Concorde to fly again...?

Discuss all things 'aviation' that do not fit into a more appropriate forum
User avatar
planenuttoo
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon 17 Aug 2015, 8:24 am

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by planenuttoo »

Very well put, right, Harrier!

User avatar
Offbreed
Posts: 665
Joined: Sat 06 Sep 2008, 12:45 pm

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by Offbreed »

It's not a problem, with advances in technology, we will soon be able to 3D print a whole new Concorde :grin:

farnboroughrob
Posts: 1882
Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009, 8:31 am

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by farnboroughrob »

I can't believe even the BBC has picked up on this and is on the front page! AFIK BA still own all their Concordes so they are a non starter. The group says they are looking to France for two aircraft. Surely if would have to be one of those modded by Air France? Thats makes it F-BVFA in Washington, F-BVFB at Sinchiem that was dismantled for the move so likely not restorable to airworthy again and has been outside for 13 years? F-BVFC in the Toulouse museum, and F-BTSD at Le Bourget. Out of that lot only BVFC is not in a national museum but was outside for a considerable time. Although Orly is mentioned on the BBC piece that is F-WTSA that has been outside since 1976 and was never to production standard!
I would love to have a Q&A with these guys? Interesting questions like hwo they will get a AOC to operate pax flights, where spares are coming from and getting OEM support. :tumbleweed:

User avatar
aviodromefriend
Posts: 2407
Joined: Sat 26 Jun 2010, 2:22 pm

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by aviodromefriend »

Goody wrote:
aviodromefriend wrote:Another one I always forget to add: There is no complete set of original drawings anymore, as a number of those have been sold for charity post final flights.

That's not really an issue though as the people that have those drawings are almost certainly likely to be enthusiasts, some of whom would lend them back or copy them for such a project.
It happened quite a number of years ago already, so tracing all those might be a real big challenge. Also I wouldn't rule out that some of those people have died by now, and their relatives weren't aware of what that piece of paper was, ending it up in the garbage bin.

Also you can't but hope everything on those is still completely readable, and nothing from the important info from them were overwritten by Brian Trubshaw's signature, that came with it.
A weather forecast is a forecast and just that

Mike Moses, Launch Integration Manager Space Shuttle Program

ArabJazzie
Posts: 2170
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 9:38 pm

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by ArabJazzie »

Oh dear! Here we go again!!!

If these chaps already have £120m, have the contributors also helped their friends who were stranded in Ukraine, Nigeria, Gabon, The Shetlands.....

And as to the condition of the UK survivors, A was dismantled/rebuilt, B has been outside for years and the likely candidate for the tidal plinth! C F and G(and the flying candidate!) probably the best looked after but will the current custodians give them up? D outside near the ocean with no engines and repaired accident damage! E in Barbados and inside(?)!

And if someone wants to throw some money away, i know of several people who could benefit from a share of that £120m!!!
Geoff.
52 in a year! We must be certifiable!

User avatar
DerekF
Posts: 4780
Joined: Sun 07 Sep 2008, 7:54 am
Location: Handforth, Cheshire, UK

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by DerekF »

I can't help thinking that while seeing a Concorde airborne again would be quite something, there are far better things to spend £120m on.

IgnatiusJReilly
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue 25 Mar 2014, 4:59 pm
Location: New Orleans

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by IgnatiusJReilly »

Are they saying that they 'have' £120m to spend - in which case, how can you amass such wealth whilst being so stupid? (Paris Hilton asides) & who on earth did the due dilligence before committing those funds..
Or are they saying that they have access to £120m and want to encourage others, less informed, to donate?
At what point does a fanciful & opportunistic fundraising effort become a fraudulent activity?
Eccentric, idealistic, and creative, sometimes to the point of delusion..

User avatar
Thumper
UKAR Supporter
Posts: 3431
Joined: Mon 13 Jul 2009, 5:46 pm
Location: Sherborne, Dorset

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by Thumper »

A British businessman has provided a £40m investment for the displays, which Club Concorde hopes will be completed by late 2016.


I'll be the first to make the comment... is it Richard Branson?

stonojnr
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun 19 Jul 2009, 7:08 pm

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by stonojnr »

IgnatiusJReilly wrote:Are they saying that they 'have' £120m to spend - in which case, how can you amass such wealth whilst being so stupid? (Paris Hilton asides) & who on earth did the due dilligence before committing those funds..
Or are they saying that they have access to £120m and want to encourage others, less informed, to donate?
At what point does a fanciful & opportunistic fundraising effort become a fraudulent activity?


well it could be like a kickstarter funding thing, people commit given x amount but the money doesnt materialise till the project actually gets pardon the pun off the ground, but it then enables you to go around and claim you have an amount of funds available to encourage other investors.

but as has been said theres no chance it will ever happen because Airbus just wont provide the necessary support for it,if BA couldnt get them to change their minds to keep it going, why on earth would they change their view 12 years later.

even if they miracously did change their mind, and the relevant authorities could be convinced to let it fly, and you could find someone to fly it,and you could afford to fuel it, you then run into exactly the same problems the Vulcan has with engines that RR wont touch and an airframe that no-one quite knows the extent or limit on flying hours anymore, and as it would be the only flying example, it then essentially becomes an experimental test plane, and a supersonic experimental test plane at that.

its disappointing these types of stories get such unquestioning coverage by the media at large and arent simply ignored.

