cloudboy
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:14 am

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 143):
It has been said several times in this thread, I'll say it this time. READ IT.

BA looked, in October 2003, at keeping one or two Concordes airworthy in a heritage role. They found the cost to be too prohibitive. Now, in a heritage role, it would appear at airshows, and at the same time, would be an advertising board. Wait a minute..... advertising board! This is what you are suggesting now! So, it's already been proven that the cost was too prohibitive back in 2003, when the full maintenance parts and people were around.... yet you're suggesting thats what happens now?

An advertising board? Is that all you think of for advertising? I hope they considered more than that. Again, none of you are willing to try to listen to new ideas. That's why

Quoting Buckieboy (Reply 149):
reply 139 has to be one of the most funniest or saddest things I have ever read in all my life.

- because you are so confirmed on your own preconceived ideas that you can't even begin to accept any different ideas from other people. That's what is sad.

Quoting GDB (Reply 147):

So from LHR-LHR (or CDG-CDG) 'Round The Bays', to trips in conjunction with cruise liners, to supporting IMF meetings, to the Round The Worlds, a vast range of charters was carried out.
Remember that 9% of revenue figure, effectively, many of these charters were advertising.
(BA did not make money of the basic-and most numerous by far charters, the basic 'Round The Bay's, but they were easy to do, and were, yes, good advertising).

Another case of being so wrapped up in your own preconceived ideas that you fail to see the differences. BA operated an airliner with 100 seats. Essentially 100 coach seats. They operated tourist charters. You have to break these ideas first. You don't have to have 100 seats in it. you can outfit with 25 seats. You can put in a corporate jet style interior. BA found that at the beginning they earned more from the airline style, as they could fill up on enough decently paying fares. But you can also make money by charging astronomical sums to only a few passengers. You probably won't get enough for flying on demand only, but you certainly could find a number of passenger who would leave at five in teh morning from New York to get to a meeting in London at 1:30, and then fly home in time for a late supper. And that is only if you operated as a normal flight between the two cities.

Quoting GDB (Reply 147):
Sometimes to open a new (non Concorde) route-we used 3 when we launched the improved domestic 'Super Shuttle' in 1983 for example, or do a flypast (often with the Red Arrows), for national events, now these made no direct money, but as you say, 'advertising space'.

Well, at least you are starting to realize there is impact value. But again, all you are thinking of is a flying billboard. It's more than a flying billboard, though. It's a flying showroom, a flying theater, a flying tour bus, and a flying symbol. It has draw power to bring people to it, and that's the value. It's not just getting people to read your ad. It's a brand experience.

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 146):
The last thing they want to do is have something out there that outruns what their enemies fly? I really really hope you explain this comment. It makes no sense whatsoever - Concorde for its entire career has been able to outrun many fighters, all tankers, ships, tanks and what have you - but you think this is an issue now?!?

Um, I really need to explain this? Do you think a paranoid US would like to see some rich Middle Eastern Sheik start playing around with a supersonic aircraft? If a 767 can cause that much destruction, imagine what a supersonic aircraft could do. It wouldn't be that hard to outfit it to carry some kind of payload, and certainly a lot harder to catch than a normal jetliner, when it outruns a large number of fighter planes and gives some missiles a run for their money. Do I think it is a worse threat now than before? No. But I think the panic level has certainly grown.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5330
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:57 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 147):
I think that from the mid 1980's, AF did more Round The Worlds than BA did.



Quoting GDB (Reply 147):
The ultimate charters, were the 'Round The World' ones, in 1999, before all the 'events', BA had already said that the one they did in October 1999, would be the last.

We already talked about this once if I remember well.
AF did actually much more "Special" flights with Concorde including "World Tours" (up to 3 x Year).
The last one was in February 2000.
I was supposed to do the next one in September/October 2000 and a Third one was scheduled for December 2000.
As you mentionned, AF had 6 aircraft available at that time for only 1 x Daily scheduled CDG-JFK-CDG.
Most benefits from Concorde operations were coming from the "Special" Events for AF.
 
User avatar
EGTESkyGod
Posts: 1524
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:32 pm

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 150):
Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 143):
It has been said several times in this thread, I'll say it this time. READ IT.

BA looked, in October 2003, at keeping one or two Concordes airworthy in a heritage role. They found the cost to be too prohibitive. Now, in a heritage role, it would appear at airshows, and at the same time, would be an advertising board. Wait a minute..... advertising board! This is what you are suggesting now! So, it's already been proven that the cost was too prohibitive back in 2003, when the full maintenance parts and people were around.... yet you're suggesting thats what happens now?


An advertising board? Is that all you think of for advertising? I hope they considered more than that.

I used your own idea! A flying advert. Still not gonna recover the costs, is it? BA will still lose money, won't they? You said yourself.... UNACCEPTABLE.

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 150):
You don't have to have 100 seats in it. you can outfit with 25 seats. You can put in a corporate jet style interior.

Put as many seats as you like in, mate. Fact remains that if it did somehow return to flight on a permit to fly, regulations state that no passengers may be carried. Where does your income come from then?

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 150):
But you can also make money by charging astronomical sums to only a few passengers. You probably won't get enough for flying on demand only, but you certainly could find a number of passenger who would leave at five in teh morning from New York to get to a meeting in London at 1:30, and then fly home in time for a late supper. And that is only if you operated as a normal flight between the two cities.

In theory, you can make money by charging astronimical prices to a few people, yes. In practice, it's very very different. I doubt you would find 25 people who would pay such prices on a regular basis. They might just do so for a single flight, but that won't cover costs.

