Quoting SAS330GOT (Reply 49): What is the difference with having an old veteran like the Vampire or the Swedish J-29 "tunnan" flying?

Differences in size, complexity, insurance costs, operating costs, maintenance costs, crew costs, to mention just a few.

Sorry... Am just not seeing it, what you honestly believe that BA in their infinite wisdom is gonna give a (Complex Type) I believe is how the CAA describe her to a 3rd party? To do what?? If Les Brodie and others couldn't save her, just what do you think they are gonna do?
Petition for the fuel maybe? Sure there are Lancs, Spits, etc preserved and still flying... But this plane is an entirely different kettle of fish,she cannot fly on a "Permit to Fly" the CAA will not approve this, they are classed as a commercial aircraft are they not, and must be recertified as such, and lets not forget... Just who is gonna pay for this, a public campaign? Well why haven't we seen one 2 years on being launched that's a long time to wait....

I believe the Man from AB and BA likes to say NON!

[Edited 2006-01-25 16:51:39]

Quoting SAS330GOT (Reply 49): For you nay sayers! What is the difference with having an old veteran like the Vampire or the Swedish J-29 "tunnan" flying? It is the same thing. Concorde will fly again, never in full service. But it will be flying like many of the old veterans we can see in the sky today.

Concorde is a lot more complicated than your average Vampire. I would imagine there are a lot more Vampires around than Concordes. The support base is NOT there anymore for Concorde.

Quoting SAS330GOT (Reply 49): People are going to be Concorde specialists. There are still blueprints of every single part made for her. She will fly maybe for only short times, she will go super sonic again. But it is going to be under the ownership of a private person or a group. It have not been long enough for everyone to understand this.

First of all, they need to persuade BA (or AF) to sell a Concorde to them. Then they need to get the engineering support required, and the maintenance support from Airbus back. Then they need to convince the CAA she is Airworthy. Then you need to get some pilots current and valid on the type. (How do you propose that with no simulator up and running?) Then they need to educate a new generation of Concorde engineers etc because the few that are around, won't be around for ever. Then they need to re-commission the aircraft. Then there are tests to carry out. So far, you've spent about £700million (random figure, just an example, I have nothing to back up that exact figure).... there is no-one who thinks it is worth spending that amount.

Look, for those who think I am quashing everything you suggest, do a search through my posts in previous threads about Concorde. I asked the exact same questions you are, and I am now giving you the replies I got from other members, such as GDB, who was a BA Concorde engineer. He's yet to make an appearance today but I'm saving him telling you the same thing. Apart from that, these aircraft haven't been in the skies for over two years now. There's the everyday wear and tear, such as the damp conditions eating away at her to contend with.

No one would have more pleasure than me at seeing Concorde fly again, I've been incredibly sad and upset when I've been stood in front of G-BOAC at Manchester or G-BOAF at Filton when I realise that she will NEVER grace the skies again.


PS. If someone DOES come forward with this ridiculous sum of money, where were they in 2003?

[Edited 2006-01-25 17:01:20]

The whitest of white elephants is dead.

R.I.P.

Quoting Viv (Reply 53): The whitest of white elephants is dead.

I hate the description "White Elephant". I, personally feel that is wrong, but hey...

Quoting Viv (Reply 53): R.I.P.

She should indeed Rest In Peace. Preferably indoors as well.

Oh brother!!...and comments are made about other topics brought up on this forum - how about launching another Saturn V rocket for those who never experienced it...

Quoting SAS330GOT (Reply 49): What is the difference with having an old veteran like the Vampire or the Swedish J-29 "tunnan" flying?

About the same difference between the Space Shuttle and a Robin DR400 ...

Like most threads of this nature, the opinions expressed get wilder and more heated the longer it goes on. I will make a really wild prediction - you are mire likely to see the Titanic brought up from the bottom of the Atlantic and put back together, than to see Concorde fly again.

Quoting A380X4TRENT900 (Reply 44): Oh come on give me a break,you OLD people!

The designers and builders of Concorde are now OLD people, so be careful what you say.

Quote: Sound is one of the most amazing things were gifted with!

Silly me. I thought it was hearing that we were gifted with.

Quote: Nothing beats the sound of power/engineering quality of an engine that stir's the emotions and sends a shiver down your spine!

Noise is an indicator of inefficiency. A perfect engine would be silent.

[quoteTHAT is why the internal combustion engine is still used by the 99% of car manufacture's - because of the amazing noise it makes under full throttle pressure.[/quote]
There is a very tiny bit of truth there. The organizers of the Indianapolis 500 race banned the gas turbine engine because it was too quiet.