Steve p
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu 13 Aug 2015, 5:36 am

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by Steve p »

Thumper wrote:
A British businessman has provided a £40m investment for the displays, which Club Concorde hopes will be completed by late 2016.


I'll be the first to make the comment... is it Richard Branson?



If my memory is correct was it Richard Branson who wanted to purchase a few concordes after BA had retired them, was it BA that refused to sell them them to him or something similar?.

FGR2
Posts: 2691
Joined: Mon 15 Sep 2008, 11:12 am

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by FGR2 »

I don't ever believe Branson was serious, it was a good opportunity for him to get some PR though. People still believed he was serious in buying them, so it must have worked.

If BA with all the infrastructure in place could not sustain operations, then Branson would not have been able to, effectively, starting the operation from scratch.

Would all the pilots, engineers, crews etc, some probably with only a few years left to retirement, want to have given up their pensions at BA, to go for another couple of years at Virgin?

If a giant like BA couldn't have taken on Airbus' full costs, then I very much doubt Branson would have got further down the line. They would have just been retired in Virgin Atlantic livery instead a year or so later.

It was a good opportunity to have a swipe at BA getting them for £1 though and claim that they were the property of the taxpayer.
Last edited by FGR2 on Mon 21 Sep 2015, 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
planenuttoo
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon 17 Aug 2015, 8:24 am

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by planenuttoo »

Steve p wrote:If my memory is correct was it Richard Branson who wanted to purchase a few concordes after BA had retired them, was it BA that refused to sell them them to him or something similar?.


A lot more involved than that - crew, engineers, equipment, would have meant BA losing a lot of people though it never was on the cards. Would still have needed the backing of everything that was to be withdrawn.

User avatar
Seahornet
Posts: 901
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2008, 1:55 pm
Location: Shropshire, Severn Valley

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by Seahornet »

Concorde to fly agin? Absolute, total fantasy. No design authority support, no spares, no Olympus engineering facilities or expertise, no business plan, and almost certainly, no £120M. I mean, who on earth would?! :facepalm:
And as the smart ship grew,
In stature, grace and hue,
In shadowy silent distance grew the iceberg too....

User avatar
MarkL
UKAR Supporter
Posts: 1860
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 5:44 pm

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by MarkL »

Happy talkin', talkin Happy talk
Talk about things you'd like to do
You've got to have a dream
If you don't have a dream
How you gonna have a dream come true

Captain Sensible.
HTAFC

User avatar
bigfatron
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon 06 Jul 2009, 11:40 am

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by bigfatron »

FGR2 wrote:I don't ever believe Branson was serious, it was a good opportunity for him to get some PR though. People still believed he was serious in buying them, so it must have worked.

If BA with all the infrastructure in place could not sustain operations, then Branson would not have been able to, effectively, starting the operation from scratch.

Would all the pilots, engineers, crews etc, some probably with only a few years left to retirement, want to have given up their pensions at BA, to go for another couple of years at Virgin?

If a giant like BA couldn't have taken on Airbus' full costs, then I very much doubt Branson would have got further down the line. They would have just been retired in Virgin Atlantic livery instead a year or so later.

It was a good opportunity to have a swipe at BA getting them for £1 though and claim that they were the property of the taxpayer.


Didn't BA buy them outright in the 80's though? So the "we'll offer the £1 per airframe you paid for them" was about 20 years too late.

As you say though, it was basically a willy-waving exercise on Branson's part with him being safe in the knowledge he was never going to be sold them. And if BA had called his bluff when the bidding got a bit more serious (didn't £1 become £1m and then £5m per jet?) then no doubt the withdrawal of supplier support (which I think was assured by the time the whole sorry publicity seeking exercise started) would've been his 'out' to pull out of the deal.

AARDVARK
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 12:39 pm

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by AARDVARK »

Be nice to have one on the Thames thou !

User avatar
spellow3010
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed 17 Sep 2014, 1:12 pm
Location: Rugby
Contact:

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by spellow3010 »

Personally, I think they have a better chance of knitting fog or platting urine.

But all this waffle about 'there isn't this anymore,' or 'there isn't that anymore...' For example, a lot of folk in this thread have mentioned 'Vulcan' or 'Olympus...'

Vulcan has proven that where there is a will, there is a way of doing it. It isn't therefore impossible.

Olympus engines and air intake control computers... Who are we to say that it will actually need and use Olympus engines? It wouldn't need Olympus engines to take to the sky - just some engines. Nowhere in that article in the Telegraph does it say that they intend to fly it supersonically... You would never be allowed to fly supersonically from London to Monaco.

