Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Concorde Prepared To Fly Again In 2012  
User currently offlineBralo20 From Belgium, joined May 2008, 623 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 65372 times:

Today, a quite small but interesting story was published in one of Belgian's newspapers regarding the famous Concorde. This weekend aviation experts will conduct tests on the Air France Concorde preserved in Le Bourget. If the tests have good result, the next goal is to get them running again safely. After that taxi tests will be conducted with the plane. The long term plan (which has a price tag of 15 million GBP) is to get the bird flying again just in time for the opening ceremony of the Olympics in London in 2012.

A link to an article about this in English: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/br...ine-concorde-engines-14825337.html

98 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFoxy From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 179 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 64574 times:

BBC now running the story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8712806.stm


User currently offlineKit777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 64532 times:

Still skeptical - would be fantastic if it all went well but I doubt it.  

Also the article implies that it isn't going to cost 15 million to get the Air France concorde airworthy - but a BA one. Which implies two airframes.

Thanks


User currently offlinen7190jr From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 64464 times:

One word. WOW.


After all the debate and discussion on these forums it looks like a lot of us may be proven wrong.


n7190jr



The Only Way Up is Up: KEEP CLIMBING
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6591 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 64426 times:

I don't really see an AF frame painted in BA colors happening.

[Edited 2010-05-29 08:33:25]


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8998 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 64373 times:

AFAIK the Concord type certificate was handed back to EASA, it will never fly again.


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6591 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 64193 times:

For transport, no, but for show, it could.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinejonstock From UK - England, joined Oct 2008, 17 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 64158 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):

Exactly what I was going to post


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13184 posts, RR: 77
Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 64115 times:

The engines may for an inspection, cost only the sum quoted to do this, getting an actual airframe flying, complete with airworthiness certification, somehow getting spare parts (all sold or donated) also deemed fit for use-age on a flying aircraft, inevitably making new parts - not done since early 2003 - top all that up, around £100 million if you are lucky.

I'm afraid any article with a contribution from the 'Save Concorde Group' is tainted.
A bunch who have spent way more time this last 6 years fighting each other, offending anyone with any actual real world Concorde involvement (the few that ever had anything to do with them didn't last long due to in fighting and telling them engineering FACTS they did not want to hear), than actually doing anything practical.
Never involved with them myself, I did meet some of them in 2003/4, not impressed to say the least, all ignorance and conspiracy theories.
When I told them in early 04 that G-BOAF would need major maintenance before it flew again, they just waved it aside, airworthiness regulations on scheduled maintenance not being of interest to them. They were more keen to tell me that they reckoned the said aircraft lost an engine on the last ever Concorde take off on 26th Nov 2003. Funny that, didn't see it myself neither was it mentioned on the tech log for this LHR-FZO flight.

A good rule of life is 'never say never', but to do this (why? It's never going to carry pax), however would require a rather major about face in policy by both UK and French airworthiness authorities.

There is a plan I understand to run engines on an AF Concorde, possible, but a world away from flying one.


User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4489 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 64106 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 5):
AFAIK the Concord type certificate was handed back to EASA, it will never fly again.

Don't know how it works overseas, but in the US you don't need a type certificate to fly an airplane. You can fly it with a special airworthiness certificate (experimental).

I agree, though, that it will never haul revenue passengers again.



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineBA174 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 756 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 64084 times:

Quoting Bralo20 (Thread starter):
Today, a quite small but interesting story was published in one of Belgian's newspapers regarding the famous Concorde. This weekend aviation experts will conduct tests on the Air France Concorde preserved in Le Bourget. If the tests have good result, the next goal is to get them running again safely. After that taxi tests will be conducted with the plane. The long term plan (which has a price tag of 15 million GBP) is to get the bird flying again just in time for the opening ceremony of the Olympics in London in 2012.