Quote: WE WERE GIVEN EARS FOR A REASON - GUYS!

True. Enjoy it while you can. Todays youth will be deaf long before they reach my age, caused by blasting their eardrums with MP3 players and the like.

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 56): Quoting SAS330GOT (Reply 49): What is the difference with having an old veteran like the Vampire or the Swedish J-29 "tunnan" flying? About the same difference between the Space Shuttle and a Robin DR400 ...

  

Or about a Cajillion pounds!

Quoting Superhub (Reply 3):

By the way, Superhub, welcome to Airliners.net!

  

if the concord flies again that would be great to fly faster than the speed of sound

Quoting Civ4b2fan (Reply 60): the concord

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 21): Quoting Superhub (Reply 13): The Concorde's Quoting Superhub (Reply 3): the Concorde Please, No "the"!! Just Concorde!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHH!!!!!! And there's an "e"!!!!!! Concorde!

The Concorde was not a good plane. It was speed trumps everything: fuel efficiency, capacity, range, noise, sonic boom, and ruggedness. It isn't a great achievement to make a vehicle fast if you trump all those other considerations that an airliner needs. It is just an ego trip. An aircraft is only special if it is good in most or all of those departments. The Concorde was only good in one. That is not an engineering achievement. That is the definition of an engineering failure.

To all the people that keep saying "Concorde is noisy", "too loud", "change engines to quieter engines"....

Who cares? I'd much rather hear(and probably most other people here) an old loud turbojet than any new bypass turbofan. Has everyone become a whiner when it comes to plane noise? New planes are so quiet you can't even notice them anymore. All these quiet pussy high bypass wing-underslung turbofans are boring....I'd rather live when 707s, Tu-104s, Trudents and all those planes still flew around. Would be much more exciting.

Quoting Hmmmm... (Reply 62): The Concorde was not a good plane. It was speed trumps everything: fuel efficiency, capacity, range, noise, sonic boom, and ruggedness. It isn't a great achievement to make a vehicle fast if you trump all those other considerations that an airliner needs. It is just an ego trip. An aircraft is only special if it is good in most or all of those departments. The Concorde was only good in one. That is not an engineering achievement. That is the definition of an engineering failure.

Oh, bulldust. Suggested deletion.

At Mach 2, the Olympus 593 was the most fuel efficient engine in civil aviation. At slower speeds, she wasnt. At the time she was built, she was (and still is) a technical marvel. Consider this.... If more were sold, then the support base would be there to develop her. Hence the Concorde 'B' model mentioned earlier.

Concorde used not much more fuel going between LHR and JFK than a 747, it just used it a lot faster as it travelled that bit faster.

(PS, Not even goin to rise to the constant use of "The" before Concorde in your post)

It's not about personal preferance. It's about noise regulations. What good is an airliner if it can't meet noise regulations? When people say it is too noisy, that is what they mean.

Quoting Hmmmm... (Reply 65): It's not about personal preferance. It's about noise regulations. What good is an airliner if it can't meet noise regulations? When people say it is too noisy, that is what they mean.

At first, media hyped up the sonic boom. People thought they would hear the sonic boom around the airport she was taking off or landing at, not realising the sonic boom only happens if you're supersonic. Thats where the "Ban the Bang" billboards etc came from. When noise tests were done for the first Concorde flights into and out of JFK, she wasn't breaking any regulations whatsoever, hence some Americans actually changing their mind about Concorde and falling in love with her too.

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 63): Has everyone become a whiner when it comes to plane noise?

Reminds me of noise tests residents in Plymouth were doing in a bid to shut the flying school down. The results had to be scrapped because there was more noise from the Tavistock Road.

The airport has been there longer than they have, so Yes, people have just become whining whingy little moaners.

And for all of you complaining about Concorde's noise, she's been silent for over two years now. She won't be making any more noise, so why moan about it?!

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 46): Completely wrong. Actually, even before the accident in 2000 Branson contacted AF to rent 1 or 2 Concorde. They he proposed AF to buy some of them.

I thought it was self evident that I was talking about the 2003 Richard Branson publicity stunt and the new 2006 Lambit Opik publicity stunt. This is evidently not the case as Branson did not, repeat NOT, make any offer in 2003 for the AF aircraft that, at the time of his 'offer' to BA, were already grounded. So I will be more specific:

If Richard Branson was so serious about buying Concorde from BA in 2003 for Virgin Atlantic to operate why did he offer such a paltry sum to BA (who kept the aircraft in the air until the last moment) when he knew they would never hand their most valuable customers to him on a plate? Why instead did he not make the same offer to Air France who shut Concorde operations down literally within days of its demise being jointly announced by Airbus, AF and BA and would have lost minimal traffic to a Virgin-Atlantic LHR-JFK operation?

