Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should Concorde Live On?  
User currently offlineJaspike From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 1 posts, RR: 2
Posted (13 years 5 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4656 times:

Should it? What do you think? Or should Hyper-X take its place in years to come?

Jas

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGOT From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (13 years 5 months 5 days ago) and read 4503 times:

The fastest commercial jetliner should definetly come back in service, but not until the problems with the fuel tanks have been fixed. But when that is done (hopefully to the summer) Concorde should get back in the air.
Long live Concorde!

GOT



Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
User currently offlineRen41 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1524 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (13 years 5 months 5 days ago) and read 4492 times:

I agree 100% with GOT Big thumbs up

Ren41


User currently offlineDerek H From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4484 times:

Of course it should. Are plans being made for it to come back in to service?

User currently offlineJohn G From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2000, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4452 times:

The Daily Mail recently reported BA has set aside £30 million to get Concorde flying again

User currently offlineKLM672 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 2455 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4437 times:

Agree w/ GOT also

User currently offlineSkippy208 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4438 times:

The Daily Mail recently reported BA has set aside £30 million to get Concorde flying again

And why not? This paragon of French Engineering is one hot airplane. It should continue to burn its way into the record books for some years to come.

Skippy


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11357 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4447 times:

The Concorde is statistically the least safe jet that has been allowed to fly. (And that includes Russian jets people love to complain about!)

Any plane that can be brought down by a tire blowout needs to be grounded permanently. I hope that if the US FAA doesn't disallow Concorde service to this country, that they will at least put them through some incredibly rigorous tests (including a blowout) to insure that they are as safe as other jets we allow into this country.

I don't think it will really matter anyways. Celebs are afraid of the Concorde now. Their market has dried up. If the Concorde does come back, it will be short lived.




Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineGyro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4437 times:

Ditto D L X on that one...

User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4434 times:

It's old reputation of speed and elegance is tarnished.
It is now a flying deathtrap.

I'm betting that Lloyd's will have most celebs, corporate execs, etc will have 'Concorde clauses' written into their life insurance policies prohibiting them from flying.


User currently offlineNdebele From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 2901 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4417 times:

Who needs a 25-years old, loud, unefficient aircraft? Read the other topics in this forum - people are discussing about replacement of MD-11 and 737 Classic. The Concorde is simply out-dated!

There are so many museums in the world with many, many school classes who would love to visit one of those Concordes. And for the rest of the Concordes: I've been told there is still some space left at MZJ and MHV...  Wink/being sarcastic


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6451 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4426 times:

Of course the Concorde shall fly again - if somebody wants to fly on it.

And I am afraid that DLX has got a valid point. Will there be a market?

The problem is that the Concorde unlike other airplanes was never really needed. And it is even less needed today than when it was new twenty years ago. Those people who (might think that they) really were that busy, they can much better use all aspects of electronic communication today, which is a thousand times faster.

The charter market, which was gradually taking over before the accident, may have evaporated completely that afternoon in Paris.

So it's second life may unfortunately become a rather short one.

But if you think that the Concorde should retire because it is technically outdated, then you should refrain from ever boarding a 747 again.

Best regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineKAZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 19 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4411 times:

Yep!

Last four postings just comfirmed it. It's still the envy of the world.
Seems ironic it was a Continental DC10 that caused the one concorde incident. As if that plane hasn't got a tarnished enough record already.


User currently offlineJulien.M From Belgium, joined Mar 2000, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4422 times:

I heard at the tv-news that all the interior of the british concorde have been replaced. That means new sits, new crockery and...a better confort!
I'm not realy agree with DLX...celebs are not the only pax in that plane, they are a lot of businessmans who needs that kind of plane, they are obliged to fly in 747 today and to loose several hours in it.
Don't forget only one of them crashed and they are modifying them!
how many 747 crashed! around 34!

I know for sure that this magnificent bird will fly very soon!
LONG LIVE TO THE CONCORDE!  Smile


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4415 times:

well, if celebs aren't going to fly concorde, I will. There will always be a market for this bird  Big thumbs up.

This paragon of French Engineering is one hot airplane

hhhhhmmmm, not entirely true m8ey. It was a joint venture between Britain and France, and both prototypes were built in each of the countrys. I can still remember the historic day when Concorde first flew  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

The Concorde is statistically the least safe jet that has been allowed to fly. (And that includes Russian jets people love to complain about!)

The russian jets are just as noisy, and people complain about them for their noise rather than the fact that they just fall out of the sky (which does not happen), and the only one that was supersonic crashed in a test flight due to a serious defect. The Concorde crash was a result of many factors 1.)A 9 inch piece of metal punctured a tire blowout. 2.)The violence of the blowout ruptured a fuel tank, which there is a very low chance of happening 3.)Fuel entered the engine and ignited 4.)Engine Catches fire because of Ignited fuel 5.)Fire spreads to other engine 6.) Pilot opted to go-around instead of attempting to ditch and stalled.

The chances of all these happening together is very unlikely. If this is such a safety risk, how has it not happened for 30 years?

There is no doubt in my mind that this was a terrible accident, and should not have happened. But this does NOT make Concorde a death trap. If you step on that aircraft for a flight you are not risking your life or Playing Russian Roulette or whatever.

On average, Concorde has just over 7 hull losses per million departures, that is very slightly higher than the 707, with a rate of 6.98. So it is hardly a Dangerous aircraft. The Convair 880 for example, had nearly 13 hull losses per million departures, so it is far safer than them.