A link to an article about this in English: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/br....html

I thought all of the RTF 2012 thing was circled around at first BOAC then they moved on to BOAF. Not sure where a French concorde will fit in at our games considering we have our own fleet but never mind.... In fact it's quite embarrising and no doubt if it happened the press would dive on the fact that we had to use a fenchie one because non of ours could be used.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13184 posts, RR: 77
Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 63957 times:

There have been stories about a Concorde flying as part of the London games opening going around, since they won the right to stage the games in 2005!

2005 would also have been a better time to start actual work on doing so (if we somehow forget the major engineering issues and huge cost), if people really wanted it happen.
(Again why?)


User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 63765 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 8):
A good rule of life is 'never say never', but to do this (why? It's never going to carry pax), however would require a rather major about face in policy by both UK and French airworthiness authorities.
Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 9):
Don't know how it works overseas, but in the US you don't need a type certificate to fly an airplane. You can fly it with a special airworthiness certificate (experimental).

Right, to fly it for "experimental" or "demonstration" purposes does not require the same, stringent type of certification. Though I think to fly it over thousands of people at The Olympics might raise some regulatory eyebrows. Perhaps a very specific flight path would be indicated; who knows.

I also think there is a huge difference with regard to whether or not "they" hope to fly it supersonically. That could actually be the deal breaker; Flying it supersonically I would suggest (though I have no credibility in this area) is what would be technically and financially prohibitive due to the dissolution of the technical support system when she stopped flying.



I come in peace
User currently offlineBralo20 From Belgium, joined May 2008, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 63613 times:

Controrary to the other frames left, F-BTSD is the sole frame that was maintained for during the years when it has been retired. I don't know how much exactly but I do remember they kept all electronics functional, tested it repetately, run the hydraulic systems, etc... So it makes sense to use this frame if they want to fly one Concorde again. AFAIK non of the BA Concordes are able to fly again since I thought that BA removed several systems to make them unusable.

If and when no mayor problems are found there is a big chance that she'll be able to fly again, unfortunately none should expect that she will every fly again with passengers on board of the plane, but ferry flights as part of airshows, etc... I can see it happen though...

But flying on the openingceremony of the Olympics in London with this bird seems it bit of a problem, unless they spraypaint the bird one side BA colors and one side AF colors...


Time will tell...


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1568 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 63483 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Bralo20 (Reply 13):
unless they spraypaint the bird one side BA colors and one side AF colors...

That sounds like a good idea to me, I hope something like this could happen, I would give a donation.

Fred


User currently offlinebohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2687 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 63484 times:

Today is May 29, 2010, not April 1st.

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8998 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 63479 times:

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 9):

Don't know how it works overseas, but in the US you don't need a type certificate to fly an airplane. You can fly it with a special airworthiness certificate (experimental).

I agree, though, that it will never haul revenue passengers again.

These are some more words to ponder, from http://www.concordeproject.com/faq.html

Quote:
Question 22: Finally, THE question - will any of the remaining Concordes ever fly again?

While it can be said that you should never say "never", it is safe to say that, unfortunately, it is extremely unlikely that a Concorde will ever fly again. This is due to many factors:

* Of the flight crews that flew the aircraft, those that didn't retire and are still actually flying no longer have a means to keep their licences current as the facilities required to re-certify them (i.e. - a CAA approved simulator) no longer exist.

* All spare parts were either scrapped or auctioned off when Concorde retired. Those that were auctioned off are no longer deemed to be airworthy since leaving the strict control of British Airways' and Air France's bonded stores and therefore could not be used. In addition, much of the infrastructure needed to make spares has gone and many of the hundreds of OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) that manufactured those parts and have design authority over them no longer exist.

* The facilities and equipment for servicing and repairing all parts of Concorde's airframe, engines and systems no longer exist.

* There are no longer any licensed engineers who would be able to a) return a Concorde to airworthy condition, or b) service/maintain the aircraft to keep it airworthy. This is because all the engineers who worked on Concorde over the years have now either re-trained on other aircraft types, or they have retired. Either way, their licences expired a short time after Concorde's retirement.