Hope that helps you understand what I amsaying. If it does please share your views as to the answer to my two questions above with the rest of us.

I personally do not know the states of any concorde, i.e if there are any that were dissassembled and re-assembled or if there is one that flew in and was parked up at a museum. If that was the case and the proper storage/preservation cycles had been carried out and the aircraft was servicable when it arrived and no damage has occured then in my view it would be a case of carrying out structural inspections (yes this would be a lenghthy process requiring licensed engineers), de-preservation cycles, required rigging checks, then any required run-up and flight tests. I believe this "save concorde group" have pilots/engineers among them. I see no reason why it couldn't fly the same as a spitfire/B-17 etc, as I'm sure no manaufacturer supports them any longer and it obviously will NEVER enter commercial service again.

The main thing here is money, £14m I dont know, and before I get my a$$ chewed In all honesty I dont think it's going to happen, but we can all dream that one day she will return to the sky !!.

Regards NST

Quoting NORTHSEATIGER (Reply 69): I believe this "save concorde group" have pilots/engineers among them. I see no reason why it couldn't fly the same as a spitfire/B-17 etc, as I'm sure no manaufacturer supports them any longer

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 52): Quoting SAS330GOT (Reply 49): People are going to be Concorde specialists. There are still blueprints of every single part made for her. She will fly maybe for only short times, she will go super sonic again. But it is going to be under the ownership of a private person or a group. It have not been long enough for everyone to understand this. First of all, they need to persuade BA (or AF) to sell a Concorde to them. Then they need to get the engineering support required, and the maintenance support from Airbus back. Then they need to convince the CAA she is Airworthy. Then you need to get some pilots current and valid on the type. (How do you propose that with no simulator up and running?) Then they need to educate a new generation of Concorde engineers etc because the few that are around, won't be around for ever. Then they need to re-commission the aircraft. Then there are tests to carry out. So far, you've spent about £700million (random figure, just an example, I have nothing to back up that exact figure).... there is no-one who thinks it is worth spending that amount. Look, for those who think I am quashing everything you suggest, do a search through my posts in previous threads about Concorde. I asked the exact same questions you are, and I am now giving you the replies I got from other members, such as GDB, who was a BA Concorde engineer. He's yet to make an appearance today but I'm saving him telling you the same thing. Apart from that, these aircraft haven't been in the skies for over two years now. There's the everyday wear and tear, such as the damp conditions eating away at her to contend with.

Hope that answers that question.

As for the Concorde's museum locations...

All 20 Concorde Locations:

G-BSST Yeovilton, Somerset, UK
G-AXDN IWM Duxford, UK
G-BBDG Brooklands Museum, Surrey, UK (Restoration project)

G-BOAA East Fortune, Edinburgh, UK
G-BOAB London Heathrow, UK
G-BOAC Manchester Airport, UK
G-BOAD USS Intrepid, New York, USA (Flew to JFK)
G-BOAE Grantley Adams Intl, Barbados
G-BOAF Filton, Bristol, UK (Last Concorde flight November 26th 2003)
G-BOAG Boeing Museum of Flight, Seattle, USA

F-WTSS Paris Le Bourget, France
F-WTSA Paris, Orly, France
F-WTSB Toulouse, France

F-BTSC (Crashed 25th July 2000) Remains at Paris Le Bourget, France
F-BVFA Smithsonian Museum, Washington Dulles, USA
F-BVFB Auto & Technik Museum, Sinsheim, Germany (Flew to Baden-Baden)
F-BVFC Toulouse, France
F-BVFD Scrapped 1994, sections at Paris Le Bourget.
F-BTSD Paris Le Bourget
F-BVFF Paris Charles de Gaulle

Aircraft in bold flew to their museums, extra details in brackets

See www.concordesst.com for all things Concorde.

There are those that believe Concorde should fly again, and there are clearly those that do not. I am not in favor of refitting the aircraft again for flight; BA has made it clear (and they own their aircraft), that the aircraft are permanently retired.

Now, if someone wants to take up the notion of taking Concorde's design, updating it, refitting engines that are more economical to operate and extend its range (and this must be a primary consideration), then by all means, if someone wants to come up with the $3-5B dollars (about 2B sterling), then by all means yes. Premium class only subsonic flights have proven to be quite popular. If someone can make a longer range supersonic aircraft with the same capacity; then there may be something to discuss in real terms.

