Will Concorde fly again as a private or military flight

[ExcelXLS Driver]

I recently visited Concorde at Filton before they closed it as a public exhibit. The Filton Concorde had the most modifications of the fleet and is in pristine condition.

The reason behind closing the exhibit to the public is also strange. It seems that Concorde was taken into a hanger for maintainance and received a visit from RAF dignitries, why?

Some say that Concorde will once again grace the skies over London for the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics. Why keep a museum piece in flyable condition having undergone maintaininace?

Below is their explanation

'Ownership of Concorde Alpha Foxtrot remains with British Airways, who have an agreement with Airbus at Filton this special Concorde must receive regular maintenance and care. Airbus have therefore elected to withdraw Concorde Alpha Foxtrot from display for the winter so that she can be moved into the Brabazon Hangar – where the British Concorde fleet was built – for inspection by aircraft engineers who will undertake any work required.'
It would be nice to see a one off special flight to remind us that we can achieve the seemingly impossible.

[chevvron]

What would it cost, maybe £750K? Look at how much it takes to keep the Vulcan flying.

[bizjet inmate]

I bet if a concorde trust was started, with a guarantee it WOULD fly again, they would have no problems raising whatever it took to get her.....In my humble opinion the greatest aircraft ever built......in the air again.

I dont believe funding would be the issue.....but the word Bureaucrat.....and dare I say it Health and safety and tree huggers might stop it happening!

Fingers crossed we see her grace the skies again!

[G-SPOTs Lost]

What would it cost, maybe £750K? Look at how much it takes to keep the Vulcan flying.

I would say that thats very optimistic, my 48 month on my bizjet is into 6 figures just.

I would suggest maybe 10 times that amount with a solid expectation that it take twice as long as expected and half as much again.

It would be a lot of money to dig it out at royal weddings and bank holidays, can you imagine the inhibiting checks and the ongoing cost on an aircraft so complex. The industry architecture/knowhow is just not there anymore to deal with its 60/70s analogue/digital hybrid systems

Also reheat = no permit...

[ExcelXLS Driver]

This statement does raise questions "this special Concorde must receive regular maintenance and care".

Why would BA and Airbus keep that Concorde flyable if they only intend it to use it as a fixed attraction.

[Shanewhite]

You might want to visit the thread http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.html . As well as a huge amount of fascinating information from people who designed, built, maintained and flew her, the question of reviving her is addressed. I have to say that the chances of that happening are vanishingly small for an enormous number of reasons, of which cost (probably many tens of millions of pounds) is only one.

[Winniebago]

A certain gentleman in Abu Dhabi will pay....anything

[JEM60]

EXCELXLS.
It isn't kept flyable. Being in flyable condition means just that. This aircraft would need vast amounts of work and vast amounts of money to enable it to fly again. Remember that there are no current crew, so it would never, ever be a 'one-off ' flight. If you think of the problems involved, all the answers as to why it will never fly again will become apparent.

[Shanewhite]

No flight crew, no C of A for the type, no spares, no-one willing or able to provide technical support or spares(least of all Airbus, apparantly). I could go on.

[hawker750]

Shanewhite:
Don't hit me with those negative waves: the illustious words from Donald Sutherland. Anything is possible.
1/ Cost: about £15 million I would guestimate. Mere loose change from the budget
for 2012
2/ Crews: There would be a stampede from ex Concorde crews
3/ Ditto engineers, and I guess there are shed loads of spares about.
4/ Cof A. Not necessary. it could fly privately on a permit .That would also get
away from the problem of lack of type certificate support
This would make the opening of 2012 the best ever. I really hope they do it and proove all the doom mongers wrong. I would put my quid in the fund.

Lastly it would really P off the French who bid for the games, so it must be worth doing!

[dazdaz1]

HAWKER750...
I recon most of the f/d crew (no disrespect) are pushing 65+ who would instruct the new pilots to fly her?

D1

[Sygyzy]

If you have that much money to burn and really don't understand the logistics of trying to get an old hen to fly again then please PM me. I'll provide you with my account details. You can then make me richer as you learn the lessons of life.