* Of the remaining Concordes, none are in flying condition anymore. Some of them were approaching major scheduled servicing prior to being retired and this would have to be carried out before the aircraft would be allowed fly again. However, such work would no longer be possible because of the factors outlined in the previous 3 paragraphs. There is also the fact that it is extremely unlikely that any of the museums who have a Concorde would be willing to give up their prize exhibit.

* It is often asked why many older aircraft types are still flying today but Concorde isn't. However, it must be taken into account that Concorde is an order of magnitude more complex both to maintain and to operate than aircraft such as a Spitfire, Lancaster or even a Vulcan which are all very basic in comparison. Concorde has scores of computer controlled systems and sensors that mean, unlike most heritage aircraft, it would be impossible for it to be maintained, operated and kept airworthy by a handful of enthusiasts with basic facilities.

* Some people may of heard stories of one of the Air France Concordes being kept serviceable. Unfortunately the word "serviceable" can be rather misleading. In this case it simply means that they have maintained the electrical and hydraulic systems to a sufficient extent that allows them to connect ground-power from the museum to the aircraft and do things like illuminate the cockpit instruments and move the droop nose up and down occasionally for museum visitors. Like all other remaining fleet Concordes, this one in France hasn't flown since 2003 and, in reality, is far from being in a position to do so.

* It could be argued that many of the issues listed above could be solved by money. However, how much money? Some people closely involved with Concorde have been quoted saying that £10-£15 million should be sufficient. This may well have been the case in 2003 but a long time has passed since the last flight and now that the Concorde support chain has been disbanded and the spares holding disposed of the amount needed would be astronomical - possibly over £100 million.

There will no doubt be differing opinions on this but my view would be that spending such a vast amount of money would be totally unjustifiable just to get one aircraft airworthy for a handful of air shows a year - even if it is Concorde! It is also necessary to bear in mind that these figures just relate to the money needed to get a Concorde back into airworthy condition. The costs of on-going service/maintenance and flight operations would all be in addition to this.

* Concorde no longer has a Certificate of Airworthiness. This is a document issued by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and is a legal requirement for all civilian aircraft types before they are allowed to fly. Concorde's was withdrawn by the CAA soon after its final flight in 2003. For there to be any hope of Concorde's certificate being re-instated it would be essential to have the support of the manufacturer. Unfortunately, Concorde does not (see the following paragraph).

* And the real show-stopper - Concorde was originally manufactured by BAC of the UK and Aerospatialé of France who both later became part of the Airbus consortium. Unfortunately, Airbus have repeatedly stated they have no interest in participating in returning Concorde to the skies. Airbus was the key supplier in the Concorde operation. Not only did it build Concorde, it specified and controlled the maintenance programme and was the end supplier of the parts that made it fly. Without their support it doesn't make any difference how much money is made available - the whole idea literally is a non-starter.

All this makes for depressing reading for all Concorde fans and while most people would love to see her flying again (me included!), the sad truth is that you will now almost certainly only ever be able to enjoy Concorde in a museum.

While I love the Concorde, I do not expect to see it ever to fly again for the reasons stated above.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13184 posts, RR: 77
Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 63206 times:

zeke, thanks for providing that link which encapsulates what I'm saying but does so rather more comprehensively

Folks, as ex Concorde Engineering myself, it's all true.

I usually cite this in these discussions, but it's important.
BA looked in 2003 as such a 'Heritage Aircraft', in detail and of course with an unrivalled knowledge base.
It was, unfortunately, found that running this one display aircraft would not be much cheaper than running an operational fleet.
That spares and support issue mainly.
Every avenue was considered, including the airworthiness regulatory one, that was not good news for the idea that a more limited cert. was a runner.
And this at time when the support network was still (just) running, when we had the licenced crews and technical people still at hand.
When we could have utilised our spares stock in a way impossible to do now.
The numbers didn't stack up.

