The return of Concorde???

[MDHAC]

I was, on Sunday morning, watching Something for the Weekend on BBC 2 when the presenter Tim Lovejoy made a comment about Concorde "coming back". At the time I was watching no more was said about it so I dont know if this is based on factual evidence or him just guessing/hoping.

Does anyone on here know anything about this? Is there the remotest chance this is true?

It would be fantastic if it is (and if they could persuade the Australians that its not too loud and wont destroy the ice caps!), but I have my doubts about its commercial viability these days, plus with the ongoing investigation into the French crash I would be surprised.

[Parapunter]

Tim Lovejoy - the well respected aviation authority?:}

[Firestorm]

"Concorde coming back" probably a similie much in the same sense as "with as much hope as England wining the soccer World Cup."

[Dave Clarke Fife]

Something to do with a track and field get together in London in 2012......................

Concorde may fly again for 2012 Olympics (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-06/4/concorde-may-fly-again-for-2012-olympics)

[NazgulAir]

Maybe there is a big difference between getting a limited-very-restricted Permit To Fly for a special once-only occasion and getting back a fully fledged CofA.
In the former case, if no passengers are carried and the pilots waive their liability claim rights, who knows?

[Agaricus bisporus]

Why would anyone want to associate their modern, clean, eco puff, 'elf n' safety obsessed Olympic Games with an obsolete, half French, chronically uneconomic, shockingly noisy, 1960s dinosaur coal-burner with a dodgy safety record that was even abandoned by it's manufacturer?

I know we love anything that turns this country even further into a retro museum but I can't see anything positive or useful being conveyed by putting Concorde up over the Olympics; quite the opposite.

Strikes me as about as pointless and forward-looking as providing the Olympians with a fleet of Ford Corsairs or Morris Oxfords to drive around in.

How on earth does this showcase modern Britain?

(only partly tongue-in-cheek)

[microlight600]

You're right.

I'd much rather have a go in a nice, modern Nissan Micra, than an appallingly old-fashioned and thirsty Ferrari 250GTO.

Oh, wait..

[JEM60]

It's really time to put these 'Concorde to fly again' threads to bed. If you read all the previous threads about it taking to the air, all the reasons have been explained as to why it simply 'aint going to happen' You can dream, of course, but time for a reality check.
At very best there MAY be a taxi-ing one in France, but thats as far as its going to get. [ Mind you, I said the Vulcan would never get to display again, some years ago.................]

[hurn]

How on earth does this showcase modern Britain?
It doesn't, but frankly why would you want to showcase 'modern' Britain anyway? :yuk:

Forget Concorde, the UK is bankrupt. By the time the Olympics get here we'll be lucky to get a Microlight towing a Union flag behind it.

[Genghis the Engineer]

It doesn't, but frankly why would you want to showcase 'modern' Britain anyway? :yuk:

Forget Concorde, the UK is bankrupt. By the time the Olympics get here we'll be lucky to get a Microlight towing a Union flag behind it.

At-least Britain still makes microlights, it would seem quite appropriate.

G

[MDHAC]

Thanks to people who have commented on this. I should have known it would only be something like a fly past, but I can only hope.

JEM60 - I did think it was highly unlikely and have to admit I only half heartedly looked through previous Concorde threads before posting.
I had thought that maybe a new design was being developed as I still maintian it is a crime not to develop this sort of technology, just think how good it would be to get to Australia (for example) in only a few hours (from the UK).
oh and, hopefully you'll be as correct as you were about the Vulcan :ok:

[Windy Militant]

MDHAC There are designs Reaction Engines Lapcat A2 (http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/lapcat.html)
We just can't afford them! Well we could if we could whip up the same frenzied following for aerospace that the cult of talentless celebrity enjoys :ugh:

[Skipness One Echo]

I still maintian it is a crime not to develop this sort of technology, just think how good it would be to get to Australia (for example) in only a few hours (from the UK).

Technology cannot make the physics of the sonic boom magically vanish hence that's not going to happen. This is the same reason why Concorde's potential was massively limited. Who the Hell wants a clap of thunder overhead every day of their lives?

[Flying Lawyer]

Skipness Who the Hell wants a clap of thunder overhead every day of their lives?
It wouldn't bother me. It might if it happened every half hour.