I was always led to believe that in the UK, no 'preserved' aircraft of flying condition is permitted to have 'afterburner' or 'reheat' or supersonic capability because of their maintenance complexity and if they got into the wrong hands, may prove a challenge for the current air force to intercept and shoot down. E.g. the various live Lightnings we have in this country. I'm not sure if these Concordes would come under the 'preserved' banner... Probably some red tape to disentangle or fly under. I guess it doesn't need to be UK based or registered does it? The Viggen from Sweden is allowed to fly here - but is not flown by a civilian group is it?

I think there is more chance of a flying Concorde if they choose different engines - I mean, the Nimrod MRA4 was still a Nimrod was it not? The shape would be there, which is probably what is most appealing... but the noise would be a lot less invasive... and no sonic boom kerfuffles to legislate over. A quieter and easier to maintain Concorde would help navigate through some legal matters and risk assessments.

Yes... unlikely, but not impossible.

User avatar
pbeardmore
Posts: 4406
Joined: Thu 06 Nov 2008, 9:16 am

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by pbeardmore »

This says more about the lazy, stupid media than it does about getting Concorde back in the air
“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”

User avatar
capercaillie
Posts: 8051
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 3:04 pm
Location: Leominster

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by capercaillie »

spellow3010 wrote: Olympus engines and air intake control computers... Who are we to say that it will actually need and use Olympus engines? It wouldn't need Olympus engines to take to the sky - just some engines.

I was always led to believe that in the UK, no 'preserved' aircraft of flying condition is permitted to have 'afterburner' or 'reheat' or supersonic capability because of their maintenance complexity and if they got into the wrong hands, may prove a challenge for the current air force to intercept and shoot down. E.g. the various live Lightnings we have in this country. I'm not sure if these Concordes would come under the 'preserved' banner... Probably some red tape to disentangle or fly under. I guess it doesn't need to be UK based or registered does it? The Viggen from Sweden is allowed to fly here - but is not flown by a civilian group is it?

I think there is more chance of a flying Concorde if they choose different engines - I mean, the Nimrod MRA4 was still a Nimrod was it not? The shape would be there, which is probably what is most appealing... but the noise would be a lot less invasive... and no sonic boom kerfuffles to legislate over. A quieter and easier to maintain Concorde would help navigate through some legal matters and risk assessments.

Yes... unlikely, but not impossible.


So you're saying you can take a highly complex aircraft with various aerodynamic perfections and special variable geometry intakes, put it in the hands of a bunch of amateurs who can just rip out its engines and replace them with any old powerplant? What do you propose with that level of thrust that would fit? Ask the USAF if they have any spare B-1B engines? Or just bolt on some old Conways from a VC10 and hope you can reach V2 before the end of the runway? All for the money they have in their pocket.

The Nimrod MRA4 was developed by a multi billion dollar company, not a few guys with £120m.

The Viggen is operated by a civil group, flown by a military or ex military pilot who used to fly Viggens granted, but its civilian. The Lightning is not permitted under by CAA rules due to its poor redundancy features, not because it has afterburners as far as I'm aware.

And now for something completely different.......... :tumbleweed:
"The surrogate voice of st24"

User avatar
Brevet Cable
Posts: 13190
Joined: Tue 05 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by Brevet Cable »

If anyone feels like reading it , this is the CAA's original Permit to Fly issued to XH558 :
http://www.caa.co.uk/aandocs/27038/27038000000.pdf

The requirements for Concorde ( or any other 'complex' category aircraft ) would be similar if not more extensive......how many of the various requirements would any group trying to restore & return a Concorde to flight be able to meet ?
Tôi chỉ đặt cái này ở đây để giữ cho người điều hành bận rộn
아직도 숨어있다

User avatar
pbeardmore
Posts: 4406
Joined: Thu 06 Nov 2008, 9:16 am

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by pbeardmore »

Yes... unlikely, but not impossible.

Like the Sun exploding tomorrow or winning the lottery 3 times in a row
“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”

User avatar
Brevet Cable
Posts: 13190
Joined: Tue 05 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by Brevet Cable »

capercaillie wrote:Or just bolt on some old Conways from a VC10 and hope you can reach V2 before the end of the runway? All for the money they have in their pocket.
Well , the suggestion to re-engine XH558 with Conways was made several times on the VTTS forum :lol:
Tôi chỉ đặt cái này ở đây để giữ cho người điều hành bận rộn
아직도 숨어있다

Gregg
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon 27 Jun 2011, 10:55 am

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by Gregg »

If you go down the re-engine route it no longer is a Concorde. It becomes a new type that requires all that certification malarkey.

Big Eric
Posts: 2045
Joined: Sun 22 Aug 2010, 6:15 pm

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by Big Eric »

I don't know why this is still being discussed as it will never happen. :wall:

User avatar
planenuttoo
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon 17 Aug 2015, 8:24 am

Re: Concorde to fly again...?

Post by planenuttoo »

Decent article here on the BBC site, and with plenty of reference to XH558, and from Doctor Robert Pleming.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2015092 ... m-the-dead

Quote

Bear in mind, too, that the Concorde was at the bleeding edge of aviation and engineering knowledge and considerably more complex than the subsonic Vulcan. And every single part of it, from the airframe to the air conditioning wiring, would need to be rigorously checked and, if needed, replaced.
(should that be leading edge?)