ramps were.
44 Theginge : Even if Concorde had been kept on beyond 2003 I think in the current climate it would have been grounded.
45 David L : Well, it was geometry that could be (had to be) changed in flight... complications that the Vulcan, Lancaster, etc, don't have.
46 Cpd : Probably - depending on how strict you wanted to term variable geometry. Safe to say, any future SST (which I will refer to as ATSF) will not have th
47 SEPilot : They just stopped building them; they have not stopped supporting them. I was told some time ago that if you called Pratt & Whitney about a radial en
48 GDB : Well the Air Intake Control Units on Concorde, did have variable inlet ramps. They affected, as in slowed down, the air going into the engine, since v
49 Aircellist : That means this engine was quite an achievement, 40 years ago!!! I honestly would have believed that newer airfoils, higher temperature materials, ne
50 Tdscanuck : The problem is that a commercial SST is going to burn a lot of fuel, no matter how you slice it, so efficiency will be at a premium, and you just can
51 David L : Just to be clear on this "variable geometry" business... I noted the intakes separately and was thinking specifically of the nose when I referred to v
52 Post contains links GDB : Aircellist, check this out, in particular the section on supersonic cruise, which shows just how the whole package of intakes/engine/nozzles was so ef
53 Leezyjet : GDB, I'm surprised you don't have a standard answer saved on your computer with links to all the threads over the last 5 years on this very subject th
54 Cpd : And it was quite an achievement. I guess the higher temperature materials aren't the worry - that was solved adequately with what had been used alrea
55 Airbus-Insider : Nobody knows that the Toulouse Concorde was the last to fly in the world....it was used for test flights for AIrbus and only flew at nights. I have pe
56 FlySSC : F-BVFC never left the ground after it landed in TLS on June 23rd 2003. It was ony used for ground test (acceleration, rolling) conducted as part of t
57 LHR27C : ?? The last ever Concorde flight was G-BOAF from LHR to FZO on 26th November 2003.
58 Nomadd22 : I'm not sure it would happen with any amount of money. The legal liabilities the manufacturers and operators retired along with the planes would like
59 Airbus-Insider : It did leave the ground again...the tests you mentioned were done during daylight. I am living next to the airport at LFBO, you don't miss a Concorde
60 Aircellist : GDB, thank you very much! Very interesting read. If I get it, then maybe (maybe...) the "engine" part of the engine could be improved, marginally, (l
61 Post contains links GDB : Leezyjet, so true, also for people involved with her, not just johnny come lately's like me, but even for much longer term veterans. In part, because
62 Viscount724 : You forgot the U. It was KSSU, the carriers you mention plus UTA. They ordered DC-10-30s with similar specifications and agreed to jointly maintain t
63 Aircellist : GDB, thank you again! This is very interesting too. I remember reading something about Concorde B in Science et Vie, a French magazine, maybe 20 years
64 Airbus-Insider : Concorde F-BVFC did fly again after it's last official flight on June 27th 2003. Last time I heard it taking off was in early December 2003 at 2am. My
65 FlySSC : Come on Chris ... what you may have "heard" can be anything but a Concorde taking off ! and unless you can show pictures or any official "proof" of t
66 GDB : Yeah, no one would have noticed those 4 reheats on a night T/O. Give it a rest. Aircellist, Concorde actually did not need to apply reheat for the tra
67 David L : Yet more "what could have been" from our aviation history. And, to clarify, it already did supercruise above Mach 1.7. A lot of people seem to be und
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...
Why Was Concorde Taken Out Of Service For Good? posted Fri Apr 8 2005 17:08:22 by AirbusA346
Why Not? (way For Airlines To Cover Oil Costs) posted Mon Jun 30 2008 16:16:12 by Joelfreak
One Reason Why EA II Did Not Get Off Ground... posted Tue Nov 6 2007 08:58:55 by 7E72004
Why Was JetBlue 292 So Newsworthy But Not NW 1432? posted Mon Oct 29 2007 07:51:43 by Luv2cattlecall
757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz? posted Thu Oct 25 2007 21:42:30 by VHECA
Why CO91 TLV-EWR Not On Fridays For Summer? posted Tue Mar 20 2007 02:19:51 by Airplanetire
Why Are Taxes Not Included For LatAm Airports? posted Sun Nov 5 2006 19:36:55 by RootsAir
Why Is Orlando (MCO) Not A Key City For B6? posted Mon Aug 28 2006 07:31:53 by Lightsaber
Why Not A340 For US Carriers? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 22:28:47 by Eastern023
RWY 27 At Juliana - Why Not Used For TOs? posted Tue May 23 2006 17:52:27 by Sunandan
757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz? posted Thu Oct 25 2007 21:42:30 by VHECA
Why CO91 TLV-EWR Not On Fridays For Summer? posted Tue Mar 20 2007 02:19:51 by Airplanetire
Why Are Taxes Not Included For LatAm Airports? posted Sun Nov 5 2006 19:36:55 by RootsAir
Why Is Orlando (MCO) Not A Key City For B6? posted Mon Aug 28 2006 07:31:53 by Lightsaber
Why Not A340 For US Carriers? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 22:28:47 by Eastern023
RWY 27 At Juliana - Why Not Used For TOs? posted Tue May 23 2006 17:52:27 by Sunandan