However, to restore the an original aircraft to flight condition, maintain it, keep pilots current on it (when there are no more simulators...they have been dismantled), this is going to cost far more than this MP is thinking and while it may be a matter of British pride at stake; British practicality should prevail here. It just doesn't make sense.

Here in Seattle, we are very proud to host and care for G-BOAG, which flew the last commercial flight. It is my understanding that the MOF will eventually AG will be put under cover, to prevent deterioration of the aircraft. This will happen with the aircraft outside, especially in our damp climate (which is not unlike England). Concorde belongs to the ages now; let her rest in peace.

baw716.

Quoting Sinlock (Reply 42): on an Aviation Internet Massage Board

I want the URL to the board where you can get a MASSAGE. Are the massages expensive???? LOL

Seriously, about twenty years I was walking somewhere in London when I heard a HUGE noise in the air. I turned around and saw a Concorde on final approach to (I guess) Heathrow. It was amazing, my only live sight of a Concorde flying.

FLY2LIM

So your trying to tell me B-17's and spitfires are looked after by WW2 vet's ?

Quoting FLY2LIM (Reply 72): Seriously, about twenty years I was walking somewhere in London when I heard a HUGE noise in the air. I turned around and saw a Concorde on final approach to (I guess) Heathrow. It was amazing, my only live sight of a Concorde flying.

With that experience can you imagine what it was like near the end of a runway at LHR or JFK when Concorde started its roll to take off?

While the aerodynamic shape of Concorde was great for cruising at Mach 2 at 60,000 feet it was far from ideal to get it off the ground. The solution was simple - POWER. The only similar experience I have ever head was watching the RAF aerobatic team at the Farnborough Air Show in the mid to late 60s when they flew the English Electric 'Black Diamond' Lightnings. Nine Lightning fighters with reheat on in a near vertical climb away from almost zero feet made the ground shake and put even Concorde into the shade.

It would be nice if they re-manufacture the Concorde with less thirsty engines and more seats. If they get the blueprint from the current Concorde and do some widening modifications to it making it a 3-3 seating instead of 2-2. The turbojets replace by turbofans which consumes less fuel (probably with afterburners to make it go faster).   

More seats and less fuel.

But who is going to buy a supersonic jet when the oil is around $70 USD a barrel?

Quoting Hmmmm... (Reply 62): The Concorde was not a good plane. It was speed trumps everything: fuel efficiency, capacity, range, noise, sonic boom, and ruggedness. It isn't a great achievement to make a vehicle fast if you trump all those other considerations that an airliner needs. It is just an ego trip. An aircraft is only special if it is good in most or all of those departments. The Concorde was only good in one. That is not an engineering achievement. That is the definition of an engineering failure.

maybe a few Arab elites would like to get their hands on a personal concorde to travel to their various destinations in about 1/2 the time....

they probably couldn't fly at supersonic speeds over certain parts of countries during the flight, but they would still get to their location faster... 

Firstly, Temptress, you heard of the 2003 'Concorde Alliance' effort by top Conc pilot and all round good bloke, Les Brodie tried, as well?
Not many did you know!
Sadly, it wasn't to be, since we have mentioned BS Branson, was he offered a role in the Alliance? If so, why did he not put his money where his mouth is?

Save-Concorde Group, well I've had the dubious pleasure of running into them a few times.
Oh dear.....they've not a clue, none, for a start, add at least a zero to that £14M figure.
They turn nasty too, when someone who was actually experienced on the type presents a reality check.
BA have told them several times, including recently, that it is not going to happen.

For reference, £14M was also about the cost of three Concorde 'Inter Checks'.
That's a C check to the rest of the world.
When it was in revenue service.
When it had the complete, highly experienced, workforce and facilities, including the now scrapped heavy maintenance dock in place.
When the full support network from industry was in place, had been for over two decades too, like most BA Concorde staff.

BA's still owned Concorde fleet, were decommissioned for long term storage /display issues.
Every day they are in this state, the difficultly and cost of reversing this, increases.
(The Duxford one hasn't flown for more than a quarter of a century! And BA were not adverse to robbing the odd part off it).

Back to the beard, note he made much less of a play for AF aircraft in 2003, you'd have thought with their lower hours and cycles he's prefer them.
Oh wait, less of a stick to beat BA with, to convince Richard and Judy viewers BA are the bad guys.

No C of A, no support network, most parts auctioned off or being used for 202's rebuild (this one was cut in several pieces for transport from Filton to Brooklands-so don't even think about it!)
Simulators decommissioned, the list goes on.

