Any airworthy Concorde left? [Archive]

JustOccurred2Me

2nd Feb 2010, 21:43

The trial starting today has reminded me of this.

Obviously none currently flying, but are there any airworthy Concorde left, or at least in a condition where they could be brought back to airworthiness? I've seen pictures of the "noseless" one, and I recall reading that at least one had its wings removed for transportation.

Sorry if this is a daft question!

chrisbl

2nd Feb 2010, 21:49

There are none left

raffele

2nd Feb 2010, 22:17

The short answer is no. Whilst models such as the AF model at Dulles Airport may still be in one piece, one of the reasons it was taken out of service is because Airbus said they were not going to provide support and maintenance for the fleet any more. The cost alone to bring them back in to service is astronomical.

A search of the forums and the web in general will provide more info as to why we're highly unlikely to see Concorde in the skies again.

macuser

3rd Feb 2010, 08:36

I seem to recall that once all the hydraulics had been drained from the systems of those on static display, effectively that was it, finito.

Dave Gittins

3rd Feb 2010, 09:01

IIRC (and correct me if I am wrong) that when the BA Concordes last flew, the engineer's went over them and drilled little holes all over the cabin floor to ensure they could never be pressurised again.

I have a vague recollection that it was done in response to a rumour that Sir R B was going to buy one off a museum and restore it to flying order.

Again ... tell me if I am wrong

Just thinking about the wonderful aeroplane sent me to this site again ... so I share it with all enthausists.

BBC NEWS | Special Reports | Concorde retirement (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2003/concorde_retirement/default.stm)

Gulf4uk

3rd Feb 2010, 09:13

There is on Facebook a group started to Bring the one at EGLL
To Farnborough , they seem to reckon FAST would be able to look after
it but FAST Has a small area and relys on Volenteers and more.
The cost of this would no doubt be enormous if there was room for it.

Tony :(

matkat

3rd Feb 2010, 10:10

Dave, sorry but you are wrong because an aircraft hull is pressurised and not just the cabin, there is a forward and aft pressure bulkhead effectively capping both ends of a pressurised tube so drilling holes in the floor would make no difference.

Dave Gittins

3rd Feb 2010, 10:24

Pedant mode on :

AFAIK holes were drilled in various parts of the pressure hull to make it as difficult as possible (if IMpossible) to put any ex BA Concorde back in the air.

Pedant mode off :

Are you disagreeing with the thrust of my argument ? or simply that I loosely referred to the floor rather than being precise ?

I also have a vague recollection of somebody saying (and this is a rumour forum) that Sir R B would have to buy an ex AF one to pursue his dream .. as they hadn't thought of that particular trick.

:ok:

peter272

3rd Feb 2010, 10:49

Sadly,the Vulcan has shown how difficult it is to do properly.

M2dude

3rd Feb 2010, 11:48

Chaps, I hope these few words may be of assistance, these are issues of a technical, not an economic standpoint. (The deliberate hike in Airbus support fees was a primary reason for services being stopped in 2003).

No holes were ever drilled in anything, this rumour is rubbish. (And as ponted out, drilling holes in the cabin floor itself would have been pointless). When the aircraft were decomissioned, all fluids were drained, the escape slides removed and the Ground Power Protection Unit was removed from the elctronics rack.
Yes the draining of the hydraulics was crucial. Concorde used a special mineral based fluid, Chevron M2V, which was highly prone to water contamination and always had to be stored in airtight containers. M2V was required because conventional fluids (eg Skydrol) are useless at very high temperatures. The entire hydraulic system would require prging, and the components over-hauled. (Although Concorde was the only A/C to use M2V, there is an Americal Mil Spec fluid that is a direct equivilant).
Unfortunately the majority of British A/C were stored outside, which has not helped the structures one bit. (Although G-BOAC & G-BOAE are now safely undercover). And in the case of G-BOAA at East Fortune, although stored in a hangar, the wings were cut off and then re-attached at the museum, efectively killing the aircraft. Many of the French aircraft have been stored undercover, and are in far better external condition.Economically it would be astronomically difficult to bring an aircraft up to flight standard, but from a technical one, yes it is possible, given sufficient manpower and expertise (no shortage of either). We can all dream.....
I hope this help you guys a little.