Concorde was a business tool, she was desgined to get 100 people from A to B, over 4000 miles of water as quickly as possible. As every other business tool in the world, she had to make money. A time came when the cost of keeping Concorde outweighed the money she was making, and that was the time chosen to retire her. There are other ideas out there for how she might have made money, such as yours, but they have been disregarded as not going to work. If they would have worked, Concorde may still be flying, who knows?! Fact is, she is no longer flying. To quote you earlier, Cloudboy.... "GET OVER IT." Accept it. Business tools need to make businesses money. Concorde would have stopped doing that. Maybe 4 or 5 years too early, but it was inevitable one day. That day has come.

I accept that you have these ideas and that you think they will work. What gets people's backs up is when they disprove a theory and then get told they don't know what they're talking about and are being negative. This is EXACTLY what happens on the Save Concorde Group forum. Quite frankly, it's annoying.
I came, I saw, I Concorde! www.gofundme.com/lineupandwait
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:42 pm

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 139):
Again, not a fact but an interpretation of facts.

An interpretation by someone who was right in the middle of it. I guess you think you have more chance of winning the Superbowl of you bring in someone with less experience to run the team.

Come back with the results of your market research into how many people would pay to fly in an executive version of Concorde, how often they'd use it and how much they'd be prepared to pay. Come back when you know how much and how often people would pay to use your "super elite disco" version or use it for a fashion show. Remember, the "thinking like an airline" flights were bringing in six figure sums per flight and they were doing that every day. Cut the capacity to 25% and your prices quadruple. Operate every second day and your prices are eight times the "thinking like an airline" price. Operate once a week and your prices are twenty-eight times the "thinking like an airline" price. And that's all at 2003 operating costs.

I see dozens of "facts" in GDB's posts while I'm struggling to remember a single "fact" that you've presented.

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 152):
Fact remains that if it did somehow return to flight on a permit to fly, regulations state that no passengers may be carried. Where does your income come from then?

And, just to be clear, we're talking about what the regulatory authorities would allow, not what those "selfish conspirators", BA, AF and Airbus would allow.

As those in the know have said, certifying Concorde today, to be operated by a new organisation, would be "extremely unlikely" (i.e. forget it). The regulations have changed a heck of a lot since Concorde was first certified. BA and AF were allowed to continue to operate Concorde into the 21st century because they had experience and because of the network of maintenance, support and flight crews that were in place.

As to challenging BA's ownership, BA was legitimately operated as a state-owned airline and they acquired their Concorde's legitimately. When it was privatised, it was bought, lock, stock and barrel, by the new shareholders. The shareholders own all of it.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:32 am

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 150):
Um, I really need to explain this? Do you think a paranoid US would like to see some rich Middle Eastern Sheik start playing around with a supersonic aircraft?

..and what is that supposed to mean?
"Up the Irons!"
 
airtran717
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:48 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:13 am

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 111):
and perhaps even force Airbus to reissue the certificate if possible at that stage simply through motions of lawsuits and public interest over the money the government has given to the airlines and manufacturer.

The airlines don't control or issue/reissue or have anything else to do with airworthiness certificates other than posting them onboard... someone should explain to you how the that works... In the US, the FAA issues an airworthiness certificate. I doubt any public interest group has that much sway. The FEDS... whatever they may be called in their individual countries... the agencies who govern and enforce aviation regulations are the ones who issue airworthiness certificates.
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2605
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:11 am

I love your pie-in-the-sky, anything's possible attitude, Cloudboy and lament we haven't seen much of this prevail since the 1960's but I must defer to GDB's pessimistic outlook because he's our resident Concorde expert by long experience. Though I suppose there's a ghost of a chance that one well preserved aircraft could fly again, all suggests the odds against it are exceedingly long. That's too bad because I was once a passionate SST advocate, back when the U.S. was funding Boeing's 2707. Reality eventually sunk in for me, especially in recent years with the ever escalating fuel price woes, a scenario I don't see abating. That one Concorde ride I took nearly 4 years ago was an amazing experience but I don't see it coming back within my lifetime, except for elite business travelers on jets like the Aerion SSBJ. I'm not such a fanatic propenent of speed anymore because, although highly desirable on long routes, it's something we can all live without. Still, don't stop dreaming because dreamers often can and do make things happen when pessimists like me say it can't be done. While it's good to be vested in reality, nothing's achieved without heady dreamers who refuse to accept that something's altogether impossible.
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 4770
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:42 am

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 150):
Um, I really need to explain this? Do you think a paranoid US would like to see some rich Middle Eastern Sheik start playing around with a supersonic aircraft? If a 767 can cause that much destruction, imagine what a supersonic aircraft could do. It wouldn't be that hard to outfit it to carry some kind of payload, and certainly a lot harder to catch than a normal jetliner, when it outruns a large number of fighter planes and gives some missiles a run for their money. Do I think it is a worse threat now than before? No. But I think the panic level has certainly grown.

Yes, I'm sure BA or AF would sell the Concordes in museums to a terror state (your offensive generalisation of "Middle Eastern Sheik" notwithstanding).

I think your panic level has certainly grown - I think your statement is outrageous - even more so that your first one. But then, who am I to judge. Carry on...
I do enjoy a spot of flying, especially when it's not in economy!
 
airtran717
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:48 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:42 am

Sounds like yet another conspiracy theorist who has absolutely no Earthly clue and no real knowledge of the topic in which he speaks. Ignore this guy... too bad it's not AOL... there's an ignore button... then there was silence. LOL You have no working knowledge of aviation in practicality or feasibility, aviation politics, foreign policy, or anything else to remotely prove your comments other than vague references to outdated and outmoded information. You keep getting hammered and your information proved wrong time and again by people who have worked on the plane, flown in the plane, or just done their homework... unlike you. You keep getting hammered and proven wrong also in your general aviation knowledge. Quit trying to take part in a conversation in which you have no experience or knowledge and quit trying to impress people with your arguments... that still to this point... present no argument. You are inflammatory and rude.
 
airtran717
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:48 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:49 am

Quoting David L (Reply 153):
And, just to be clear, we're talking about what the regulatory authorities would allow, not what those "selfish conspirators", BA, AF and Airbus would allow.