Had 'Concorde Alliance' been a go-er I'd have been proud to have been a small part of it.
It wasn't, neither was BA's investigation of a 'Heritage' aircraft.
(Costing almost as much as a full fleet to run, but only for the summer airshow circuit remember, not revenue service, so who would be paying?)

Not that I personally cared to see a denuded, subsonic only Concorde doing the airshow circuit, for me, it was an operational supersonic airliner, or not at all.

Ignore muppets like SCG, ignore an MP who has recently managed to try and support a hopeless piss head to retain his party leadership.
Lemit Opik MP, a genuine fan of the aircraft true, does not know the issues, only what Save-Concorde told him, which is laughable nonsense.
Lembit to stick to warning about asteroids, being a replacement on chat shows for now his ex leader.

We knew in 2003 that Concordes retirement would be the end, full stop.
It was always going to be that way.
Don't bash BA (who under Lord King in 1982-4, took the threat of the ending of government support, government taking 80% of any profits for their trouble, by taking on the support burden, AF would have re-jigged their support costs too).

Had BA not done this, taken this risk, Concorde would have been in museums 15-20 years ago.
Never would have survived BA going private, which soon enough would have made AF's operation un-viable too, not with having to take on the whole support burden, which BA itself faced in 2003.

BA in particular made it's operation highly profitable.
It would remain so until 2000.

If you'd asked me before then, Concordes likely retirement date, I'd have said 'when costs consistently exceed revenue'.
We reckoned then that this could likely occur in the 2005-7 timeframe, assuming the general level of profits in the late 1990's, but still, as aircraft age, maint costs go up, so our rough 2005-07 estimate was based on that.

You can technically fix issues from an accident (BA aggressively pushed and led the way with this in 2000/2001 too).
What you cannot do is technically fix your main market after an event like Sept 11.
While support costs soared at the same time.

BA on average, ran 30-40 LHR-LHR charters per year, until 1999, since the early 80's, allowing many to go supersonic at much less cost.
Not counting all the other cheaper charters we did too.

But at best, charters only made up 9% of BA Concorde revenue, rather more for AF I think, who had a smaller scheduled operation, with no extra 'nice little earners' like BA's scheduled, seasonal BGI operation.
And most of the charter revenue were from ones like IMF charters, 'Round The World' charters etc.

I still really miss it.
Though I feel sorry for those who feel robbed of a chance to fly on it, even see it, well I was too young to go see a Saturn V launch.
Life's like that.

I should maybe add, since VV701 reminded me, that I also wished I could have seen those RAF display teams (prior to the Red Arrows), made up of an entire Lightning squadron.
(Just one of those aircraft was impressive on it's own).
But I was not even born then!

i'd love to see the concorde fly again! what a legend it is!!

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 30): Quoting Lehpron (Reply 27): Quit acting as if I honestly thought their endeavor was worth it. Listen, there's no need to be quite so defensive. My post wasn't in any way aimed at you personally.

Neither were mine, however, some people seem to be quite sensitive to the word 'geek' to the point where the only thing they can think of is do what they think I did right back at me. They do not bother asking, they think they know better.

Quoting GEEZ (Reply 38): Having not seen Concorde, or indeed hearing it, I dont think you are in a position to criticize it.

LMAO. Tell me something; I've done research papers about that plane in JHS, HS and college; I've even calculated its sonic boom signature in 3D for a project 2 years ago; how on Earth does seeing/hearing Concorde make any difference? While the experience will add to what I know, it will be negligible. Personally, I find it audacious that you can know what I know of the plane just because I have yet to see/hear it! You are so ignorant.

Quoting Sinlock (Reply 42): Were Geeks??? Dude you have over 5600 posts on an Aviation Internet Massage Board!!! I think it's safe to call anyone that has a membership here a Geek to one extent on another. Not to mention the fact that in your earlier days here you'd post images of the aircraft you designed in Microsoft Paint.

Either 1) you have no clue what I meant but choose to react to the word 'geek' or 2) you are ignoring my points as you dont think you need to read them or 3) you'll prove me both right and wrong eventually. Would fanatic be more appropriate? I cannot stare at aircraft, it is boring to me; I'm an engineer and it will be my job to make them better. It is apparent that the loud minority here do not know how (or want) to be objective. Could you ever criticize something you like as if you didn't? Do you not you see that as a weakness?

Quoting A380X4TRENT900 (Reply 44): THAT is why the internal combustion engine is still used by the 99% of car manufacture's - because of the amazing noise it makes under full throttle pressure.