Thanks EGGD


User currently offlineFedExHeavy From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 226 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4409 times:

Well seeing that the DC-3 is still used in part's of the world, I guess there could still be a place for Concorde to keep flying, there's always going to be a market for the super sonic flights over the Atlantic.
Have a nice day Smile/happy/getting dizzy!,
FedExHeavy



So far this is the oldest I've been.
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4396 times:

Oh yeah, BA have already set a date for the first concorde to be Re-fitted's flight, i think it is in July sometime.

They are re-fitting (strengthening the fuel tanks etc) 1 concorde at a time, so it may be a while before all are back in service.

EGGD


User currently offlineAmtran727 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4391 times:

I hope it is soon rentered into services, but, BA was planning to dump them around 2007 or so. Is that going to change now that the planes are bieng refitted? I bet that it will be later, provided that the market can return, which it probably will, as stated before.

Good Day
Amtran727  Smile


User currently offlineSIA_B777 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 469 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4377 times:

I wish to see the concorde in flight again.

However, I do have a question about them.

Why didn't the concorde ever fly across the Pacific? Why only the Atlantic?


User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4378 times:

The Concorde doesn't have the range for trans-Pacific operations. In fact, trans-Atlantic is approaching the limit.

User currently offlineMaxPowers From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 475 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4367 times:

Of course the concorde will be needed. Businessmen like my dad go to paris and back in less then 8 hours round trip, go to a meeting, then go back home. He dosn't like to take the "slow" rout. But he did travel on the concorde at least 3 times a month.

User currently offlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32788 posts, RR: 72
Reply 21, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4369 times:

The Concorde can't fly across the Pacific. It can't even fly LHR-MIA, which is why Concorde flights to Miami (1984-1991, R.I.P) were routed LHR-IAD-MIA-IAD-LHR. Range is very limited, though if it weren't, LAX-NRT would be the perfect route for it.



a.
User currently offlineLogos From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 793 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4375 times:

Seems ironic it was a Continental DC10 that caused the one concorde incident.

I love this. The DC-10 did not cause the incident as the feckless French are (or at least were) trying to claim. I'll bet that similar incidents happen, if not all the time, relatively frequently and don't cause other, well-designed aircraft to crash.

The crash was caused by a known design flaw in the Concorde which also caused a near-catastrophic incident at IAD in 1979. It will fly again but, as mentioned above, I have my doubts as to whether there'll be a market for it.

Cheers,
Dave in Berlin



Too many types flown to list
User currently offlineLUFC From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2000, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4392 times:

I seem to remember something dropped off a DC10 that caused the incident are you telling me this is not true?

Regards.


User currently offlineLUFC From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2000, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (13 years 5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4352 times:

Concorde flew Heathrow to Barbados on a scheduled route, which logically tells me your information is not correct. Can you explain this?

Regards.


25 Logos : No, the point is that the part from the DC-10 wouldn't have pierced the fuel tank of virtually any other aircraft and caused it to crash. The Concorde
26 Travatl : The demise of Concorde is the final demise of our industry as we know it. Despite it's exorberant cost and unrealistic RSM, it is the last "grasp" of
27 GE : Those engineers really should so something about the Concorde's range or they're gonna lose a lot of business.
28 LUFC : I accept your point but why are you so sceptical. This was a really freak accident. The safety record of concorde is impeccable, paticularly from an a
29 Post contains links and images Julien.M : They tried to sell the Concorde in the beginning of its existence but because of the "war" given by the USA about if he may land there or not (because
30 Logos : I agree that it was indeed a freak accident. I was responding to the notion that the DC-10 somehow "caused" the accident, advanced in this thread and
31 Post contains images EGGD : Logos - If the piece of metal was not on the runway, it wouldn't have happened right? Therefore that is the cause of the accident. The design flaw isn
32 Post contains images Jaspike : Well said egg! Tom
33 Logos : Well said egg! Well, not exactly. My point (and I think EGGD understands this) was that the conditions created by that piece of metal would not have c
34 Post contains links 737doctor : First of all, I would like to say that I am a fan of the Concorde. I think it hearkens back to the more "romantic" days of aviation. The aircraft was
35 Eg777er : The Times, January 21st 1976 BAC / Aerospatiale Advert. "From today there are two types of airlines. Those who have Concorde. And those who take twice
36 Post contains images Dl727-200adv : 737doctor said it best! It drives me nuts to hear people saying how safe the Concord is or any other aircraft that are rather few in numbers (like the
37 LUFC : Your logic is correct. So if the same amount of Concordes had been built as 737s how may do you think would have been lost by now. My guess is about
38 D L X : "So if the same amount of Concordes had been built as 737s how may do you think would have been lost by now. My guess is about 50, same as the 737." W
39 Donder10 : The average load factor is around 50%!!!!
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 Live On TV Now posted Fri Oct 24 2003 13:32:56 by Myt332
Should Concorde Fly Again? posted Wed May 31 2006 07:23:24 by Cosec59
Concorde Toilet On EBay posted Fri Feb 17 2006 21:31:02 by Chase
Anyone Live On LAX Parking Lot B? posted Fri May 27 2005 05:03:38 by NYCA330
A380-live On TV posted Tue Jan 18 2005 09:39:09 by Oliver18
A380 Roll-Out Live On TV! posted Thu Dec 23 2004 23:55:14 by JoFMO
Concorde Program On The Travel Channel posted Thu Apr 29 2004 23:47:59 by Neilalp
Concorde Show On Feb. 16- Can't Wait! posted Mon Feb 16 2004 02:36:14 by Mirrodie
Concorde Sinsheim On German TV Tonight posted Sat Nov 1 2003 18:21:07 by Teahan
Concorde Live Landing posted Thu Oct 23 2003 23:35:40 by PlaneMad