I agree with that entire post, with the exception of the above quote... if i have taken it out of context, then please explain... but I have to say that this is the oddest thing I have read on this post so far. If the certicate states that no passengers may be carried aboard the aircraft... how then will an airline... ANY airline get a certificate to begin with? Reread that comment and see if it makes sense to you again. Would the above companies really allow passengers to fly on an aircraft that was not certified to carry passengers? Putting their companies on the line, their insurance on the line, their shareholder's money on the line... etc??????? That's about as crazy an idea as some of Cloudboy's rantings.
 
GDB
Posts: 13309
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:07 am

I love that one, 'my preconceived ideas', translation from the Cloudboyverse (truly an alternate reality), reads 'actually involved with the aircraft', but you Concorde pie in the skiers hate that don't you?
It's been noticed before, like with SCG, but a whole new level on here.

OK, you proposed.
1979, several Concordes remain unplaced, subsequently, in 1980, they'd be placed with BA and AF, to top up their original orders.
In BA's case, 214, 216, to be registered with BA in 1981 as G-BOAG, G-BOAF.
But at the end of the 70's, BAe studied a Executive Concorde, from these 'white tails', indeed aimed at the Mid East market.
At this stage, Concorde was in full service with BA/AF, so the support network was in place, unlike today.

No one was remotely interested, and you are trying to tell us they would be now? With all the massive costs and lack of ANY infrastructure or legality to fly?

BAe also studied a possible high speed mail version, for Fed Ex, BAe did the calculations, the drawings for the needed mods, but Fed Ex declined in the end.
I know, because I've seen the written proposals and drawings, now in the safe hands of the main archive at Brooklands.
And I've seen the BAe brochure for the executive conversion too.

I'd give it up now Cloudboy.
 
dan2002
Posts: 2024
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2002 7:11 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:06 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 160):
BAe also studied a possible high speed mail version, for Fed Ex, BAe did the calculations, the drawings for the needed mods, but Fed Ex declined in the end.
I know, because I've seen the written proposals and drawings, now in the safe hands of the main archive at Brooklands.

Boy, I couldn't imagine a Concorde in FedEx colors.
A guy asks 'What's Punk?'. I kick over a trash can and its punk. He knocks over a trash can and its trendy.
 
User avatar
EGTESkyGod
Posts: 1524
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:26 am

Quoting AirTran717 (Reply 159):
Quoting David L (Reply 153):
And, just to be clear, we're talking about what the regulatory authorities would allow, not what those "selfish conspirators", BA, AF and Airbus would allow.

I agree with that entire post, with the exception of the above quote... if i have taken it out of context, then please explain... but I have to say that this is the oddest thing I have read on this post so far. If the certicate states that no passengers may be carried aboard the aircraft... how then will an airline... ANY airline get a certificate to begin with? Reread that comment and see if it makes sense to you again. Would the above companies really allow passengers to fly on an aircraft that was not certified to carry passengers? Putting their companies on the line, their insurance on the line, their shareholder's money on the line... etc??????? That's about as crazy an idea as some of Cloudboy's rantings.

What David L was saying, to back up my earlier posts, is that should Concorde be allowed to return to flight on something called a "Permit To Fly" then the regulations state that no passengers can be carried. Back when she was an operational airliner, she had a "Type Certificate" like any other airliner, allowing fare paying passengers to be carried.

And it's not BA, AF or Airbus that decide that, it's the CAA, or relavent authorities in any country she would fly in.
I came, I saw, I Concorde! www.gofundme.com/lineupandwait
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5330
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:50 am

Quoting Dan2002 (Reply 161):
Boy, I couldn't imagine a Concorde in FedEx colors.

Could you imagine this one :

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/photos/big/00003960.jpg



 Silly
 
GDB
Posts: 13309
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:56 am

FLYSSC, very amusing Photoshop, but maybe President JFK had that image in his mind, when he authorised the US SST programme in 1963, months after the Anglo-French agreement to build Concorde.....
 
cloudboy
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:22 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 160):
OK, you proposed.
1979, several Concordes remain unplaced, subsequently, in 1980, they'd be placed with BA and AF, to top up their original orders.
In BA's case, 214, 216, to be registered with BA in 1981 as G-BOAG, G-BOAF.
But at the end of the 70's, BAe studied a Executive Concorde, from these 'white tails', indeed aimed at the Mid East market.
At this stage, Concorde was in full service with BA/AF, so the support network was in place, unlike today.

No one was remotely interested, and you are trying to tell us they would be now? With all the massive costs and lack of ANY infrastructure or legality to fly?

BAe also studied a possible high speed mail version, for Fed Ex, BAe did the calculations, the drawings for the needed mods, but Fed Ex declined in the end.
I know, because I've seen the written proposals and drawings, now in the safe hands of the main archive at Brooklands.
And I've seen the BAe brochure for the executive conversion too.

I'd give it up now Cloudboy.

And this was studied when? Your biggest middle east markets didn't even exist back then! And in the seventies business travel, heck any travel, was more of a long winded affair than attending a few meetings. Time have changed. Greatly. You can't apply marketing projections from a quarter century ago to todays markets.