S:rolleyes:

[Agaricus bisporus]

As an iconic world-beater that we allowed to be prematurely retired by political cowardice and French commercial treachery, what message, exactly, would Concorde be giving by overflying the Olympics? Welcome to museum-land where nothing good is allowed to work any more? We could once-upon-a-time?

I struggle to think of anything less suitable. Well, a parade of bankers, perhaps.

Let's move on.

[cldrvr]

Sygyzy, Hawker750 is getting an old hen to fly every time he takes of.....

[ExcelXLS Driver]

Well I had a good look around her before she went off for maintenance and they are keeping her in excellent condition, everything is sealed and secured to prevent damage and deterioration. There was still fuel in the tanks and hydraulic fluid. That Concorde was kept because it contains all the updates and improvements. To me that says that they have kept the most likely aircraft to fly again and they would not waste money on regular maintenance if there was no possibility of it ever flying again.

Concordski still flies in Russia for research funded by the yanks, so why can’t we revive Concorde like the Vulkan?

Where would we be without dreams and aspirations?

[mickjoebill]

Cost effective approach is to fly a 1:50 scale model over the Opening Ceremony, put 20000 watts of noise though bass speakers for effect:ok:



Mickjoebill

[JEM60]

EXCEL. If that aircraft has fuel in it's tanks and hydraulic oil in it's pipes, I would be very very surprised. Are you a qualified engineer?, or just looking at it from a 'wishful thinking ' point of view. It seems to me that you are ignoring many facts regarding it's safe operation. Putting this back in the air is not simply a matter of 'kicking the tyres and lighting the fires' Where are the crews going to come from, how many training flights are going to be needed, engineering support from full-time engineers, costs, not to mention the fact that NO insurance company will touch it with a barge pole. Your facts are wrong about Concordski. It's isn't flying. Some years ago it did about 7 flights funded by the Americans, but research flights, not as an air-display machine. Also, I am still intrigued by your mention of the failure of the sweptwing competitor to Concorde that the Americans built, which you mentioned in a previous post. I think this was news to most of us on this thread!!!!. Abandon your pipe-dream, because that's all it is, I'm afraid.

[hawker750]

Sygyzy
Ha Ha you make me laugh; you want to teach me the lessons of life? I think you had too much to drink for Chineese New Year, I guess you must still have a hang over!
CLDRVR has it correct, but they are not old hens they are beautiful old birds but most people know about my love of old Hawkers and I can take the jokes from play station pilots (sic)

[ExcelXLS Driver]

Hi JEM60,

I went to see Concorde at Filton and spoke to an engineer, the aircraft was parked after its last flight and put to bed. So it still had fuel and hydraulics on board and looked in better shape then most light aircraft/ Air Atlanta aircraft. If you have ever been on an Air Atlanta aircraft you would understand.

All covers were on and the rudders were locked to prevent the wind moving them and causing damage.

I never said they would fly her again, I only said it would be great if they did. It does interest me that it has been pulled into the hanger for maintenance.

[bizjet inmate]

Blame the French.......:oh:

[wondering]

Has anyone called John Travolta yet? ;)

[Robsterwebb]

Hi there....

Ok, i know this thread is a bit old but I feel I need to put in my 2 pence worth.

I've been working up at Filton for the last few months or so and have been talking to various people about the Concorde they have there and unfortunately its not good news...it was closed down to the public toward the end of last year as Airbus were not making much money from it and the cost of just keeping it looking pretty is pretty massive, the impression it get is that Airbus see it as a bit of a while elephant which in itself is a bloody crime for such a majestic aircraft!!

At the moment it looks like it's just been left to rot away, the engines were removed not long after it came into Filton so the future of it flying again looked pretty bleak from the outset. It did have maintenance a few years back but this was more for keeping it from rusting and nothing to do with keeping it airworthy..there is a consortium that are trying to find a proper place to exhibit it so the public can see her again but I gather this is still a few years off yet...

I really hope it's not just left there in the elements to slowly deteriorate :uhoh:

http://i1260.photobucket.com/albums/ii577/robsterwebb/IMG_0609-1.jpg

http://i1260.photobucket.com/albums/ii577/robsterwebb/IMG_0610-2.jpg

[Sillypeoples]

It wouldn't be hard to get the Concorde flying...airline guys with no maintenance experience believing that Delta saves a million a year by pulling the pillows off the flights don't understand this.