I do totally get the interest and desire to see Concorde flying, the fans of all sorts made us involved with her very proud and rather humbled.
We were as much fans of the lovely lady as anyone.

I know the Vulcan will be cited. But look how close to failing that project came to several times, this on a type far less complex than Concorde, with a much wider base of experience from the sheer numbers compared to Concorde that ever existed, stacks of spare parts available too.
It's not a real comparison, though in flying a retired aircraft again probably the closest to Concorde, though between it and the SST it's a huge gap.

The bearded wonder of VS raised, just for PR, knowingly a lot of false hopes in 2003.
I don't want to see that again.


User currently offlineworldliner From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 62042 times:

Would be nice to see it fly again, but im sceptical about the colourscheme, as i cant imagine it staying in the AF colours, and i doubt the French would allow it to be painted in BA colours. Especially as London beat Paris to the olympics in the first place  .


@777Worldliner
User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4368 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 60731 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 12):
I also think there is a huge difference with regard to whether or not "they" hope to fly it supersonically. That could actually be the deal breaker; Flying it supersonically I would suggest (though I have no credibility in this area) is what would be technically and financially prohibitive due to the dissolution of the technical support system when she stopped flying.

Flying a restored SSC at supersonic speed is not going to happen. Period. The aviation insurers of the world will see to that.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlinejeffrey1970 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 1336 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 58523 times:

I too think it would be cool to see the old bird flying again in 2012. However, if it is true that all they want to do is have it ready to fly for the opening ceremonies, then that seems like they would be spending a ton of money on a short term goal.


God bless through Jesus, Jeff
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13184 posts, RR: 77
Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 58011 times:

The thread title could use a question mark and/or a 'maybe'.
Better yet, also preface with 'very remote chance of'.

False hopes, stuff like that.


User currently offlineBA174 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 756 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 57862 times:

Quoting worldliner (Reply 18):
Would be nice to see it fly again, but im sceptical about the colourscheme, as i cant imagine it staying in the AF colours, and i doubt the French would allow it to be painted in BA colours. Especially as London beat Paris to the olympics in the first place  .

I doubt the queen would want the AF concorde colours rolling down the mall in 2012. I personally see a joint BA/AF livery if it was to happen as they would have to recognise the british involvement into concorde and the ex-BA crews engineers.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 4):
I don't really see an AF frame painted in BA colors happening.

It should be in the colours of the airline that was most loyal to concorde .........
   

Its not that I have anything against the French concordes but I would love to see a chatham concorde flying again.


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10893 posts, RR: 37
Reply 23, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 57713 times:

I trust what GDB is saying on this thread. I was just sent a private message that the thread was opened. I don't have much time to be on the forums due to an accident that's causing me many problems as well as some late work.

Anyway my take on this is that I very much doubt Airbus will agree to let F-BTSD fly again, same as I doubt that SD will be able to fly without any contribution from Airbus.

I am curious to find out what resullts they got from the engines boroscope inspections and if they can be turned on again without damaging them or the frame. Also they will have to move the aircraft out of the building so I think they will have to break one of the walls in order to do this as the two Concordes are so tightly placed one next to the other it must be impossible to move one without breaking one of the walls in the hangar where they are both exhibited.

I would be more than happy to go to Le Bourget whenever the roll-out takes place, if it ever takes place. I doubt we will see her ever taking off again but as they say "never say never". In these times of economic downturn I wonder who is going to get the money in order to make a return to flight possible.

Other than Singapore or another Tiger from Asia with lots of ready cash on hand I don't see France or the UK financing it. There is simply no public money for such an enterprise. I seriously doubt that Airbus would pay for this either.



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineflylku From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 804 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 54910 times:

It is unclear to me where the funding is / would come from. I doubt any of the groups actually have it. So, even if they determine that it can be flown again in whatever capacity, the hardest part might be finding someone to pay for it.