I am so pie in the sky and unrealistic. You all talk like you have proved something. you haven't proved anything. All you have done is reiterated either personal opinions, explained previous companies decisions, or thrown up current obstacles. You haven't given any technical reason why any of these obstacles cannot be overcome by money, legal means, or public policy change. People drive the government. People drive business decisions. Never forget that, because if you do, many of the protections you count on will quickly disappear. A strong enough public demand will change policy, or enforce public will.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
dan2002
Posts: 2024
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2002 7:11 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:44 am

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 165):
People drive the government. People drive business decisions



Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 165):
cannot be overcome by money, legal means, or public policy change



Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 165):
A strong enough public demand

You basically summed it all up for yourself. There aren't enough people willing to spend the kind of cash to get things done. Companies stopped making spares years ago, and the kind of cash it would take to get those companies to start producing that stuff again is beyond astronomical.
A guy asks 'What's Punk?'. I kick over a trash can and its punk. He knocks over a trash can and its trendy.
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:21 am

Quoting AirTran717 (Reply 159):
If the certicate states that no passengers may be carried aboard the aircraft... how then will an airline... ANY airline get a certificate to begin with? Reread that comment and see if it makes sense to you again. Would the above companies really allow passengers to fly on an aircraft that was not certified to carry passengers?

I have reread it and it looks exactly the way I intended it to.

Quoting AirTran717 (Reply 159):
That's about as crazy an idea as some of Cloudboy's rantings.

 wideeyed  Hold on a minute...

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 162):
And it's not BA, AF or Airbus that decide that, it's the CAA, or relavent authorities in any country she would fly in.

Thank you! Isn't that exactly what I said?

Sorry, AirTran717, maybe I'm just blinkered by knowing what I intended it to mean but I just don't see another interpretation.  Smile
 
RIX
Posts: 1590
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:49 pm

...Why Air Force One SST has no cockpit windows?  Smile

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 165):
Your biggest middle east markets didn't even exist back then!

- you don't need the biggest market for one airplane. And you were clearly shown that none of your ideas is any sort of new,

Then, why don't you promote brand new SST? Stretched Aerion or SAI SSBJ looks much more attractive and realistic. They both are looking for risk partners. Even in the middle of design, they are way "more available" for flight than Concorde. That is, whoever takes your ideas seriously, will go for them, not for Concorde.
 
airtran717
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:48 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:45 pm

Quoting David L (Reply 167):
Sorry, AirTran717, maybe I'm just blinkered by knowing what I intended it to mean but I just don't see another interpretation.

Perhaps it's just an issue of the Department of Redundancy Department then. The only scenario I could think of for this is that they get it certified for display and airshow duty. It seems a more than just a little silly to attempt to get it certified to fly again, knowing you can't make any revenue from it via passengers. It just seems futile to entertain even airshow duty given it's incredible operating costs. In short, it's a lovely airplane, but the "By-Gone" folks just need to face the fact that its era has come and gone. Or, we could start a non-profit group to bring back the AMC Gremlin? The question for both ideas is... what's the point?
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4903
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:58 pm

Quoting RIX (Reply 168):
...Why Air Force One SST has no cockpit windows?

Are we looking at the same image? That SST has windows, its just that the supersonic visor is up.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5537
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:12 pm

Quoting RIX (Reply 168):
Then, why don't you promote brand new SST? Stretched Aerion or SAI SSBJ looks much more attractive and realistic. They both are looking for risk partners. Even in the middle of design, they are way "more available" for flight than Concorde. That is, whoever takes your ideas seriously, will go for them, not for Concorde.

This is certainly more realistic than getting Concorde in the air again, and would probably be cheaper as well. Let's face it, all mechanical devices wear out with time and use, and the Concorde's are now officially antiques. The Model T was a great car in its day, but would you like to commute in NYC or London today in one? The analogy is not exact, but the reliability of any machine will decrease with age. The crash in Paris showed that, in spite of an unblemished safety record to that point, that Concorde really is a very fragile aircraft. I think that realization, as well as 9/11, hastened its demise. The point is, even though the defect that caused the crash was fixed, what other gremlins would age and circumstances uncover? There are just too many unknowns with a supersonic aircraft that old; we have discovered what happens as subsonic airliners age the hard way (see Aloha 737) but there just is not enough experience with old supersonic aircraft (supersonic military aircraft don't live that long and see far fewer flight hours as well) to take a chance on it with no economic return even conceivable. Cloudboy, as others have said, put up or shut up. You say it's financially feasible; make a business plan and come up with some investors. As you say, people drive decisions, and money drives people. Come up with the money and make it happen. Don't expect others to do it for you.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
6yjjk
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:40 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:14 pm

Quoting Moo (Reply 170):
Are we looking at the same image? That SST has windows, its just that the supersonic visor is up.

No side windows behind the visor, though.
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5330
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:59 pm

Quoting RIX (Reply 168):
...Why Air Force One SST has no cockpit windows?



Quoting Moo (Reply 170):
Are we looking at the same image? That SST has windows, its just that the supersonic visor is up.



Quoting 6YJJK (Reply 172):
No side windows behind the visor, though.

Correct.
The visor is fully up, but still the 2 side windows of the Cockpit are missing on the "Air Force 1 Concorde".
This REAL cockpit picture shows clearly the "2 missing windows"


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Philippe Noret - AirTeamimages

 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:26 pm

Quoting AirTran717 (Reply 169):
It seems a more than just a little silly to attempt to get it

Yes, and I believe I at least implied that fairly strongly. I was just pointing out to Cloudboy that any certification is up to the regulatory authorities not, as he seemed to think, BA, AF and Airbus.
 
GDB
Posts: 13309
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:34 am

SEPilot, actually, beyond the unique circumstances of AF4590, we found that generally, in structure terms, Concorde usually exceeded expectations, for example, when BA came to do 'Re-Life 1' in the mid 1990's, the aircraft were in rather better condition than many expected.
But yes, your general point is right, really it was not the general structure that were to be future cost/manpower drivers, rather many of the systems.