The IC engine is used because, for its uses, it has the best efficiency. People buy cars for their hauling capacity and bigger ones because they feel safe. The crowd you refer to that likes the noise is such a minority but because you feel so strongly, you believe your opinion speaks for everyone. Typical patriot.

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 45): Hear hear. Lephron, you cannot talk about what you do not know!!

The loud minorities here do not know what I talk about, hence make assumptions as if they know and they will never question themselves.

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 63): Who cares? I'd much rather hear(and probably most other people here) an old loud turbojet than any new bypass turbofan

Quoting Olympus69 (Reply 57): Quote: Nothing beats the sound of power/engineering quality of an engine that stir's the emotions and sends a shiver down your spine! Noise is an indicator of inefficiency. A perfect engine would be silent.

Thank you, I wish these fanatics could see this and no be so selfish. It's an engineering fact. Noise, heat and friction are forms of wasted energy, it takes a lot of work to reduce them.

Quoting Hmmmm... (Reply 62): It was speed trumps everything: fuel efficiency, capacity, range, noise, sonic boom, and ruggedness. It isn't a great achievement to make a vehicle fast if you trump all those other considerations that an airliner needs. It is just an ego trip. An aircraft is only special if it is good in most or all of those departments. The Concorde was only good in one. That is not an engineering achievement. That is the definition of an engineering failure.

Watch it dude, I'd put Concorde as #3 for greatest human-built machines. You are making a hindsight argument, shall we judge how inefficient the Model T was? First of all that plane was not built to be what modern aircraft are nowadays. It was built because they could, that was the atmosphere back then. Planes like the SR-71/A-12 aircraft would not have been built if money mattered so much. However, you are right, it was an ego trip, a political one. Technically however, it has yet to repeated, hence it is a feat. Besides, issues with the sonic boom were not apparent as they are now, Concorde's designers did not think it would be a big deal. IMO, that was their first mistake, but then I am making a hindsight argument as well.

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 66): ...hence some Americans actually changing their mind about Concorde and falling in love with her too.

I'm sorry, who is some? If enough people 'love' the plane, why isn't there a successor? Because a vast majority still believe in the hype and have the ridiculous perception that "if it hasn’t been done, it probably doesn't work" On top of that, as long they believe an option is out of reach, they are not going to ask for it; companies will not invest in stuff customers do not want: hence no market! That is why there is no successor. Change the customer's belief in a SST's, if they see it as an option they can have, they will take it.

Nevertheless, supposedly I do not know what I'm talking about because I have yet to see or hear it...as if any of you have thought about this... This stuff is your hobby, this stuff is my life. If anything, I'm more of a geek than any of you.

Quoting BAW716 (Reply 71): Premium class only subsonic flights have proven to be quite popular.

Proven? Nobody has a choice! It's called inadvertent market control. Passengers do not care how they get from here to there, as long as they do. Why do you think the oil industry is raking in profits? Because people do not have a choice, all other alternatives have drawbacks that are inconvenient to their lifestyles at the moment.

I do not know how many of you know how to respect people's time or their choices (or lack there of). I aim to give people choices while you folks just give me a hard time.

Concordski was bought by NASA, long after it was put away.

Yes she is a lot more complicated. But as we all on this site will contest to, she is something special.

In terms of money, yes it would be a scary amount of money. But it is crazy how much money that can be produced for something close to the hearth.

The amount of people you would have to fly, maintain, could be = to 1. It would be very difficult and would not go through the certification but the Concorde will NEVER fly in serverice. But it will be a hobby.

BA and AF will sell eventually. I dont think it will be by 2009 but I think because of the heritage and the feelings embedded in her she will be flying again. She is going to fly again. And I will eat this post if she does not. But I think in 20 or 30 years maybe more we will have a Concorde flying.

Those are my 2 cents.
But trust me she will be flying....

Quoting SAS330GOT (Reply 81): Concordski was bought by NASA, long after it was put away.

It wasnt bought, she was leased and a LOT of money was spent bringing her up to flight capability again, including new engines. The total cost for getting one TU-144 flying was $350million and 6 years of work.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 82): he was leased and a LOT of money was spent bringing her up to flight capability again, including new engines. The total cost for getting one TU-144 flying was $350million and 6 years of work.

But did she fly?

Yes I remember seeing the video of this.

I am not saying that anyone is going to take their magic stick and swirl it around and Concorde is going to roam the skies. It is going to take a lot of money.

Tu-144 is an excellet example of showing that is there incentive and funds then it is going to happened.

Quoting SAS330GOT (Reply 83): But did she fly?

Yes, but is $350million worth it for one single purpose - to show off at the world olympics? As a UK taxpayer, hell no.