Agaricus bisporus
Concorde wasn't obsolete when withdrawn from service. It would have been in about 10 years.
The BA fleet wasn't chronically uneconomic. It consistently made a healthy profit from the mid-80s until the Paris crash in 2000. (Post crash, it wasn't profitable - until the retirement was announced and then flights were full because many people took their last opportunity to fly in Concorde.)
I've lived under the LHR flightpath for more than 30 years and, although Concorde was louder than other aircraft, never found it 'shockingly noisy'.
I agree the fuel-burn would have been unacceptable to some people in modern times. The strength of their objection would depend upon how extreme their green views.
Concorde didn't have a dodgy safety record. After the Paris crash even minor incidents were exaggerated out of all proportion by some sections of the British media.
The manufacturer's successor (Airbus Industrie) announced it was no longer prepared to continue charging the two operators less than the actual cost for its work. Air France wanted (arguably needed) to withdraw Concorde from service: the airline was in dire financial straits pre the KLM merger and, unlike BA, had never made a financial success of its Concorde fleet. BA couldn't afford to bear the DA cost alone given the declining market post crash and economic downturn.
We'll never know if Airbus, as the design authority, would have taken that stance if Air France had not wanted to get out of Concorde. But we can have our suspicions. ;)

[wub]

Who the Hell wants a clap of thunder overhead every day of their lives?

When Concorde started commercial service to Bahrain, it used to pass Cyprus at supersonic speed every day, the boom lasted a couple of seconds and after a few days no one bothered at all.

[mcgoo]

An interesting article on Concorde's demise here:

THE BETRAYAL OF CONCORDE (http://www.concorde-spirit-tours.com/concorde.htm)

Apologies if it's been posted before.

[Agaricus bisporus]

FL, with respect, M´Lud

A steam driven 3 flightcrew aircraft with that sort of fuel burn is obsolete. It may have been marginally useful, but so are DC3s. Still obsolete.

No, never economical. It was given to BA and AF cost free. It never had to earn its keep on a commercial basis, it never could have. Thats why no one else bought it.

No safety record? I submit you might examine its tyre damage history a bit more closely, and the accident record, albeit one only from that cause is not at all impressive. That accident was all too predictable I think.

Not shockingly noisy??? You must have rose tinted ear defenders! It was fantastically noisy. I too lived beneath its flight path and loved it. The noise made your chest vibrate 5000 below. It was the noisiest by far, vastly, hugely more than 707s, tridents, VC10s. It stopped conversation. They never did.

ps

Didn´t you read the bit about tongue in cheek...?

[PPRuNe Pop]

I agree with everything that FL says, in fact he sums Concorde up quite neatly.

As for noise, Concorde came over my house daily at around 5:30, give or take. You could easily tell by the noise what it was, but at 4000' what noise are YOU talking about? I never endured chest 'pains' or anything like it. It was a lovely noise and I truly miss it.

But, as they say, that's another story.

My fingerprints, as are FL's, deep inside the inards of AF and were made at a time when it an the others were undergoing a back to service re-fit at £15m a time and were shortly ready to take to the air - as indeed they all did. That is what makes the whole thing so sad and gut wrenching to my mind.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The manufacturer's successor (Airbus Industrie) announced it was no longer prepared to continue charging the two operators less than the actual cost for its work.

This is really at the root of it - any complex aeroplane (and there are few more complex than Concorde) needs a very capable design authority to look after it. Airbus were that design authority, but it was using huge resources to support and they wanted those (human) resources on the A380 and A400M. So the company would do anything to get out of supporting Concorde, whilst at the same time Air France were also very happy to get rid of an aeroplane which for them was uneconomic.

So, Concorde could have been kept going by BA (or Virgin!), but this essentially meant their finding an organisation with the large and necessary design and airworthiness engineering capability to support the type. That wasn't coming from Airbus and so far as I know nobody else was prepared to take it on (BAe Regional or maybe Marshalls could probably have done), so that lack of commercial will doomed the type in service.

Even for a single flight, that design support will still be needed - I don't see it coming from anywhere right now.

G

[M2dude]

Agaricus bisporus A steam driven 3 flightcrew aircraft with that sort of fuel burn is obsolete. It may have been marginally useful, but so are DC3s. Still obsolete.