At issue are the regulations...where to fly a supersonic aircraft, what airports to land at...the lawsuits by the families looking for assets to grab, the authorities that want everyone to believe that the crew didn't screw up by continuing the flight, heavy...blaming it on Continental...on and on....

I think like the Starship, a perfectly good aircraft, they just want the Concorde to go away, the memory of it just to vanish. They don't want to support it, be around it..etc.

Personally I think some billionaire should just buy all the spares, the simulator, the jigs and make a go of it as a private aircraft doing really fast over water flights.

[fade to grey]

And now back to the real world.
You are on bleeding drugs if you think this thing will fly again. No way ever - the CAA would never allow it from the complexity point of view .Has a lightning ever flown on UK reg ? No (mach2, 2 afterburning engines, see the similarity), will concorde -no.

The cost would be astronomical. And EXCEL are you a spotter ? they don't normally store aircraft in museums with fuel/hydraulics on board - that stuff is normally drained .

[Pace]

I fly a jet out of Filton and also know the Pilot who flew Concorde into Filton.

He was flying a Commander Turboprop until fairly recently to keep his hand in aviation.

It is a crying shame that Filton is to be turned into a housing estate No doubt with sick names like Concorde avenue and God knows what? an insult to what was a famous airfield and one which had the potential to have been a real Bristol airport not the one stuck on a hill miles from nowhere!!

Concorde represented all that was good in the pioneering days of fast flight and space flight when men were men rather than the watch your back, public liability, burocratic, nanny state we have now!

Will that creative era pushing the boundaries ever exist again?

That is why works of Art like Concorde should be preserved to remind us of what is possible when man is given the slack to push those boundaries

Pace

[Robsterwebb]

Spot on Pace...:D

it feels like we have taken a step backwards but it seems to me the airline industry has changed since the days of Concorde, it's all about bums on seats as far as I can tell, look at the A330 for a good example of this.

[Sillypeoples]

Backwards maybe, but certainly not moving forward very fast.

Sit in a plane long enough, a sharp pilot starts wondering why he isn't allowed to sweep the wings back 20 degrees and pick up 50 knots...why he is stuck down at the lower altitudes burning too much fuel...why he has to have a copilot, why there is a tail on the back creating unnecessary drag, instead of a canard on the front, reducing drag, creating lift, in a place where he can see the condition of the airfoil. And why can't we fly supersonic? Why aren't we requiring better pilots in the seats rather then putting guys that pass the obedience test instead.

[Capt. Tango]

Fade to grey....

Are YOU on "bleeding drugs"?? (your quote)

The similarity of the Lightning and Concorde may be that they both flew at Mach 2 and have afterburners, BUT Concorde WAS on the CAA & DGAC C of A and Reg.

If someone has the money, then the CAA will listen and will help.

There are many aircraft flying today that many people said would never... Money talks my friend.

Concorde has always been close to my heart as i grew up with it, but sadly i don't think it will ever grace our skies again, but had to put my two pence worth in.

CT

[AN2 Driver]

If anyone can make Concorde fly again it will be the French for some publicity stunt. I was told by someone who works at Toulouse that the one Concorde there was kept airworthy for the taxi tests done by the BEA for the Gonesse report and has not been significantly modified since. That in difference to the British aircraft which hat vital parts removed. Apart, the French have never cared too much about rules and reglations when they really wanted something....

However, as the French were those who grounded it in the first place after their state airline managed to break two of them over the years, I regard that chance as next to zero.

Let's face it, Concorde as well as many other achievments of our society in the last century are a thing of the past, for good. Society is in a depression and recession since 2001, air travel itself has become a burden rather an adventure for most, thanks to the security and other nightmares, aviation itself is regulated to death on both sides of the atlantic ocean.

If anyone can change that, it will be "unfree" countries like China who don't have all sorts of interest groups to worry about when it comes to technical progress.