Money can accomplish anything. With enough they can build a new airframe and engines, no need to worry about the support chain there, just use the existing ones for Airbus and the military. But it isnt going to happen.


Put an aircraft on static display outside the opening ceremonies, thats enough for me.

e

Quoting SAS330GOT (Reply 81): BA and AF will sell eventually. I dont think it will be by 2009 but I think because of the heritage and the feelings embedded in her she will be flying again. She is going to fly again. And I will eat this post if she does not. But I think in 20 or 30 years maybe more we will have a Concorde flying.

And how do you come to this conclusion?
If the very lifeblood of people that flew her, maintained her, certified and serviced her could not prevent her retirement, remembering that this was a joint French/British airframe, do you really think those in power will intervene and say "ok we will spend X amount and put her in the air for the Fans"
Its gonna take something a wee bit more tangible than "We want to see a Concorde fly again"
She will never be recertifiable, for every day that goes by, this becomes not even a option, do you honestly believe BA or AB would be willing to put a plane back in the air with no infrastruture for maintaining that airframe anymore. Its gone.. "god forbid" one plummeting into a airshow crowd marvelling at it....wouldnt be so great then would it....
You saw the post from GBD, we should be grateful we kept them for as long as we did. The future of SST is not over, but it is for Concorde, let her take a well deserved rest....gone but not forgotten....

[Edited 2006-01-25 22:57:54]

TU 144 was a research vehicle for NASA
NASA is goverment funded is it not,
She provided NASA with some interesting data but was quickly put out to pasture, never with any intention of showing the plane on a airshow circuit so why draw a comparison....youre dealing with institutions and goverment...not heritage or historical relevance....It was a means to an end.. research

[Edited 2006-01-25 22:53:25]

I think you do not see my argument!, to re create it.
1. She will fly because someone or a bunch of people want her to.
2. This will not happen when she is under BA or AF ownership.
3. As stated earlier she is an icon and will be in museum's, but because she was an icon when she flew and is still an icon one will be made airworthy and one will fly.
4. I am talking about one single airplane. Not the whole feet.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 84):

I do not think that this will happen, she will fly but I dont know when and I certainly do not think for the London Olympics, as you say, that would be a waste of money. She will fly because of the same reason that you can see an old car on the street. Passion and love of what she is.

Quoting Temptress (Reply 85): "ok we will spend X amount and put her in the air for the Fans"

I dont see where this comes from. The fans would be the once spending x amount of money for them to be able to see it. Right?

Quoting Temptress (Reply 85): "god forbid" one plummeting into a airshow crowd marvelling at it....wouldnt be so great then would it....

Any lose of life is unexcaptable. That is also why there are security measures at airshows. I still think it is the same, and the same risk as having a Lancaster at a airshow. This old WW2 bomber might be a more simple construction, but if you look at it the safety and maintenance is kept at top.

Quoting Temptress (Reply 85): She will never be recertifiable, for every day that goes by, this becomes not even a option, do you honestly believe BA or AB would be willing to put a plane back in the air with no infrastruture for maintaining that airframe anymore

I am not talking about AF BA, or AB, they are not a part of my argument they have nothing to do with the recertification of Concorde. It will be done by a person, or people who love her and have the capital to create the necassary parts for her maintnece. She is not going to fly for service. She is going to fly for passion of the people that love her to the extent that they are willing to put the money into the manufacture, training, and recertification of her.

Quoting SAS330GOT (Reply 87): 2. This will not happen when she is under BA or AF ownership.

Quoting SAS330GOT (Reply 87): I am not talking about AF BA, or AB, they are not a part of my argument they have nothing to do with the recertification of Concorde.

The thing is, somebody would have to buy it from BA or AF and then Airbus is the design authority for Concorde, so you can't just say "we'll do it without you" as they own the design for it now.
And IIRC the engine inlet digital control is still secret, as that was one of the first things removed when I was allowed to 'have a nosey' in 216 whilst it was being decomissioned in Filton.

[Edited 2006-01-25 23:28:19]

Quoting Temptress (Reply 86):

Yes, but the TU-144 is not Concorde. I believe that if there was the same love in numbers of people as there is for Concorde their would be one TU-144 flying today.

I agree that there are some planes that should stay on the ground and never fly. But Concorde is not one of them, she will live on in our memories and because of this she will fly again.

You will not be able to change my mind on this. I stand firmly that Concorde will fly again.

I am interested though, on why would she not be flying again in your eyes, when there are "private" Lancaster, DC-3's, B-17's and other WW2 and veteran planes that are flying today?
I just dont see the difference. Veteran as veteran, one might be harder to maintain but if would be possible with a very large amount of money.