No, never economical. It was given to BA and AF cost free. It never had to earn its keep on a commercial basis, it never could have. Thats why no one else bought it.

No safety record? I submit you might examine its tyre damage history a bit more closely, and the accident record, albeit one only from that cause is not at all impressive. That accident was all too predictable I think.


OK, now let's deal with some of this total drivel, and give these comments of yours a little perspective, not to mention inject some FACTS. Agaricus bisporus, you may be interested to know that the aircraft was not driven by steam!!! She was in fact driven by the power of 4 TURBOJET engines; namely Rolls-Royce Olympus 593-610-28, rated at 38,050lb static thrust. Yes, Concorde had 3 flight crew, as did every other long haul aircraft of the era, so what's your point?.
FUEL BURN? Yes, the take-off fuel burn was extremely high, as was subsonic flight. But at the Mach 2 cruise it all turned on its head; the fuel burn per engine was a little over 5 tonnes/hour, falling to around 4 tonnes/hour at the end of supersonic cruise. So, here you have 100 passengers, sitting in total comfort and drinking champagne, flying at 1,320 ish MPH, with a fuel burn far lower than ANY Mach 2 aircraft of any size or type. (No afterburning , or reheat). You are showing total ignorance here yet again; this was a truly amazing technical achievement.
If you look at history, the airlines were NEVER given the aircraft as such, and had to bear all of the product support costs. The aircraft DID earn her keep on a commercial basis, earned it' and how. CHECK YOUR FACTS !!
The tyre damage issue has been reported in so many learned papers; The Paris incident was truly unique, in that it is the ONLY incident where soft material only (ie the tyre segment), caused fuel tank rupture, there is enough comment elsewhere, as well as evidence, to show that this disaster was NOT down to a simple tyre failure, but down to a long chain of events, all of them preventable. There were serious issues however, regarding Concorde tyre failures that had to be addressed; you were dealing with a very high pressure, high speed tyre, living below a delta wing; we are talking about an SST here after all, and several improvement modifications were carried out. (The Michelin NZG tyre fitted after the crash was truly amazing, but this technology was just not available when the aircraft was developed). To clarify one point here, after BA modified it's water deflectors in the early1990's, there was NEVER another incident of airframe damage due to tyre failure with that fleet. (AF however never carried out that particular modification).
Aviation is all about learning from incidents, it is not about making glib remarks about a subject you plainly know nothing about . Concorde had a wonderful safety record prior to Paris, and nomatter what YOU think, this accident was not predictable; it should just never had happened.
It is so sad, when such an amazing aircraft gets her history distorted by people who plainly do not know their undercarriage from their elbow!!!:ugh:

[M2dude]

Gengis, you are quite correct as far as your rationale goes, but I honestly think that you need to examine the REAL reasons for Airbus withdrawing support. It has less to do with A380 and A400M work (and what a resounding success the A400M is proving to be !!), more to do with a now French dominated company not wanting a British airline to continue operating Concorde without the French national carrier. Donald L. Pevsner's superb work is certainly worth a read here.
Otherwise I tend to agree with you, a large organisation with sufficient Engineering/Airworthiness divisions is necessary for any flight, and I for one just do not know where the $$$$$'s would come from at the moment.
On a purely TECHNICAL standpoint it can be done, it's the other 'stuff' that gets in the way.:\

[Kieron Kirk]

"If you look at history, the airlines were NEVER given the aircraft as such, and had to bear all of the product support costs. The aircraft DID earn her keep on a commercial basis, earned it' and how. CHECK YOUR FACTS !!"

Why did no other airline buy Concorde ?

Deep from the memory: BA or BOAC or whatever it was called at the time, received a subsidy of £1 million per a/c per year to operate Concorde, but I do not recall for how long.

Comments.

Ciarain.

[Feathers McGraw]

Yes, a passing Concorde did stop conversation, but only because everyone was peering upwards with various expressions of delight on their faces. No other aircraft did that throughout its life without fail.

[The SSK]

Having lived in Kew in the late seventies I can absolutely confirm that Concorde overflying on approach would make conversation impossible for a good minute, and somewhere in the middle of that minute it was genuinely painful.

And having worked for BOAC/BA at that time as a product planner on US routes, I knew Concorde inside out, the economics and the operational capability. I regarded lt not as a real aeroplane but as a political conceit. It was the 747s, 707s and VC10s that earned my salary and connected with the real world.