603DX

3rd Feb 2010, 14:35

An article in the The Times dated 19 October 2006 referred to a group of Air France Concorde engineers being allowed daily access to Sierra Delta (F-BTSD), in the museum at Le Bourget. It stated that this group carried out basic checks and ran the systems, including the hydraulics and electrics, at least three times a week. They were also said to raise and lower the nose section. If correct, this suggests that the draining of fluids was not carried out on this aircraft, nor were the electrics disabled.

The article stated that the group was planning to restart the engines and taxi the aircraft around the airport, with the ultimate aim of enabling it to fly again. It was said that members of the group were due to meet Airbus at Toulouse to discuss gaining access to spare parts.

All of this sounds mildly encouraging, but presumably it didn't happen?

Invicta DC4

3rd Feb 2010, 16:05

Capetonian

3rd Feb 2010, 16:53

I seem to remember that this group Club Concorde - The only Concorde Captains' website - Concorde memorabilia & signed photos (http://www.clubconcorde.co.uk/index.php) wanted to try to get Concorde in the air again. I think the idea has now been dropped - sadly!

ATSA1

3rd Feb 2010, 17:43

Re; the Concorde F-BTSD at Le Bourget...I saw it last November, and it did still have a power socket plugged in and I understand that the nose can still be raised and lowered, and some lights still work...but as for the rest, its anybody's guess what actually is still capable of working! just cos the nose works, it doesnt make a restorable aircraft! I dont think that the engines have run since it arrived at Le Bourget during the Paris Air Show of 2003...

Its a truly lovely idea, but its just not going to happen....

microlight600

3rd Feb 2010, 18:23

The wikipedia entry describes F-BTSD as 'near airworthy'
Concorde - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Restoration), but who was this written by? :)

I visited G-BOAF (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde_216_%28G-BOAF%29) in Filton less than a year ago, it looks largely complete, but 'maintenance' is pretty much limited to keeping it polished and shiny for the visitors. They were trying to raise £1M or so to put it under cover, you can see on Google Earth that even the taxiway to its final resting place has been grassed over.

Lets pretend for a minute that all the challenges for getting one airworthy are technical and political, rather than financial (for the Bransons/Pages/Brins of this world, £10M is sofa change) If it can be done with a Vulcan, just for a few airshow flybys now and again, exactly what are the issues with doing this again?

JustOccurred2Me

3rd Feb 2010, 20:02

Thanks for all the info.

I'm realistic enough to know that straight economics means Concorde could never fly commercially now, but it's an absolute travesty that there isn't one left that *could* fly. Those involved in that decision should hang their heads in utter shame. Maybe it's a naive thought, but properly mothballing one of them surely wouldn't have been beyond the wit of man?

Ah well...

Hartington

3rd Feb 2010, 21:38

There is a problem with product liability (don't you just love modern jargon). Airbus withdrew support from the aircraft. If (and my view is that is a very, very big if) one were to fly again I would expect no passengers and strict limits on what manouvers it can perform.

BOAC73

4th Feb 2010, 12:15

OAB has had quarter inch holes drilled in the lower fuselage to let out water found to be collecting in the bilge areas.
B73.

M2dude

4th Feb 2010, 16:23

Sorry BOAC73, forgot about OAB.

TopBunk

4th Feb 2010, 17:12

and remember OAB was one of those never upgraded after the Paris crash anyway, along with the one taken overland to East Fortune (OAA), so it would never have been a candidate to fly again anyway.

M2dude

4th Feb 2010, 17:17

Quite right Top Bunk, also the Frame 72 Repair/Modification was not actioned either, another reason for OAB not being a candidate. (Not to mention some F/D panels also being removed for 202 at Brooklands.

Juliet Sierra Papa

4th Feb 2010, 19:02

I wouldn't give up yet as there is a distinct possibility of seeing one at least rolling again.
I do not speak French so could someone please verify the above by reading this link. :ok:

www.france5.fr/c-dans-l-air/index-fr.php?page=resume&id_rubrique=1361 (http://www.france5.fr/c-dans-l-air/index-fr.php?page=resume&id_rubrique=1361)

JSP

Malaysian28

4th Feb 2010, 19:46

I have a vague recollection from somewhere that the only BA Concorde ever to stand chance of flying again was the one that returned home to Filton. Seem to remember that there was a discussion around the time the announcement over the 2012 Olympics was made about restoring it to do a flypast at the opening ceremony.