The argument of "it will cost to much!" can be thrown out of the window, as this will not be a question for the person who takes on this task.

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 88): The thing is, somebody would have to buy it from BA or AF and then Airbus is the design authority for Concorde, so you can't just say "we'll do it without you" as they own the design for it now. And IIRC the engine digital control is still secret, as that was one of the first things removed when I was allowed to 'have a nosey' in 216 whilst it was being decomissioned in Filton.

did not know this, thank you and that put a different light on the situation, but I still think it will be done in someway somehow in a distant future.
thank you.

Quoting SAS330GOT (Reply 87): am not talking about AF BA, or AB, they are not a part of my argument they have nothing to do with the recertification of Concorde

Im afraid you are wrong on that score AF and BA own the respective airframes you are talking about.
How would they not be involved? especially if they do not give up ownership?
They are not for sale...why would they be?
So how? How will they recertify a airframe they do not own?
How can they maintain and work on a airframe that they do not own?
How infact can they do anything when they dont retain ownership of any Concorde.

I am debating whether this thread should jsut be archived. GDB is amongst one of the most informed individuals on the topic so take his word.


The rest of the comments here are speculation and hopeladen, I am sad to say. Please realize that whatever discussions you persue, its all speculation.

mirrodie

Quoting Temptress (Reply 91): Im afraid you are wrong on that score AF and BA own the respective airframes you are talking about. How would they not be involved? especially if they do not give up ownership? They are not for sale...why would they be? So how? How will they recertify a airframe they do not own? How can they maintain and work on a airframe that they do not own? How infact can they do anything when they dont retain ownership of any Concorde.

They are not for sale now. But do you think they will never go for sale? I think the big difference between are arguments is that I look into a future and think this could happen in this way, and you look into it and say it will stay as today (not completely like that, but somewhat). One is going to be sold somehow, I do not know when, or where but it is going to happened, I cannot see into the future SO I cannot tell you when it will be or how it will happen, only that I believe it will happen because of the iconic ways. In the year 2100 do you not think that some one might have bought a Concorde or a SR-71 or maybe the Valkyrie and is flying it on a sunny Sunday afternoon? I sure hope so, only because I know what I feel when I see a plane from the past a spitfire, a Lancaster any historic plane and I feel something inside that I cannot describe but it is something special.
Everytime I saw Concorde, and the one time I flew on her I was a very happy kid. To me seeing her at a museum is not good enough. I want to see her move fly do what she was designed to do. If I ever will get in a position where I can offer enough money that BA or AF will sell one and go through all that work and love I will do it. She is something special to me and therefore I am not wrong, I might be looking at possibilities but as it is about an opinion I cannot be wrong, right?

I applaud your love of the aircraft, I too share the same admiration for it.
I think we have to be realistic.... but we are all entitled to an opinion...
I think that as has been pointed out by GDB, is the way unfortunate as it may be, is the way it is... and has been pointed out we can only speculate. It wont get us to where we want to go.

Quoting Temptress (Reply 94):

I agree in someways.
And on that note I will leave this discussion. It was nice argue with you "Temptress", and everyone else.
I think now we can archive this thread.

Thanks to all.
SAS330GOT

[Edited 2006-01-25 23:49:20]

Wow, this thread is a lot more heated than I thought it would be!

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 21): Please, No "the"!! Just Concorde!

Thanks for the correction.

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 59): By the way, Superhub, welcome to Airliners.net!

Thanks, I certainly enjoy the Airliners.net experience

GDB

Perhaps you could give us a ballpark estimate of the cost of getting 1 Concorde back in the air, (assuming that it was flyable in 2003).

I think that this would bring this thread back to the unpleasant reality.

This is a non starter.

The Tu-144D that was converted into the Tu-144LL and flown by NASA on research flights had been in flyable storage during the period between its last research flight with Tupolev in the 80s and the NASA flights during the late 90s. It had not been sitting outside exposed to the elements or inside a museum.

What a thread!! Its doubled in size since I left last night!

Quoting SAS330GOT (Reply 95):

Thank you for your contribution, but I am afraid to tell you that you are wrong. Concorde has landed for the last time. She will not fly again. Any doubts? Read the GDB post(s).

This certainly was a heated debate, but the outcome was always going to be that Concorde has gone, nothing will change that, as much as that upsets me.

Personally, I am looking forward to seeing Concorde again, I am going up to see G-BOAC at MAN in about 3 weeks, and I may have a volunteering job on G-BOAF at Filton so the way I see it, Concorde will always live on, even though she will be on the ground.