[M2dude]

on 31st March 1984, after extensive negotiations with HMG, primarily through government minister Ian Sproat MP, BA took on all of the Concorde support costs. (The French did things slightly differently, but the end result was pretty much the same) and the airlines paid a specific sum of money for each airframe. There would be no more government subsidies of any kind, the airlines were on their own.
No one would even try to suggest that Concorde was purchased in the same way as any other airliner, but nonetheless the aircraft were not 'given away', and had to earn their keep. On this side of the Channel at least, that keep was earned a thousand fold over.

[M2dude]

SSK

Having lived in Kew in the late seventies I can absolutely confirm that Concorde overflying on approach would make conversation impossible for a good minute, and somewhere in the middle of that minute it was genuinely painful.
What total nonsense, there was nothing like one minute of conversational impossiblity, and pain never entered into it. I was underneath the approach enough times, and a lot closer than Kew. The high approach speed made the noise over and done with before you knew it. (

And having worked for BOAC/BA at that time as a product planner on US routes, I knew Concorde inside out, the economics and the operational capability. I regarded lt not as a real aeroplane but as a political conceit. It was the 747s, 707s and VC10s that earned my salary and connected with the real world.
Plainly you did NOT know Concorde inside out, coming out with comments like that. (In terms of economics and operational capability, are you aware of the performance improvements associated with the intake thin-lip modification? I thought not). And where is this real world of yours? You seem totally unaware what an asset Concorde was to BA.

There has just been a little too much Concorde bashing in this post to date, by individuals who have scant knowledge of what Concorde was all about; it's time for some learned rebuttal.

[The SSK]

Funny how anyone who disagrees with Mr M2dude is dismissed as just plain ignorant.

See my age down the side there? Subtract 18 and that's how long I have been an airline professional. Don't presume to tell me what I know and don't know.

[Agaricus bisporus]

The intellectual level of M2's argument is introduced early in his first post, accusing me of ignorance for thinking Concorde was driven by steam and not by jet engines...

I hope he is at least comfortable at that level where he so obviously feels at home.

:rolleyes:

[Skipness One Echo]

You seem totally unaware what an asset Concorde was to BA.


WAS.

A significant minority of the clientele was murdered on the same day of the first post crash transatlantic test flight. The market for First Class crashed on the same day. Concorde had a mountain to climb even then.

Clarkson always compared it to the Aston Martin, gorgeous but not that reliable. When one bascially has a spare aeroplane lying around in case the first breaks down that's an added cost as it's not flying making money elsewhere.

When Air France just landed a Concorde in Halifax with a major fuel leak, it was game over for the French Concorde and rightly so. BA could have gone on but the market had slumped, the profits had vanished and the aircraft was only going to become even more maintenance intensive. Young engineers had no wish to train on what was by then, an antique. It was for the best that things ended when they did.

As to the bloke who doesn't mind a sonic boom over his house, there's a word for that. Minority. I mean really, we pander enough to minorities enough in the UK. I always loved Concorde, but as a realist, her day is over. Please, please let it lie.

[Hobo]

Yes, a passing Concorde did stop conversation, but only because everyone was peering upwards with various expressions of delight on their faces. No other aircraft did that throughout its life without fail.

Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster.........


There has just been a little too much Concorde bashing in this post to date, by individuals who have scant knowledge of what Concorde was all about; it's time for some learned rebuttal.

SSK is simply right and no rebuttal, learned or otherwise, is necessary.

[M2dude]

