PDA

View Full Version : Virgin Atlantic Concorde


Douglas Bader
16th Oct 2003, 04:57
What's the latest on Sir Richards attempt to purchase Concorde/s, it's gone very quiet. I have my theory but would like the word from the trade first before I make a complete fool of myself.

M.Mouse
16th Oct 2003, 05:09
Probably gained all the free publicity that he can and has quietened down in case somebody calls his bluff.

paulo
16th Oct 2003, 05:27
Airbus pulled the plug, and aren't about to plug it back in again. This is the end. I so wish it wasn't. :(

Douglas Bader
16th Oct 2003, 05:33
Never say never. I think he was very genuine on the subject last time he spoke, we live in hope.:ok:

Hand Solo
16th Oct 2003, 05:42
Branson continues to make an arse of himself at every opportunity. Todays Daily Telegraph reports Bransons outrage at plans to retire two Concordes in the UK, one at Manchester airport and the other at Filton.

"It is particularly disappointing that our premier aviation museum at Duxford seems to have lost out." he moaned.

Well if the bearded clown had bothered to do some research he would have discovered that Duxford already has a Concorde, and its been there for many years! Perhaps having two Concordes would be a little greedy Sir Richard? One must wonder if the public will grow tired of a man who not only whines about not being given the aircraft free, but then complains about who its owners decide to donate the aircraft to!

Douglas Bader
16th Oct 2003, 05:55
I'm not old but I was there at Duxford the day Concorde flew in, pre M11, soon after, the museum was expanded and the Runway chopped, A great day that was, the sound will always be with me.
SOMEBODY SAVE HER PLEASE!

Skylion
16th Oct 2003, 06:09
Neither Branson nor anyone else will be able to do any substantial flying of Concorde after the end of next week. If BA had been really clever they would have said " fine" we will deliver the whole fleet to you on the evening of October 24th and look forward to flying with you on 25th. Even Houdini would have found that one tough.

Memetic
16th Oct 2003, 06:11
The Concorde at Duxford is a prototype (http://www.iwm.org.uk/duxford/brit16.htm according to the website the faqstest ever Concorde.

However it has never flown commercially and I don't think it has a complete passenger cabin so it could be argued that this is not a true example of what the dream of flying Concorde was about.

I think having the prototype and a final flying example would have made a good set for Duxford - assuming they had the space / budget etc.

Douglas Bader
16th Oct 2003, 06:14
I feel you are right, but the general consensus is that BA are retiring her to early and for the wrong reasons. Enough great British engineering has been given away or stopped to early, it's just very sad. LHR will be a less interesting place(and quiter) without her.
Perhaps Roman Abramovich can sign her up, he has everything else

Re Duxford. Landing her there could be a real problem as runway now only 1503mx44m with first 50m of R24 sterile due to M11 motorway, space and budget is not a problem, and Concorde 001 at Duxford does only have 1/4 seated cabin the rest is dedicated to history, development etc

M.Mouse
16th Oct 2003, 15:37
I feel you are right, but the general consensus is that BA are retiring her to early and for the wrong reasons.

Oh really?

LGW Vulture
16th Oct 2003, 16:31
Come on 411A I'm with you, cut this thread to pieces this minute!!

BTW...shouldn't Concorde related threads now be put in the Aviation History & Nostalgia section?? :D :D

russelldav
16th Oct 2003, 16:53
I appreciate the reasons why she has to go...but where's the replacement?!

It doesn't make sense to me...

Groundloop
16th Oct 2003, 16:57
Neither of the 2 Concorde prototypes is at Duxford.

001 is at Le Bourget and 002 is at Yeovilton.

The Concorde at Duxford is 01, the first pre-production aircraft. Therefore it is the same shape as production Concordes (001 and 002 had no visor and a small tail boom) and is therefore fairly representative of the service aircraft. However a proper airline Concorde would be nice at Duxford - certainly better than sending one to Barbados, for goodness sake!

Taildragger67
16th Oct 2003, 19:50
BARBADOS??

That well-known centre of aviation history and development.

Oh well, nice jolly for whoever has to go out there & make sure it's being preserved properly. Will need to be done at least twice a year. For a couple of weeks at a stretch, at least.

BahrainLad
16th Oct 2003, 20:26
I feel you are right, but the general consensus is that BA are retiring her to early and for the wrong reasons.

You berk. BA want to fly on, Airbus won't let them.

You've been listening to the pullover too much.

Genghis the Engineer
16th Oct 2003, 21:47
Well some of BA anyway, I gather from a reliable source not the head of Engineering who it is said has never liked the beast. To be fair, it must use-up a lot of resources compared to a more modern set of systems like a 747. But certainly not most of the marketing people and aircrew - and any of the Flight Engineers.

Concorde was and is a remarkable Engineering achievement. Given that, the production standard test aircraft at Duxford is incredibly interesting. A standard pax Concorde would arguably be less so since it doesn't have the visibility of systems that aircraft offers. A pax cabin is a pax cabin and for most of us not the most interesting part of an aeroplane.

Mind you, it wouldn't be hard to fit the rear section of 01 with a final-standard pax cabin would it?

G

HOVIS
17th Oct 2003, 01:10
It isn't just Airbus pulling the plug.