The long, difficult project to replace some worn out circuitry in the Air Intake Control Units being a notorious example.
Getting even major vendors, like the descendants of BAC's Guided Weapons Division, to produce small ship-sets of new equipment, based on late 60's/early 70's technology, was protracted but in the end, successful.

Still, far quicker, cheaper and easier than installing brand new A.I.C.U.s, new ones would have been a fraction of the size (each A.I.C.U. was about the same size as a carton of 200 cigarettes-and there were 8 of them), much, much more reliable, less heat, less power requirements.
But, a project like that would need an all new development effort for such devices, all the certification stuff, with at least one aircraft allocated to this development, not out earning.

Then the future integrity of mechanical systems to consider, and general industry aging aircraft requirements would demand attention whatever their condition.

People often quote projected life figures, had a 'Re-Life 2' happened-only possible in a world with no AF Crash and certainly no Sept 11 attacks.
But that was never the full story with Concorde, in fact it was the easy part ('easy' being a relative term in Concordes case!)

Concorde was in truth, limited most of all by the small production run, only two operators, long out of production, with all the issues of human experience retiring, not only at BA either.
Most airliners quickly build up an extensive worldwide fleet, all those hrs and cycles, so development and service issues become apparent much more quickly.

Another factor perhaps, Rod Eddington (whose robust attitude to Concorde played a big part in the whole return to flight effort ever going ahead in 2000), told us in 2002, that as a great performer, Concorde should exit on a high.
He did not, right then, envisage it retiring a year hence, the issues that forced that were yet to come, but it was an indication that BA would not run Concorde right up to it's life limits as defined then.

Beside me, is a mug, a commemorative one, issued to Concorde staff in April 1999, as thanks for 100 departures out of LHR with no tech delays, (actually, we got to 116).
Wasn't always like that I can tell you, but usually, we recovered quickly. All those early shifts, with the coming day having a flying programme with usually 2 outbound to JFK, to have serviceable standby aircraft, more often than not one or more charters, during the BGI season, that scheduled service(s)-more checks and maint needed on a BGI allocated aircraft too.
And here we are, with one or two serviceable aircraft at 6.30 a.m. - the BA002 and/or BA004 coming in as a 'bag of nails' the previous evening. Or an overrunning scheduled maint, or horror of horrors, a U/S one off base, JFK is not so bad, but elsewhere?
Can we turn the BA002, to do the BA003, or standby for it?
Can the 'Round The Bay' charter at mid day be turned? Shit, one of the reheats is U/S on it, OK for a LHR-LHR, but a JFK?
All the while, operations wanting answers now, often marketing too, sometimes the CEO of BA itself.

So many times, I saw how the vast reservoir of knowledge, of all our veterans, saved the day, or mitigated a bad one.
The idea of anyone else doing this, without all this experience, is a joke, and I don't refer to myself here, I mean the real BA Concorde stalwarts, ex BAC and just long serving BA.

Typing the above reminds me just how much I miss it though.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5537
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:42 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 175):
But yes, your general point is right, really it was not the general structure that were to be future cost/manpower drivers, rather many of the systems.

I was speaking from general experience; I truly appreciate the personal hands-on knowledge that you bring to the forum. Thank you for sharing it with us.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
cageyjames
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:08 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:19 am

I'm still confused. Will "rich Arabs" be able to save the project or not. One minute they are the saviors, the next they are going to cause problems with them. Which is it?
 
cloudboy
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:17 am

Quoting RIX (Reply 168):
Then, why don't you promote brand new SST? Stretched Aerion or SAI SSBJ looks much more attractive and realistic. They both are looking for risk partners. Even in the middle of design, they are way "more available" for flight than Concorde. That is, whoever takes your ideas seriously, will go for them, not for Concorde.

I do support the new SSTs. And I think that in the not quite so distant future, they are going to become quite a big thing, but are going to require our current airlines to adopt to a new operating strategy or loose out to private air charter. And this may have been one of the factors motivating Virgin. However, I don't think any of those designs are really far along right now and I don't think they have either the funding or the backing to really get them going - yet. Besides, that would only address Virgin's issue of a new flagship - it does not have the clout for advertising or for a private toy.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 171):
Cloudboy, as others have said, put up or shut up. You say it's financially feasible; make a business plan and come up with some investors. As you say, people drive decisions, and money drives people. Come up with the money and make it happen. Don't expect others to do it for you.

I'm not asking for you to invest. What I am asking is for you to stop trying to discredit those who do think it is feasible by constantly badmouthing the project and calling any data, figures, or ideas as wrong when all you really have to base that on is personal opinion why it is not a good investment.

Quoting Cageyjames (Reply 177):
I'm still confused. Will "rich Arabs" be able to save the project or not. One minute they are the saviors, the next they are going to cause problems with them. Which is it?

Well, that depends upon who you are, doesn't it? Certainly someone with that kind of monetary excess and a real interest in the biggest toy might be one of the few to actually be able to afford such a project, so in some ways it is a great alternative. However, if you are looking at it from a national security perspective, there are a lot of very big risks involved. Do you want a supersonic jet in private hands? Do you even want a jet like that around the region where it could conceivably be taken by hostile forces? And how would guarantee that someone doesn't initially buy it for a private jet, but then somehow it ends up in the hands of a militant army?
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
User avatar
cageyjames
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:08 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:58 pm

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 178):
However, if you are looking at it from a national security perspective, there are a lot of very big risks involved.

How are these any different than when it was flying before? There is always a risk of another 9/11 type attack, but that isn't why the airplane was retired.

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 178):
Do you want a supersonic jet in private hands?

As opposed to the private hands it currently is in?

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 178):
And how would guarantee that someone doesn't initially buy it for a private jet, but then somehow it ends up in the hands of a militant army?