Concorde has gone, so has the Shuttle and so will others. We better stop dreaming of ages past and see that the future doesn't get any worse than it is.

[fade to grey]

Tango. stay away from the ganja.;)

[Capt. Tango]

Oh fade to grey, what's up with you?
I was purely stating a fact that your comment was wrong, but i do agree that Concorde will never fly again.
As for the ganja, i think that you had the last of it ;)

CT

[fade to grey]

Just kidding, nevermind

"the CAA will listen and help "

Er, yeah, Ok.

[Genghis the Engineer]

First rule of dealing with the CAA - remember that they never have to say "yes".

Second rule of dealing with the CAA - remember that they are highly trained to be utterly risk averse.

A further point - all of the Concorde expertise that existed to support it at Airbus got moved onto A400 and A380, both of which are very much live projects.


So, you'd need to satisfy CAA to a very high degree of safety, whilst providing the level of support that Airbus used to provide, or at-least a reasonable proportion of that.

You are certainly talking tens of millions, along with a massive political commitment from Airbus Industrie to divert highly valuable engineering talent from other tasks.

I can't see it myself.


Personally I'd rather see money and effort go elsewhere anywhere. A charity called "Aviation Without Borders" failed to raise perhaps a third of the running cost of the Vulcan that would have created the start of a new fleet of aeroplanes providing humanitarian relief in Africa. The same amount of money would kick start several new aircraft development projects or, say, put something like the Magnum into production.


Concorde was a magnificent achievement that the UK and France, and all who have been associated with it should be justly incredibly proud of it. But its time has passed - if there is money (which is debateable) let's move forward.

The people who developed Concorde in the 1960s weren't trying to preserve WW2 era aeroplanes were they, and we'd not thank them for having done so. That's worthwhile in its own right, but we need progress.

G

[NutLoose]

The Filton one had corrosion issues

BBC Inside Out - (http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/west/series9/week_five.shtml)

[stilton]

She may be deteriorating but I don't think she's rusting..

[Pace]

The people who developed Concorde in the 1960s weren't trying to preserve WW2 era aeroplanes were they, and we'd not thank them for having done so. That's worthwhile in its own right, but we need progress.

Genghis

But other than in avionics there is no progress, no going forward if anything going back to pre the pioneering days in both space travel and advancement of aircraft.
What new supersonic aircraft are in development to shrink travel times NONE.
Take pre 60s aircraft stick in all the avionics and automations we have today and there is no progress of the pioneering level! since then other than more fuel efficient cleaner engines! But nothing which excites or grabs the imagination.

Pace

[Genghis the Engineer]

Avionics: in particular navigation, blind landing technology, communications, data fusion and dissemination, conspicuity.

Fuel efficient engines, yes - at all levels: compare a Mogas fuelled CTSW with a 912s to the choices 40 years ago.

Engine reliability, giving us ETOPS.

A steady reduction in airline cockpit crew sizes, and ability to use more local airports.

Flexwing microlights have gone from 40kn /100 mile to 100kn/1000mile aeroplanes in 30 years.

Composite technology has gone from a few composite components in Concorde to majority composite aeroplanes at all scales: Europa, CT and banbi at one end, Typhoon and F22 at the other. Similar development in gliders.

Size of aeroplanes - From 747 classic and C130 to A380 and C-17 in 40 years, plus massively extended range.

CDAs and what they give to operations, environmental impact, etc. - even if this is invisible to most people.

And spaceship 1, which hopefully will turn into spaceship II soon. Or F-35, which will be a magnificent Harrier replacement (if late!)

Plenty of progress out there.

We just aren't going supersonic any more. More irritating is that the UK is so ready to give away the world lead we used to have in so many areas of technology; but wallowing in nostalgia won't fix that.

G

[octavian]

.........but wallowing in nostalgia won't fix that.

Just remember, nostalgia isn't what it used to be.:hmm:

[Genghis the Engineer]

The joy of that approach of course is that it was cheaper and usually worked better as well!

Now progress in that direction again, would not be sexy or glamorous, but would be massive progress. It still exists in the little aeroplane world of-course, but not in heavy metal. The first and biggest need is to generate people able to do all these things in the way described.

G