The Concorde fleet are cracking up and require extensive and expensive maintenance programs to keep them flying. Branson would have s*** himself if BA had said "ok squire carry on they're all yours."

Still old beardy did a fabulous publicity job, not just for himself but BA too. Ta mate!! :D

Shaggy Sheep Driver
17th Oct 2003, 03:29
The Concorde at Duxford is 01, the first pre-production aircraft. Therefore it is the same shape as production Concordes (001 and 002 had no visor and a small tail boom) and is therefore fairly representative of the service aircraft.

I noticed it had a tail bumper instaed of the production aircraft's pair of small tail wheels. I'm sure there are plenty of other differences. Also, it does not have any passenger cabin fittings, and has such stuff as emergency crew escape systems as well as a cabin full of test gear.

I think it would be good to have it displayed next to an ex-fleet aeroplane. If nothing else, she would be under cover; a lot better than rotting on some aircraft carrier in NY or under the Barbados sun.

SSD

booke23
17th Oct 2003, 04:17
The Concorde at Duxford is not really a good representation of the production concordes.

As has been pointed out it has no tail wheel.....only a skid, Small tail cone, and the Engine exhaust nozzles were not fully developed, So it does not have thrust reversing buckets.....it had a parachute for retardation on the ground.

The undercarriage is completely different, no where near as beefy as the production aircraft's. Additionally the undercarrage is not a long as the production aircraft's......this gives it a very different look on the ground.....a more 'squat' apperance.

The cockpit layout was not finalised either at the time, so there are some pretty major differences in there too.

Theses are only the external differences.....there are many more differences in the systems.

Jordan D
17th Oct 2003, 04:52
Forgive me for saying something that is possibly very stupid ....

but how difficult would it be to build a new fleet of Concorde .... I mean all the test work has been done, they know an airframe that works. All it needs are sturdier materials (which, lets be honest, this many years hence shouldn't be a problem), and a new flight control system (the only 'new' bit).

What does anyone else think?

Jordan

Ranger One
17th Oct 2003, 11:07
Jordan D:

but how difficult would it be to build a new fleet of Concorde .... I mean all the test work has been done, they know an airframe that works. All it needs are sturdier materials (which, lets be honest, this many years hence shouldn't be a problem), and a new flight control system (the only 'new' bit).

Yes, they have an airframe that works, but it doesn't have the capacity to be economic.

And 'sturdier materials'... that's a whole different ball game in terms of redesign, analysis, testing, certification...

But you don't even mention the main problem: the engines. Too noisy, too inefficient (yes I know the argument that the Olympus by some measures is the most efficient jet engine ever built, in the M 2.0 cruise - but the overall gas mileage still sucks!).

Fancy taking a bet on the cost of getting a new supersonic turbofan engine certified, and doing some guesswork on how many you'll sell at the end of it?

And we haven't even started on the issue of limited routes due sonic boom over land...

The great shame about Concorde, IMHO, is that it was started 5-10 years too soon... the technology wasn't quite there. Not enough people really care about saving a lousy three hours transatlantic... if they had waited a bit, got better materials (especially engine materials), thought things through better... we would have the 7 hour LAX-SYD flight. THAT, people will say, is a worthwhile time saving.

The airframes aren't terminally shagged; the willpower and economics are.

R1, sad.

Jordan D
17th Oct 2003, 18:32
Your also forgetting that they could go supersonic across to Japan, seeing as the Russians were one of the few people who didn't mind about it going Supersonic across their backyard (aka Siberia).

Jordan

Soulman
17th Oct 2003, 19:07
Well said Ranger One - I couldn't agree more.

And 7 hours SYD-LAX - well, that just sounds awesome! :}

Soulman.

Say again s l o w l y
20th Oct 2003, 20:43
Why don't the a/c manufacturers start to produce some more radical designs? An Oblique wing for example could be flown supersonically, and at around M1.2-1.4 the over-pressure is not great enough to cause an problems if the a/c is flying above about 36,000 ft. (Shockwave will not reach ground level, therefore no problem)

Technically, ideas like these are feasible, but would airlines buy them? Would pax fly on them?

Concorde is a marvel and I shall be very sad on friday. A well maintained service Conc at Duxford would be a nice idea, as long as they don't knacker the langing gear bringing it in, unlike the one already there!!

BEagle
21st Oct 2003, 00:25
If memory serves, didn't Concorde have an eleventh hour deadline to get to Duxford before the M11 was built, restricting the available runway length? If so, any other Concorde would surely only get there by road?

But better that than getting covered in seagull poo on a totally undeserving Spam aircraft carrier or over in Seattle.....

Man-on-the-fence
21st Oct 2003, 01:43
Err Beags

Not wishing to interrupt the flow, but the aircraft carrier is in New York, the one in Seattle will be under cover.

As you were :ok:

BeauMan
21st Oct 2003, 01:50
Motf, I think that's what BEags said. He did manage to hide the 'or' quite well though... ;)

JW411
21st Oct 2003, 02:35
Would it not be very interesting if BA were to offer the grinning pullover 5 Concordes "as seen" for 5 on 25 October?

It would be very interesting to see how he could dig himself out of that situation with any honour.

Peter Barron
21st Oct 2003, 03:30
He would buy em and fly em, and good luck to him if he could.