...are we there yet?
25 BAW716 : This is the key point since Airbus must, as the surviving manufacturer, must participate in any restoration effort and to spend GBP15M (about USD25M)
26 EGTESkyGod : I visited F-BTSD this week and was lucky enough to be given a full tour and be given access to the flight decks of SD and 001 by two of the team that
27 OA412 : And here is the most important point. Concorde will not fly again, this group is simply generated false hope.
28 spacecadet : Legitimate question: Assuming the airplane has been sitting all this time, not flying, not having any hours or cycles put on it, *but* being maintaine
29 crownvic : OK, since we are on the subject of Certificate of Airworthiness, there still seems to be some "gray areas" on this. Deviating from Concorde for a minu
30 MrSkyGuy : You guys are a great bunch, and I thoroughly enjoy reading and participating in these forums on a variety of topics. What fuels a.net has always been
31 beeweel15 : Now why cant folks get together and get the Concorde back in the sky but it seems like no problem to get and keep WWII birds in the sky.
32 Max Q : Whatever it takes, bring this beautiful bird back !
33 777ER : Please have a world tour afterwards!
34 Post contains images MadameConcorde : How do you know? There is not such a thing as never. What it will require is funding, also the approval and participation from Airbus. Funding can be
35 GDB : If you knew about the group quoted in that (very poor) reporting, SCG, you'd not be dreaming. Me, I prefer to be awake. Have you ever read any detail
36 Post contains links and images PITrules : The Tu-144 used by NASA was in storage for years, but it flew again - supersonically no less. View Large View MediumPhoto © Andy Martin - AirTeamImag
37 GDB : That project had the resources of Boeing and NASA, plus the full cooperation of the Russians behind it. So where do you see the comparison here? With
38 PITrules : The comparison was to illustrate that yes indeed a complex aircraft can be flown again after long term storage. Yes, of course there would need to be
39 GDB : But that was done for a purpose, to get a feel for SST's as part of a research effort to determine if the time was right to consider a new SST progra
40 MadameConcorde : This is why I have always said that a RTF will not be done without participation of Airbus. This also applies to detractors. They have NO say or stak
41 Post contains links and images Blackprojects : Marie SCG Opend there Public Mouth and said something that was not correct to the Media and the French Olympus 593 group has publihed there Story whic
42 Post contains images goldorak : You know, I doubt this will happen but if it could, I would be so happy also and I will be also at LBG for sure. So I hope you're right BTW, you ment
43 BA174 : I think that because SGC have had no success dealing with BA regarding BOAF they have decided to just takeover from the French team regarding SD. An A
44 Post contains images Jacobin777 : In the end, its about money.....but from reading the forums, it seems it would be quite expensive to get it up and running. I don't think Airbus/EADS
45 GDB : Not just with BA, no success either with Airbus, any museum, CAA/DGAC/EASA, BAA, a common thread being this lack of success occurs after SCG communic
46 frmrCapCadet : An analogy: My church bought a hundred year old pipe organ - in several thousand pieces, some missing, broken etc. Our builder came and ordered some p
47 BA174 : Just out of curiousity which one of the seven BA aircraft is in the best condition?
48 EGTESkyGod : Quick rundown: G-BOAA at East Fortune: Wings cut for transportation to Edinburgh, never modified after Paris accident. G-BOAB at LHR: Not modified af
49 aircellist : ... Not unlike the possibility of keeping F-22s in flying condition once the type would be retired, many years from now... Let's say "remote"...
50 GDB : You seem rather more current with the BA aircraft status than I! OAG was prime candidate for a 'Heritage Flight', it had completed a major check in l
51 BA174 : I know that G-BOAF still has the electrical systems going that the other BA planes do not e.g. the cabin display screens and the seatbelt signs etc.