Skipness
A significant minority of the clientele was murdered on the same day of the first post crash transatlantic test flight. The market for First Class crashed on the same day. Concorde had a mountain to climb even then.
Yes, it certainly did have a mountain to climb, and it was climbing it very well, thank you.
Clarkson always compared it to the Aston Martin, gorgeous but not that reliable. When one bascially has a spare aeroplane lying around in case the first breaks down that's an added cost as it's not flying making money elsewhere.
What absolute tosh; There was a stanby A/C allocated, whenever possible. This had nothing to do with unreliability, more to do with protecting an absolute premium product. You are (obviously) unaware, but we had aircraft do complete world tours, on umpteen occasions, with little or no hiccups at all. (You only ever heard when there was something 'dramatic', like a rudder delamination, otherwise you heard nothing. BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING BAD TO REPORT!!). The more you flew her, the happier she was.
When Air France just landed a Concorde in Halifax with a major fuel leak, it was game over for the French Concorde and rightly so. BA could have gone on but the market had slumped, the profits had vanished and the aircraft was only going to become even more maintenance intensive.
Oh no, a demonstration of total ignorance here. The AF incidence in Halifax was one of TOTAL lack of situational awareness, on the part of the crew. (The incident concerned SHOULD have been a non-event; instead it was a near disaster). The market had diminished at the time it's true, but Concorde had been through far worse, and been around to flourish when the market recovered. She was maintenance intensive, that was always the case, but the benefits always far outweighed this.
Young engineers had no wish to train on what was by then, an antique. It was for the best that things ended when they did.
Now someone is really talking out of their armpits. 'Young Engineers' are happy to train on whatever aircraft they are going to be employed on. Just because you could obviously not comprehend the aircraft, does not mean that others have the same inadequacies. Of course with Concorde, it was necessary for an engineer to THINK, and have knowledge of his (or her) aeroplane. You could not just rely on a computer to tell you what was wrong. Some people are just not capable of thinking outside the box I guess.
As to the bloke who doesn't mind a sonic boom over his house, there's a word for that. Minority. I mean really, we pander enough to minorities enough in the UK. I always loved Concorde, but as a realist, her day is over. Please, please let it lie
No one would routinely want a sonic boom over their house, that was NOT what the poster said at all. And as far as minorities go, then perhaps you are in a minority in the aviation world. (And as for letting it lie? enough people are still happy to discuss this amazing aircraft. But no one is asking you to contribute, so it's ok). :).

[M2dude]

SSK
Funny how anyone who disagrees with Mr M2dude is dismissed as just plain ignorant.
I am merely responding to some rather pathetic (and unpleasant at times) 'Concorde swiping', by people who are attacking something they plainly know nothing about. As far as being ignorant, well if the cap fits.....See my age down the side there? Subtract 18 and that's how long I have been an airline professional. Don't presume to tell me what I know and don't know
You can be 80 and still talk nonsense sir, age has nothing to do with it. I do not presume to tell you what you don't know, you are demonstrating that very well, all by yourself. Constructive and factual critisism are what forums are all about, these points are always responded to with total respect and honesty. But where total and sometimes plainly viciuos nonsense is talked about an aircraft that I lived with for well over 30 years, by people who plainly have little knowledge of the subject, then I will feel free to respond in the manner that the post is written. If you do not like my responses, then post facts, and not some very slanted and warped opinions.
I am sure that you can talk with a lot of authority about things that you genuinely have knowlege of sir, I mean no disrespect. It's just that Concorde is not one of these subjects I'm afraid. (sorry).

[M2dude]

Hobo
SSK is simply right and no rebuttal, learned or otherwise, is necessary.
WRONG!!

[M2dude]

Agaricus bisporus
The intellectual level of M2's argument is introduced early in his first post, accusing me of ignorance for thinking Concorde was driven by steam and not by jet engines...
I hope he is at least comfortable at that level where he so obviously feels at home.

If you, sir, write this sort of crap, then you must be prepared for a response. As to my intellectual level, I merely placed my response at a level that you just might understand, (if you still do not understand, I am so very sorry). As for my intellect; it is alive and well thank you very much.:ok:

[Brit312]

I like reading these pages especially those about Concorde as I was involved with the old girl fron 1975 to 1998.

When I joined the Concorde fleet in 1975 I was told by my then boss not to get too attached to the aircraft as it would only last for 3 years and then we would all be on B747. This was a general feeling in the airline at the time, they would operate it for just a short period to placate the government.

The deal was that the government would get the profit if made and would cover any losses. It was therefore not in the airline interest to make a profit with it so the airline as a fleet on which to add the cost of operating their other aircraft types. An example of this was Concorde shared the wing hanger with the B757 fleet, so any new equipement that was bought for that hanger was considered a Concorde item so the small fleet was carrying more cost than was fair.

With the advent of privatisation this could not go on so the Concorde operation became a solely BA problem and the chairman gave the fleet 2 to3 years to prove it's worth or close. I believe the rest is history as although it went through some bumpy times due to one recession or onother it remained a profitable operation at least until the crash.