Yes I remember that, a flypast for the Opening and Closing Ceremony for London 2012 with the Red Arrows.

I clearly remember signing the Online Petition to get concorde flying, However the Site and the Petition is Long Gone.

Heres a New Site I have recently found.
Save Concorde Group (http://www.save-concorde.co.uk/)

However I agree with most posts on this thread in which that its to expensive to Revive her and she will never fly agian.

She Lives on only in Videos, Flight Simulator and in our Minds:\

razorrawe

4th Feb 2010, 20:07

I had the good fortune of Mrs razorrawe getting myself and the good lady a day out at Filton 3 weeks ago Concorde at Filton was a lovely look around G-BOAF she still looks in good condition but one of the questions i asked was would she ever fly again, Unfortunatly the chap who was showing us around said no,i then asked why,he said that it would take lots of money and lots of time such as all engines rebuilt complete air frame strip for integrity all avionics etc stripped checked calibrated basically a strip down and complete rebuild,
Personally i dont think this is impossible but another thing to take into consideration is she is no spring chicken and getting parts for Concorde is not like getting parts for say an A320,at the end of the day we would all love to see her Grace the skies again maybe not for a while due to the economc situation but hopefully before i reach the pearly gates.
If you do get the chance to go to Filton they are Lovely People :ok:

Juliet Sierra Papa

4th Feb 2010, 20:36

So far nobody has answered my question, are there any left that could be ground run and taxied at high speed? therefore keeping the systems operational. Look what happened to the Vulcan and Lightnings eventually they did fly again.

fastjet45 if you can translate the article in my above post above I'm sure you'll be happy.

JSP

purplehelmet

4th Feb 2010, 21:04

guys you might want to check out the aviation history and nostalgia forum, concorde's engines to be brought back to life thread.
if you haven't seen it already.:ok:

AliB

5th Feb 2010, 15:31

I do not speak French so could someone please verify the above by reading this link.

Using Google translate I get the following - did you get the correct link or is your French worse than you think? ;)

"Ten years after the crash of a Concorde which precipitated the end of the career of the supersonic, the trial of this matter lies before the Correctional Tribunal of Pontoise. The court will try for four months to establish the chain of events and responsibilities.

90 volumes, 80 000 pages of proceedings, 534 exhibits, 60 witnesses, some thirty experts, debates in three languages and more than 200 journalists covering the event: the extraordinary trial of the Concorde crash was open this Tuesday, February 2, 2010, at Pontoise, in the Val-d'Oise.

During the hearings, scheduled until May 28 next justice will try to understand why this gem of Aeronautics, capable of crossing the Atlantic in less than three hours, crashed on July 25, 2000, a hotel in Gonesse, less than two minutes after takeoff. For despite years of investigation, the causes of the disaster that killed 100 German passengers, 9 crew and 4 employees of the hotel establishment where the supersonic crashed to continue discussions.

According to the script prepared by the Office of Investigations and Analysis (BEA), reprinted by the order of reference, a strip of titanium lost by a DC-10 of Continental Airlines would have caused the bursting of a tire, which debris have caused the burning of fuel tank of Concorde taking off. But for the U.S. airline - on the defendants' bench with two technicians and two former officials of the Concorde program and an engineer from the Directorate General Aviation"

raffele

6th Feb 2010, 09:34

I wouldn't give up yet as there is a distinct possibility of seeing one at least rolling again.
I do not speak French so could someone please verify the above by reading this link

Can't really read french myself, but I just found this:

Air France Concorde to taxi again under own power (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/05/338114/air-france-concorde-to-taxi-again-under-own-power.html)

panicp

6th Feb 2010, 17:18

Hi All.

Olympus593 in association with Save Concorde Group has, in conjunction with Le Bourget museum been given the official go-ahead to relight the engines on Concorde 213 (F-BTSD) with a view to performing taxi and maybe fast taxi runs in the future.

Return to flight is not yet on the agenda, but SCG and Olympus593 are still jointly working to return Concorde to the air.

Cheers

Dave Jones
Manager SCG PR/comms

Please see:

www.save-concorde.co.uk
FREE CONCORDE-OLYMPUS 593 (http://www.olympus593.com)
Save Concorde Group - The Official Facebook Site | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=84332595616)
Twitter: save_concorde

603DX

7th Feb 2010, 11:12

So it looks as if the Times article I referred to in post #12 may prove to be prescient regarding the essentials?