So let me get this strait. Some "rich arab" will spend upwards of half a billion dollars on getting the Concorde to fly again. Then take said aircraft and fly it to some country where there is an insurgency. Then leave the door unlocked and his pilots unprotected. Right...

Plus the Concorde will be refueled many times on its trip from said insurgent area to western europe or the USA, somehow unnoticed by much faster aircraft flown by NATO countries and evade their much faster missiles and then crash it into some building?

That must be why BA, AF and Airbus don't want the aircraft to ever fly again.  expressionless 
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:59 am

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 163):
Quoting Dan2002 (Reply 161):
Boy, I couldn't imagine a Concorde in FedEx colors.

Could you imagine this one :



Quoting GDB (Reply 164):
FLYSSC, very amusing Photoshop, but maybe President JFK had that image in his mind, when he authorised the US SST programme in 1963, months after the Anglo-French agreement to build Concorde.....

...don't give GWBush the idea of it.....knowing him, he'll have some kind of "presidential edict" of taking over a Concorde or two.... silly 

Quoting Cageyjames (Reply 179):
Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 178):
However, if you are looking at it from a national security perspective, there are a lot of very big risks involved.

How are these any different than when it was flying before? There is always a risk of another 9/11 type attack, but that isn't why the airplane was retired.

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 178):
Do you want a supersonic jet in private hands?

As opposed to the private hands it currently is in?

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 178):
And how would guarantee that someone doesn't initially buy it for a private jet, but then somehow it ends up in the hands of a militant army?

So let me get this strait. Some "rich arab" will spend upwards of half a billion dollars on getting the Concorde to fly again. Then take said aircraft and fly it to some country where there is an insurgency. Then leave the door unlocked and his pilots unprotected. Right...

Plus the Concorde will be refueled many times on its trip from said insurgent area to western europe or the USA, somehow unnoticed by much faster aircraft flown by NATO countries and evade their much faster missiles and then crash it into some building?

That must be why BA, AF and Airbus don't want the aircraft to ever fly again.

Just goes to show his fear and ostensible prejudice.....its nice to know we still have mass ignorance in the 21st century, maybe some still believe the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese... biggrin 
"Up the Irons!"
 
GDB
Posts: 13309
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:15 am

Ah, another visit from this alternate universe, Concorde was/could be some kind of threat to US national security.
Forget Concorde, or SSBJ's, I think buying up some old Cold War bomb shelter, might be the cure for this elevated level of paranoia.
There is an old saying Cloudboy, appropriate for this thread, 'when in a hole, stop digging'.
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:34 am

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 178):
What I am asking is for you to stop trying to discredit those who do think it is feasible by constantly badmouthing the project and calling any data, figures, or ideas as wrong when all you really have to base that on is personal opinion why it is not a good investment.

What data and figures? There have been some extremely detailed reasons given why people think it's a non-starter. I think it's your argument that's lacked substance. All we've seen are vague suggestions, such as "money can make things happen", "stop thinking like an airline", "use your imagination".
 
cloudboy
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:50 am

Quoting Cageyjames (Reply 179):
As opposed to the private hands it currently is in?

As opposed to a major national, stock holder controlled company? Yes.

Quoting Cageyjames (Reply 179):
So let me get this strait. Some "rich arab" will spend upwards of half a billion dollars on getting the Concorde to fly again. Then take said aircraft and fly it to some country where there is an insurgency. Then leave the door unlocked and his pilots unprotected. Right...

Plus the Concorde will be refueled many times on its trip from said insurgent area to western europe or the USA, somehow unnoticed by much faster aircraft flown by NATO countries and evade their much faster missiles and then crash it into some building?

That must be why BA, AF and Airbus don't want the aircraft to ever fly again.

Wow. I suppose things look very different on different sides of the ocean. I can imagine some "Rich Arab" taking his toy into some Arabian country, and suddenly said "Rich Arab" is shot, or his government is overthrown, or he suddenly "sees the light" and decides to devote his life to fighting the evil axis of powers. I think it is a very distinct possibility. As far as getting from the Middle East to a target (which doesn't have to be on US or British soil), they aren't going to be carrying passengers on that flight. A good collection of fuel tanks amongst their various other explosive mixtures can get them pretty far.

And by the time someone takes notice, scrambles jets, and is able to catch up, they could already be there. Which is the why the Concorde is so much more dangerous in this respect - while there are jets that can catch up to it, it does fly faster than many. And it has the legs to be able to do it for long distances, while most military aircraft are designed only for short bursts. And missiles only work where you can shoot them from.

I admit to not being a big fan of our paranoia over terrorist issues, but yeah, I do see some possible concern here form government leaders.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4903
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Fri Jul 20, 2007 8:08 am

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 183):
Wow. I suppose things look very different on different sides of the ocean. I can imagine some "Rich Arab" taking his toy into some Arabian country, and suddenly said "Rich Arab" is shot, or his government is overthrown, or he suddenly "sees the light" and decides to devote his life to fighting the evil axis of powers. I think it is a very distinct possibility. As far as getting from the Middle East to a target (which doesn't have to be on US or British soil), they aren't going to be carrying passengers on that flight. A good collection of fuel tanks amongst their various other explosive mixtures can get them pretty far.

Is it just me or is this one of the most insane conspiracy theories out there?
 
6yjjk
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:40 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Fri Jul 20, 2007 8:09 am

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 183):

And by the time someone takes notice, scrambles jets, and is able to catch up, they could already be there. Which is the why the Concorde is so much more dangerous in this respect

...yet we quite happily sell these same private individuals their own 747s, A380s... Fly one of those into New York for "a meeting", fill it to the gunwales, take off, and you're in Manhattan - with far more fuel than you'd ever get on Concorde - before the fighter pilots have even got their canopies closed. Perhaps we should confiscate all "rich Arabs'" private airliners?