Even within BA there were people who saw the aircraft as elitist both for the passengers and the people who worked on it or for it. The crews and their specialized way of working did not fit into the norm for BA aircraft , and were constantly pressurized to standardise like the other fleets. As an example we were asked to change our checklist to include flaps and slats even though we did not have them. Eventually it was agreed on the understanding that ALL the other fleets included nose/visor and reheat on their checklists.
The stupidity of the request was seen to be just that and never implemated.

There was some resentment from some departments that Concorde Ground Engineers would follow the aircraft to the departure stand and refuel it before departing the aircraft. This was seen as elitist and showed it was always breaking down, but with a small fleet it saved training more people to do ever fewer tasks on the same aircraft. Yes, it seemed old fashion idea as the years went on and only Concorde did it within BA, but it worked on a small fleet.

The only time I remember it being difficult to get people onto the aircraft was in it's early days, but with the advent of the 1980s and 90s any vacancy in any position was quickly filled.

Finally by it's retirement it was getting to be an old aircraft and as beautiful as she was there has to come a time to stop, after all the fleet was 27 years old by then. So let us accept she did have her good and bad points and was far from perfect, but over the fleets life the old girl far exceeded what many people had original thought she could do

Brit312

Sorry for the length, but got carried away

[M2dude]

BRIT312
Very good post sir; it certainly brings back a few things. It is so easy to forget just how far back the story of Concorde goes for so many of us, it was a long and convoluted history. Yes, the 'old girl' was far from perfect, she could kick you in the butt if you ever took her for granted, but she was certainly as good an aircraft that ever took to the air.
Not sure that totally agree about her retiring being the 'time for her to go'; in airframe terms all the aircraft were still quite young, but some of the systems WOULD need replacing/updating in the near future (eg. INS for one, plus EGPWS embodiment). There was also the mandatory review of fuel pump integrity (following the TWA 800 disaster), and the long-term solution to the fuselage crown area design issue. None of these things would be cheap (or easy), although most 'system' issues could be resolved with 'off the shelf' replacements (eg. Litton 82), we can only wonder if it all could have been cost effective. (Although many aircraft types required modifications also, for many of the same issues).
Really enjoyed reading your post Brit312 :)

[tail wheel]

A steam driven 3 flightcrew aircraft with that sort of fuel burn is obsolete.

Wiki: Installed in Concorde and operating at Mach 2 it was the world's most efficient jet engine.

The RR Olympus can't have been too much of a coal burner. There are still a few Olympus industrial cores in use in Australian power stations and the Olympus TM3B marine turbine is still operating in naval ships.

Thats why no one else bought it.

They may not have bought Concorde, but a number of airlines, including Qantas, took options on Concorde until the US tree huggers restricted its operation due to alleged noise issues. (Or more likely, due to MDC and Boeing working on a US supersonic design.....)

[M2dude]

Tail Wheel
Very well put. In fact the installed thermal efficiency for the OLYMPUS 593 in Concorde at Mach 2 cruise was in the order of a truly remarkable 46%.
The 593 had it's origins in the Bristol Siddley Olympus engine that powered the Avro Vulcan, this engine itself being developed into the Olympus 320, that powered the ill-fated but superb BAC TSR-2. The 593 was developed from the 320.
In fact the Olympus was the world's very first 2 spool jet engine, development of which started way back in 1946. In terms of thrust growth during it's lifetime it was truly staggering; the original engine developed around 9,000lb static thrust, whereas the 593 was bench run at well over 40,000lb static thrust with afterburning. (A thrust hike of over 400%). Even a 'dry' static thrust of just over 32,000lb gives an growth of over 300% Not bad for a coal-burner :D
It is interesting to note that where military jet engines experience anything between a 70-100% thrust increase when reheat is applied, the Olympus 593 only had an increase of about 17% at takeoff power. BUT THIS REQUIRED AN INCREASE IN FUEL FLOW OF AROUND 78%!!! (Hence the sparing use of reheat on Concorde). :)

[Agaricus bisporus]

Perhaps it's time to bring this thread back on-topic, the return of Concorde?

Those of us who know nothng of Concorde, or of aviation in general are doubtless grateful to m2dupe for his simpering smugfest of Concorde's 21st century state-of-the-art brilliance, but that isn't the point of the thread.