If this comes off, I for one will happily say "Vive la France!", and yah boo sucks to the sourpusses, and particularly to BA.

microlight600

29th May 2010, 20:14

BBC News - Work starts in £15m plan to get Concorde flying (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8712806.stm)

Yay to the French, boo to BA etc.

JEM60

30th May 2010, 09:50

MICROLIGHT.
Pie in the sky. Suggest you read the Aviation and Nostalgia thread on the subject.

Skipness One Echo

31st May 2010, 13:34

How much would it cost to put an aircraft that took SEVEN years to certify for passenger service back into the air, some seven years after grounding?
With no backup from the OEM? (What's in it for them?)
With no backup from BA Engineering? (They're trying to save BA from going bust)
With little backup from Air France? (They never had much TLC at the time anyway!)

So aside from all the minor quibbles, how much?
I heard it was damn near the same amount of money to keep one in the air as keep the active fleet of 5 /6 in service. No wonder Rod Eddington had to reluctantly say no.

Something as complex as the SST would have to be in the hands of utter professionals. No such group exists or has funding. Really. Consider the clowns below :

Save Concorde Group (http://www.save-concorde.co.uk/)
It would also be a living tribute to cooperation between European nations in the post-war era, and could be timed to coincide with the celebrations for the London Olympics in 2012.

They're not anywhere near budget either. When people are losing their livelihoods everyday, there are better things to throw money at. At least the Vulcan has an outside chance of a few more years.

Let it go.

dilldog01

2nd Jun 2010, 17:59

I would say that with only £15 million the only way this French group will get her airborne is if the money is used to build a very large catapult :)

Just a spotter

2nd Jun 2010, 18:34

£15m seems to be not a lot to get a complex jet aircraft from "mothballed" to air worthy.

The Wikipedia (so taken with a large pinch of salt) page on the return of one of the stored Tu-144's to flight for the NASA tests in the 90's claims (without a citation) that $350m was spent. Now that would have included work to kit out the aircraft as a flying lab, and may, or may not have included the costs associated with fitting the airframe with different engines.

Either way, the work would have been done with the support of Tupolev, I'm not sure Airbus would be wading in with any large amounts of help.

JAS

avionic type

7th Jun 2010, 17:06

Just a small thought, as all pilots who ever had a leicence[spelling]? to fly the bird had them revoked or they lapsed after 6months due to nil renewal and no "hands on ,and 8years since it last flew , to become a "Rocket" pilot meant you were high in the lists of the "senior" ladder and must have retired , will the French and British Aviation Authorities allow new pilots to be trained and given "permits to fly " even if there is still Flight Simulator still working , and what about the Flight Eng they are now extinct with the demise of the 100and 200 747s and I imagine the courses for all the permits would be long and for what, 1 a/c that will cost a fortune even to get sufficent fuel in it to keep the c of g in line
One final thought imagine the cost of insuring the thing not the plane loss but life and damage to propery should the worse happen. :\:\:\

ChristiaanJ

8th Jun 2010, 14:25

£15m seems to be not a lot to get a complex jet aircraft from "mothballed" to air worthy.The £15M figure dates from 2003, before spares and infrastructure disappeared.
It's now totally outdated, even if some people still quote it.
More importantly, none of the aircraft is in anywhere near a "mothballed" state.
To mothball the aircraft, for instance the fuel system would not just have been drained, but refilled with light oil, to prevent corrosion taking hold and seals drying out.
Also, of course, the engines would have been dropped and fully processed for long term storage as per the maintenance manual, not left under the wings.
The Wikipedia (so taken with a large pinch of salt) page on the return of one of the stored Tu-144's to flight for the NASA tests in the 90's claims (without a citation) that $350m was spent. Now that would have included work to kit out the aircraft as a flying lab, and may, or may not have included the costs associated with fitting the airframe with different engines.
Either way, the work would have been done with the support of Tupolev.The Wikipedia page info is incomplete... a lot more info is on the NASA Dryden pages for the Tu-144LL.
Without looking up the exact figures, the cost of the "flying lab" was about $18M.
The $350M was the total cost of the NASA HST research program.