52 rolfen : Wouldn't it be more economic to design a new supersonic jet that incorporates new technologies?
53 EGTESkyGod : The answer to this is more than likely going to be no, otherwise we would have seen another SST in the pipeline already by now. And also to the puris
54 rolfen : Since they're so keen on keeping an SST in the air (at great expense), then they should design a new one that is cheaper to operate and maintain, saf
55 EGTESkyGod : I thought so too... however if it was viable, it would be in the pipeline. Even the SSBJ's aren't off the drawing board yet. We're a long way away fr
56 GDB : After that work by NASA/Boeing in the late 1990's to see if a new SST was viable, they concluded in December 1998 that the answer in any realistic and
57 ltbewr : It seems that somehow a story going thorugh a number of people got messed up and growing like Pinoccio's nose as it got passed along. I do see the pos
58 Post contains images MrSkyGuy : Heck, now I hope she flies just to put a little "oomph" back in to the cold hearts of this nay-saying bunch.
59 GDB : If being 'cold hearted' means 'actually knowing what I'm talking about' and the 'ability to detect a load of BS', then I plead guilty.
60 Post contains links beeweel15 : Take a look at this article I got from AirportBusiness.com lets hope it is true. http://www.airportbusiness.com/publi...article.jsp?siteSection=1&
61 david_itl : Have you read what Olympus 593 (the other partner) have said (reply 41)? If the two parties can't agree on what the plan is, just imagine what their
62 beeweel15 : I want some one to tell me why is it good to keep a military plane in the sky which was used to bomb and kill in WW2 ok and a problem but to keep a mo
63 Aesma : Anglo-French rivalry still exists, and in fact London beat Paris for the Olympics, that can't help. However, I think a more critical point is this :
64 A342 : You have to blame Airbus for that, because they requested that the TC be surrendered, not EASA. Regarding the currency issues of crews and mechanics:
65 Post contains images beeweel15 : I agree on that. If those planes can fly so can Concorde.
66 BA174 : I can see a lot of protest from the British public if a French built AF livered concorde is allowed to fly over the olympics when we have our own flee
67 GDB : Oh yeah? There is enough info within this thread to answer that. Still what do I know, I was only in BA Concorde Engineering from 1997 to the very en
68 MadameConcorde : I just spoke with Mike Bannister over the phone. He said they were going to run the A/C engines today for at test? He did not know if it was one engin
69 Post contains links and images dairbus : I had the opportunity to visit the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space museum last week and walked through Alpha Delta. It is no longer on a barge but displayed a
70 Post contains images MadameConcorde : Thank you very much for your AD visit report. The other good news is that they are again docking the Cunard Queen Mary 2 one pier down from the Intre
71 Post contains images dairbus : You are quite welcome. Sadly, I never got the opportunity to fly on Concorde before it was retired but I was able to see (and hear!) it on occasions
72 BA174 : Are you blind so BOAA/C/E/F/DG are not well preserved then? BA were always the driving force behind the entire concorde fleet. They drove forward the
73 Aesma : Is this subject not about flying the thing ? Making it pretty is not exactly the same. And I'm not trying to praise AF, I don't even know if they're i
74 BA174 : No they don't own the french fleet anymore. BA do still own the British fleet.
75 Post contains links and images MadameConcorde : Great video clip of Concorde Reheats at night in the Accel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDhpdo9R5uk
76 AirframeAS : Notsomuch, at all. The parts are not there anymore. Either are scarce supply or they were all destroyed in the name of safety. You cannot self-fabric
77 Post contains images MadameConcorde : There is no question of a RTF. The plans for SD are for a possible roll out at LBG powered by her own engines.