Can we please leave the technical accolades to Tech Log, or perhaps in this case Jet Blast, and get gack on topic, please?

[411A]

...and get gack on topic, please?

OK, how's this?
Concorde was a dismal failure except for the premium trade (who thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, as long as someone else paid the true operating/maintenance costs) however...to expect it to return to the air is highly unlikely, considering the costs involved.

IE: whom is willing (or has deep enough pockets) to pay the bill?:}

[Mike7777777]

I don't think anyone doubts that Concorde was a technical tour de force, it was the non-existent business plan that screwed things up. But I'm sure there were probably hidden financial benefits to the Concorde project, for example what % of the development costs for the TSR2 were carried by Concorde? There is an historical analogy here, the primary function of the UK Magnox nuclear power stations was to create fissile material for the British nuclear deterrent, electricity generation was a useful by-product, but the vast majority of the costs of the stations were and are within the civilian sector.

Can Concorde fly again? Of course, just needs money throwing at it and Airbus to buy into the concept ...

[M2dude]

MIKE7777777
for example what % of the development costs for the TSR2 were carried by Concorde?.
An interesting point; certainly when the TSR2 was cancelled, engine development costs for the Olympus 593 went through the roof. What IS interesting is the emergence of the AIRBUS family. During Concorde construction, so many components 'came through' the factory at Filton that looked virtually IDENTICAL to Concorde components, but were earmarked for the A300 production line. (Witness that the main landing gear on the A300 is almost identical to that of Concorde. (It is impossible to prove, but one can not help but wonder just how much of the A300 development costs were 'buried' in the Concorde project costs).
Can Concorde fly again? Of course, just needs money throwing at it and Airbus to buy into the concept ... As has been said before, the only aircraft really capable of flying in the foreseeable future is in France; F-BTSD (A/C 213) at Le Bourget (This A/C never had it's hydraulics drained away, and has at least been powered on and off since retirement in 2003). But there would still be a HUGE amount of work, in terms of validating various aircraft systems, as well as a probable D Check. I still have not a clue where all the $$$$$'s would come from.
As far as Airbus goes, yes that really is a problem. It is always possible I suppose that they would delegate mfg support to another organisation (assuming a suitable organisation would want to get involved) who knows? :{

[M2dude]

411A
OK, how's this?
Concorde was a dismal failure except for the premium trade (who thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, as long as someone else paid the true operating/maintenance costs) however...to expect it to return to the air is highly unlikely, considering the costs involved.
This really is a collection of one liners, with little or no meaning. It WAS a premium product, aimed at the top end of the business market, as well as the 'rich and famous'. The passengers DID think it was the best thing since sliced bread, that's why they paid a fare set at a nominal First Class +20% in order to slice their transatlantic journey times in half. The operating and mtce costs were borne by the airlines, who else do you think it would be, Donald Duck? In spite of the high costs involved, Concorde did make a lot of money, at least for the airline this side of the English Channel.
Returning to the air, at least as an airliner carrying fare paying passengers, is extremely unlikely. The main debate here has been whether a single aircraft could fly, either for displays or other occasions. Although still hideously expansive, this is far more possible. (Or should we say far less impossible).

[flyawaybird]

:oh:Well, that was quite a challenging topic but nonetheless well tackled by M2dude.

Execuse my ignorance, what became of the flight navigators, did they get absorbed anywhere in the airlines. This is on more personal basis because I remember my relative was a navigator and when EAA wound up, he never got a job. Do you know anything those flight Navigators?

[A. Le Rhone]

411A, OK, how's this?
Concorde was a dismal failure except for the premium trade (who thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, as long as someone else paid the true operating/maintenance costs) however...to expect it to return to the air is highly unlikely, considering the costs involved.
See you're still persisting with your anti anything british drivel.

How about the same logic right back at you: OK, how's this?
Apollo 11 was a dismal failure except for the astronauts (who thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, as long as someone else paid the true operating/maintenance costs) however...to expect it to return to the air is highly unlikely, considering the costs involved.

Wait...Obama agrees with you! No more Concordes or Apollos

Some things are more than just about money.

And some things never change. Americans love competition - as long as they win.

[Evileyes]

This thread has degenerated past civility and has run far afield of its topic so it is now closed.