We don't know what exactly the $18M paid for....
Manhours (design, overhaul, modifications, flight test personnel) would have been billed based on Russian wages.
The main jobs would have been the maufacture of the modified engine nacelles and the installation of the test instrumentation.
The engines were leased from the Russian air force, and returned after the programme was finished.
Maybe spares weren't even billed, since they would have come from Tupolev stores, and after all, Tupolev was keeping the aircraft.

CJ

microlight600

30th Jun 2010, 15:04

Fears are growing that Bristol's Concorde could be mothballed | Bristol News (http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Mothball-fears-beloved-Concorde/article-2361081-detail/article.html)

This is for supposed 'maintenance'. Exactly what will be done for a static display, that volunteers are keeping clean? Almost certainly more going on than meets the eye, we can but live in hope..

Dont Hang Up

30th Jun 2010, 16:15

It is very concerning that Airbus could do this. Yes I understand that these aircraft are only displayed "on loan", but one wonders why Airbus or BA should have any active interest, especially to the extent of removing this beautiful aeroplane from the public eye.

One can only hope they do not have the power, or wish to do something similar with G-BOAA at the National Museum of Flight.

ChristiaanJ

30th Jun 2010, 16:21

Almost certainly more going on than meets the eye, we can but live in hope..I'm afraid you're barking up totally the wrong tree....
This is bad news right across the board.

CJ

Skipness One Echo

1st Jul 2010, 11:18

A real Concorde in the town it was built ought to be something of a money spinning visitor attraction. Exactly how have we ar**d this one up?

Or are the nasty men at AIRBUS going to hide for years it in a hangar like G-BBDG?

MerchantVenturer

1st Jul 2010, 16:17

G-BOAF is parked in the open air near the runway at Filton (the only surviving Concorde living the outdoor life?) with a very small visitor centre adjacent.

The tours are operated by a group of volunters with I believe two paid staff.

The plan has been for a number of years to have AF as the centrepiece of a purpose-built heritage centre featuring the Bristol Aero Collection curently housed at Kemble.

Land was provided for such a museum near Filton Airfield and the Cribbs Causeway regional shopping centre and outline planning permission given by the local authority in 2008.

As is invariably the case the problem is cash. The last estimate to build the museum was £10 million (probably gone up since then) but so far only around £350,000 has been raised. The recession hasn't helped of course.

Progress has been beset by other problems including a visitor falling to his death a few years ago from the viewing platform next to the aircraft.

If the future of AF remains unclear then so does the future of the proposed Bristol Heritage Centre that would house the locally-built aviation artefacts.

It is a great shame particularly as it was thought by many that if any British Concorde were to fly again it would be AF. There are those who think that Airbus's silence is a part of a conspiracy to get this Bird back in the air but I believe that belongs with various Princess Diana theories and the idea the Moon Landing was filmed in a Hollywood studio.

JEM60

1st Jul 2010, 20:34

MERCHANT VENTURER. G.BOAB stands in the open at Heathrow, sadly. Close to my heart, as I was a passenger in it at one point. I hope the projected plans for it come to fruition.

Gulf4uk

1st Jul 2010, 20:49

In the last few mounths there has been many groups with various
Ideas to get Concorde back in the air or parked in various places
one suggested FARNBOROUGH for the HEATHROW one Sadly
nothing has or was likely to be done and as one person said
its mainly down to money and the Few that would be left
looking after it.
XH558 Was back in the air today look at the cost
of that to keep Flying and the Dedicated people who look
after it .No i think this idea of a flying concorde is not to
be but we can dream .

TONY

Rollingthunder

5th Jul 2010, 00:53

Morris Minor, Ford Escort... and now it's the Concorde owners' manual | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/motoring/article-1291761/Morris-Minor-Ford-Escort--Concorde-owners-manual.html)

PaperTiger

5th Jul 2010, 03:19

G-BOAG is outside at the Seattle Museum of Flight.

trident3A

5th Jul 2010, 09:14

Not sure if it's been mentioned elsewhere but there's a documentary on Channel 4 next Monday about Concorde..

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/concordes-last-flight (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/concordes-last-flight)

"The turbulent story of Concorde, the supersonic icon whose age was brought to a halt by the crash in Paris in 2000. The programme reveals new evidence of what may have caused the crash"