78 AirframeAS : So you just want to have engines spooled up for nothing, except for wasting fuel by taxing around? Do you know how expensive that would be?? That's l
79 EGTESkyGod : Well to quote some replies from the Save Concorde Group forum on the subject, it appears not. In reply to a question I asked about what the goal real
80 spacecadet : I asked this question earlier and it went unanswered - assuming this Concorde was airworthy when it arrived, has not been altered, and has been maint
81 AirframeAS : Actually, the longer this project has gone on, the less likely that the Concorde will ever return to flight. Some people just don't get it. There is
82 EGTESkyGod : I am well aware of that... I "get it" perfectly... Search all my posts on the subject. Couple that with the fact I have actually got my hands dirty a
83 AirframeAS : I don't mean you. I meant people in general. Sorry. I was adding on to what you said. I do agree with you, however.
84 EGTESkyGod : No worries, was just clarifying in case you thought I was being an airhead!
85 A342 : Fine, but you still haven't explained how it was possible to get crews and mechanics current on aircraft that had been out of service for several dec
86 Post contains images AirframeAS : No one was implying that, at all. The EAA, Airbus, insurance companies and any governing body will not allow that to happen. Mark my words.
87 A342 : No, but a lot of requirements don't exist any more if you "just" operate Concorde as an experimental. I don't see how Airbus could prevent it. I don'
88 AirframeAS : I disagree. Too risky of a venture, even for Airbus. If something goes wrong up there and the Concorde comes down in doom while inflight, who is at r
89 tdscanuck : Every single argument above applies to every single warbird and relic flying today, and there are lots of them. The *only* real issue is the cost. An
90 beeweel15 : Well if that is the case all classical aircraft should be grounded right now. Connies, the Junkers, all the B25's, DC3's and every other classical al
91 rcair1 : It is interesting that the "it'll never fly again" folks here seem to imply/feel/believe that it will immediately explode upon takeoff. The Concorde w
92 trigged : A new-build Concorde done to "look" like the original but be entirely new on the inside would be a more economical means of a RTF. For those who say n
93 Post contains links and images Jacobin777 : Of interest - I took this photo when this beauty flew nonstop BOM-SFO on the "Worldliner Tour" in 2005....IIRC, there were a number of non-Boeing/FAA
94 GDB : Concorde existed somewhat in a bubble in service. Unique and not just in performance. Made all the more so by the tiny fleet and just two operators.
95 foxbravo03 : Nobody is suggesting it would "immediately explode on take-off". Not for one second. The accident of 25th July 2000,a terrible tragedy, seemed almost
96 Post contains images A342 : ? It's the insurance company that would write the policy. Same with the Vulcan. There's no way BAe would have supported that RTF project if they coul
97 SEPilot : I for one am willing to defer to GDB's vastly superior knowledge and experience on this subject. I do concede that if someone with enough money showed
98 GDB : Quite a lot, Vulcan might have been a delta with (earlier model) Olympus engines, that's where similarities ended. Vulcan was much simpler, many more
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 Likely To Fly Again Before The End Of Aug posted Mon Aug 20 2001 21:30:22 by Dragon-wings
Concorde To Fly Again! June 16, 2009 [EDIT: Hoax] posted Tue Mar 31 2009 14:16:11 by IAD787
Concorde To Fly Again! posted Thu Apr 1 2004 01:32:26 by Shamrock_747
Iraqi Airways To Fly Again-But Why In Two Years? posted Thu May 1 2003 09:13:22 by Airmale
Concorde To Fly Again Next Week posted Fri Aug 3 2001 22:58:30 by Airways45
Concorde To Fly Again! posted Mon Dec 18 2000 14:30:31 by Notarzt
Concorde To Fly Again! posted Sat Oct 28 2000 18:47:45 by Englandair
Saudi Arabian Airlines To Join SkyTeam In 2012 posted Mon Jan 10 2011 11:07:41 by AeroMexiBoi
The Airplane That Just Doesn't Want To Fly Again.. posted Wed Apr 21 2010 20:18:23 by boeing727
CX To Fly Again To AMS With 744! posted Mon Aug 11 2008 10:01:35 by Flying Belgian