You started off dreaming. Now you're just being ridiculous. Time for this thread to be locked, surely.
 
User avatar
cageyjames
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:08 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Fri Jul 20, 2007 9:50 am

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 183):
As opposed to a major national, stock holder controlled company? Yes.

BA and AF are private companies, not public companies. The fact that they are corporations has no bearing on that. The airframes are in private hands.

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 183):
Wow. I suppose things look very different on different sides of the ocean. I can imagine some "Rich Arab" taking his toy into some Arabian country, and suddenly said "Rich Arab" is shot, or his government is overthrown, or he suddenly "sees the light" and decides to devote his life to fighting the evil axis of powers.

Are you kidding me? You have to be baiting us here.

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 183):
As far as getting from the Middle East to a target (which doesn't have to be on US or British soil), they aren't going to be carrying passengers on that flight. A good collection of fuel tanks amongst their various other explosive mixtures can get them pretty far.

OK, you've lost it. The range of the aircraft is poor and how the heck would it be able to take off with that kind of weight.

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 183):
And by the time someone takes notice, scrambles jets, and is able to catch up, they could already be there. Which is the why the Concorde is so much more dangerous in this respect - while there are jets that can catch up to it, it does fly faster than many.

The Concorde doesn't blend in anywhere. I can pretty much assure you that members of this forum would know where it was 100% of the time and you can damn well assume that the paparazzi not to mention the world would know where it is. The Concorde is not fast compared to military fighter aircraft. It is one thing to hide a 727, but another to hide a one of a kind aircraft.

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 183):
And it has the legs to be able to do it for long distances, while most military aircraft are designed only for short bursts. And missiles only work where you can shoot them from.

The Concorde has no "legs" and it guzzles fuel. Even if you could carry enough fuel, performance would be degredated because of the weight and I'm not even sure you could get off the ground (I'm going with the assumption that your "rich arab" has full facilities on the ground to support the Concorde. As for out running F/A-18 E/Fs or whatever might be in in your way (all the way from the Middle East to your target), you have no idea how idiotic that sounds. A loud aircraft such as the Concorde is an easy target to follow.

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 183):
I admit to not being a big fan of our paranoia over terrorist issues, but yeah, I do see some possible concern here form government leaders.

Again there is ZERO concern over this as the government doesn't own the aircraft. BA, AF and Airbus are the only ones who can decide what happens to the aircraft and all three want no part of it. You keep ignoring that statement and come up with crazy ideas as to why it won't be allowed.

[Edited 2007-07-20 02:52:30]
 
MadameConcorde
Posts: 9265
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:08 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:35 am

I have not had the time to read through the whole thread.

Has this been posted yet?

Club Concorde announces the launch of the Concorde 2010 Campaign

Our aim is to launch a Concorde in time for the 70th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain on 15th September 2010.

We are supported in our campaign by the Battle of Britain Memorial Trust and the Battle of Britain Fighter Association, to which most of the 150 survivors belong.

http://www.clubconcorde.co.uk/concorde-2010-campaign.php


 Confused
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
 
Temptress
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:56 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:53 am

Not suported by Save Concorde Group it would seem.....lol  checkeredflag 
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:53 am

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 183):
Wow. I suppose things look very different on different sides of the ocean. I can imagine some "Rich Arab" taking his toy into some Arabian country, and suddenly said "Rich Arab" is shot, or his government is overthrown, or he suddenly "sees the light" and decides to devote his life to fighting the evil axis of powers. I think it is a very distinct possibility. As far as getting from the Middle East to a target (which doesn't have to be on US or British soil), they aren't going to be carrying passengers on that flight. A good collection of fuel tanks amongst their various other explosive mixtures can get them pretty far.

And by the time someone takes notice, scrambles jets, and is able to catch up, they could already be there. Which is the why the Concorde is so much more dangerous in this respect - while there are jets that can catch up to it, it does fly faster than many. And it has the legs to be able to do it for long distances, while most military aircraft are designed only for short bursts. And missiles only work where you can shoot them from.

You make some valid points, Cloudboy, but I don't understand your determination to keep Concorde out of the sky for security reasons. She was a beautiful aircraft and it would be nice to see her fly again.  duck 
 
MadameConcorde
Posts: 9265
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:08 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:15 am

Concorde f-bvfb was sold for one "symbolic" euro to the museum at Sinsheim.

Her last flight was on 24 June 2003 to Baden Baden then afterwards she was dismantled and carried by water to her final destination.

So I suppose Airbus does not own that one frame anymore.
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
 
cloudboy
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:30 am

Quoting Cageyjames (Reply 186):
A loud aircraft such as the Concorde is an easy target to follow.

Yeah, I suppose all a fighter pilot would have to do is roll his windows down and listen for it. ???

Quoting Cageyjames (Reply 186):
..yet we quite happily sell these same private individuals their own 747s, A380s... Fly one of those into New York for "a meeting", fill it to the gunwales, take off, and you're in Manhattan - with far more fuel than you'd ever get on Concorde - before the fighter pilots have even got their canopies closed. Perhaps we should confiscate all "rich Arabs'" private airliners?

I suppose I probably should post this and give anyone ideas, but you know terrorism isn't just about flying a jet into a building. If someone were to have the money to buy a Concorde, they probably would also have the money to outfit it with all kinds of various attachments and bays. Remember - long term survival is not the ultimate goal here - a few attacks is all they are after. Besides, you wouldn't have to load it up in the Middle East. You fly it transatlantic between Africa and South America, where it would be a lot easier to hide, and also a lot easier to go undetected if it's no where near a populated area. And you don't have to even attack - a low pass with super burners over a crowded city would create a lot of panic, and that is what terrorism is about. You have to understand that in the US, that level of violence doesn't really exist often, and when it does happen it's a lot bigger of a deal.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4903
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:38 am

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 190):
So I suppose Airbus does not own that one frame anymore.

Airbus never owned any of them, they were the property of Air France and British Airways, but anyhow F-BVFB will never fly again due to her wing structure being cut for the barge ride.

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 191):
Yeah, I suppose all a fighter pilot would have to do is roll his windows down and listen for it. ???

Yes, because ground spotters play absolutely no part in an interception at all.

And anyway, Concorde has a thermal signature that is unmistakable and unhide-able to a military jet.
 
User avatar
cageyjames
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:08 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:55 am

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 191):

Yeah, I suppose all a fighter pilot would have to do is roll his windows down and listen for it. ???

Yea right, or the millions of people who live underneath it when it travels overhead.

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 191):
I suppose I probably should post this and give anyone ideas, but you know terrorism isn't just about flying a jet into a building.

Ah, this goes back to your theory of advertising on the side of the airplane. Maybe a little Al Qaeda ad? Now that is thinking outside the box!

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 191):
If someone were to have the money to buy a Concorde, they probably would also have the money to outfit it with all kinds of various attachments and bays.

Concorde with sidewinder missiles and drop tanks. Again BRILLIANT!

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 191):
Besides, you wouldn't have to load it up in the Middle East. You fly it transatlantic between Africa and South America, where it would be a lot easier to hide, and also a lot easier to go undetected if it's no where near a populated area.

Oh right, Venezuela hates the imperials.

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 191):
And you don't have to even attack - a low pass with super burners over a crowded city would create a lot of panic, and that is what terrorism is about.

$500 million for a little joy riding over population centers? Love the idea about reeving the engine outside of the White House though so the President can't get sleep.

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 191):
You have to understand that in the US, that level of violence doesn't really exist often, and when it does happen it's a lot bigger of a deal.

Oh, the level where Al Qaeda sits outside my house and reeves the engine to their Harley all night?
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:22 am

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 191):
I suppose I probably should post this and give anyone ideas

 shhh I won't tell. God help us if Al Qaeda ever got hold of this idea!

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 191):
You fly it transatlantic between Africa and South America, where it would be a lot easier to hide, and also a lot easier to go undetected if it's no where near a populated area.

 psst There's this thing called radar...it's not going to go undetected.

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 191):
And you don't have to even attack - a low pass with super burners over a crowded city would create a lot of panic, and that is what terrorism is about.

Seriously, I'm trying to visualize this. Why would anybody panic? scared 
I just don't see how a low pass by Concorde would threaten Western Civilization...
...and saving Western Civilization is what The Team is all about. praise 


So....you're just joking, right? Trolling away for amusement or what? mischievous 
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
GDB
Posts: 13309
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:35 am

The seeming descent into insanity carries on!

A Concorde with external weapons?
Well how do you think it would perform after that, Sherlock?
Clue: It wouldn't, forget supercruise or any kind of supersonic performance.
(Even the short lived 1996 AF 'Pepsi' livered Concorde, had some restrictions on supersonic performance, due to non white paint-airframe heating issues. After just a bit of different paint).

Said it before, but Cloudboy, have you the slightest clue about what you are going on about?
Clearly not!

Oh I forget, I am tainted by involvement with the actual type, so I cannot 'think out of the box' Translation-not babble nonsense.
Or, 'too airline orientated Eh, it was an airliner, not a B-58 or B-1. (Do you really think that it had the very slightest consideration in design to do anything but be a 3500-4000 mile ranged airliner-answer-of course not! What next from Cloudboy? 'Why a 757 can carry out carrier based air strikes?' Or 'Why can't a Learjet go into orbit'?

Better yet, 'unimaginative'. Translation - Knowing what was possible-including technically, as opposed to not having a clue.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Sat Jul 21, 2007 6:45 am

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 191):
I suppose I probably should post this and give anyone ideas, but you know terrorism isn't just about flying a jet into a building. If someone were to have the money to buy a Concorde, they probably would also have the money to outfit it with all kinds of various attachments and bays. Remember - long term survival is not the ultimate goal here - a few attacks is all they are after. Besides, you wouldn't have to load it up in the Middle East. You fly it transatlantic between Africa and South America, where it would be a lot easier to hide, and also a lot easier to go undetected if it's no where near a populated area. And you don't have to even attack - a low pass with super burners over a crowded city would create a lot of panic, and that is what terrorism is about. You have to understand that in the US, that level of violence doesn't really exist often, and when it does happen it's a lot bigger of a deal.

 rotfl  rotfl 
"Up the Irons!"
 
cloudboy
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:00 am

What, you can't mount sidewinders on a Concorde?

OK, this is getting stupid. You know dang well that I am not talking about major military weapons. If you could get your hands on them, you would be able to get your hands on something to mount them to. You know very well that terrorism is more about panic - dropping powders and loud explosions and breaking a few windows.

You're right. It is time to end this thread. You guys aren't even trying to make sensible discussion. you are just trying to play games to keep from actually having real discussion.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:16 am

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 197):

You're right. It is time to end this thread. You guys aren't even trying to make sensible discussion. you are just trying to play games to keep from actually having real discussion.

 rotfl  rotfl 
"Up the Irons!"
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...

Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:29 am

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 197):
You guys aren't even trying to make sensible discussion. you are just trying to play games to keep from actually having real discussion.

What, we're avoiding a "sensible" discussion about mounting weapons on Concorde?

Consider: Which would be easier;

1) resurrecting Concorde and mounting weapons (of any kind), or
2) getting an operational secondhand fighter aircraft (F-4, Mirage, MiG-21, whatever).

Even a terrorist could figure out that the Concorde is not an economic, sensible, viable project.

BTW It cost me only twocents to buy this clue. smile 
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos