Concorde to the sky?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSD
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSD
If all the sceptics and profits of doom had their way, they would say to the proposal of building a supersonic airliner, "it can't be done". Well it was done and someone pulled the plug and now the A/C that were serviceable (not on the drawing board) have been grounded. Are you trying to tell me "it can't be done" with reference to putting the thing back into the air? I think it can be done.
Ever heard of the story "The murder of the TSR2"? Might pay you to have a read of it, then you will find it was a Labour government that presided over that fiasco also.
If all the sceptics and profits of doom had their way, they would say to the proposal of building a supersonic airliner, "it can't be done". Well it was done and someone pulled the plug and now the A/C that were serviceable (not on the drawing board) have been grounded. Are you trying to tell me "it can't be done" with reference to putting the thing back into the air? I think it can be done.
Ever heard of the story "The murder of the TSR2"? Might pay you to have a read of it, then you will find it was a Labour government that presided over that fiasco also.
Please check other's posts in future before crtitcising them.
SSD
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He had several meetings with some very senior and experienced Concorde people, some ex BA Concorde fleet and some current (pilots and engineeering). You may be 'absolutely amazed', but my contact who was approached by Branson and had discussions with him had no doubt his investigation into the feasibility was genuine, and he's no gullible fool - far from it, one of the shrewdest men I know.
I don't think there's any doubt whatsoever that politics played a significant part in the Concorde's demise - Air France needed to dump it and wouldn't have wanted BA continuing. But, the design authority also wanted it taken out of service and wouldn't have supported Branson.
The question to which we'll never know the answer for sure is what their attitude would have been if it had been AF who wanted to continue. (But we can have our suspicions.
)Sadly, I don't think it will ever fly again.
Although I'd love to see a Vulcan fly again and hope it will, I can see the force of Fokker Wokker's point, and I have an affection for the Mosquito in particular. I had a ride in the BAe aircraft during an a display at an airshow in the mid 80s - when such things were allowed. Wonderful aeroplane and an experience to remember.
That said, I'm torn because I think we should keep historic jets in flying state to pass on to future generations as part of our aviation heritage. Aircraft are build to be flown, not on static display in some museum.
Government money to help preserve our aviation heritage?
Yes, provided the aircraft is publicly owned, or owned by a charitable trust structured so that no-one can take any money out. I have strong reservations about public money being put into private ventures.
I feel the same way about certain owners (thankfully a minority) collecting money from enthusiasts at airshows to 'Keep the X flying' etc - when the overwhelming majority of those enthusiasts who donate to a 'good cause' have nowhere near the owner's wealth and don't realise what they are actually doing is subsidising the owner's flying and helping them keep an ever-increasing asset which they'll sell for a fortune when they are ready to retire.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 24th Jan 2007 at 22:21.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lack of support from the Design Authority is, in my opinion, the one obstacle to return to flight that is probably insurmountable, even if money was no object (which, of course, it always is). But everyone has their price, and I think that's where any 'return-to-flight' budget would reach into the billions - getting EADS on board again.
SSD
Groundloop - it may come as a surprise to you, but there were Labour governments before BLiar's one. Their track record is why those of us old enough to remember them cried into our beer when BLiar's lot were elected by an electrorate largely too young to remember.....
SSD
SSD
In fact, it was actually a Labour Government, principally through a certain Anthony Wedgewood-Benn (anyone else remember his pre "Tony Benn" days) who actually saved Concorde from cancellation. It did help that Benn's constituency covered a large part of Bristol, I suppose!!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSD, I hate to admit it but I CAN remember the Wilson Government being elected and the TSR-2 decision. The point of my post is the seemingly incredible blaming of Labour for the end of Concorde.
In fact, it was actually a Labour Government, principally through a certain Anthony Wedgewood-Benn (anyone else remember his pre "Tony Benn" days) who actually saved Concorde from cancellation. It did help that Benn's constituency covered a large part of Bristol, I suppose!!
In fact, it was actually a Labour Government, principally through a certain Anthony Wedgewood-Benn (anyone else remember his pre "Tony Benn" days) who actually saved Concorde from cancellation. It did help that Benn's constituency covered a large part of Bristol, I suppose!!
Indeed, Benn has always been a great supporter of Concorde and the cynic in me says that's because it was produced in his constituency. But That may be doing him a dis-service. He is certainly very enthusiastic about the aeroplane in the 'BA Tribute' video produced when she stopped flying.
It was Conservative minister Julian Amery who devised the 'both sides locked in' contract with the French, ironically to prevent the French pulling out and leaving Britain with all the costs. In fact, it was us Brits who later wanted out (including Dennis Healy wanting to cancel it along with TSR2), but that same contract locked us in. Thankfully!
SSD
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lost, but often Indonesia
Posts: 652
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde in camo?
No laughing please! Just curious, could there possibly be any military application for concorde? I wasn't thinking of fitting a bomb bay necessarily! More thinking of payload and range at high speed?
Octane
Octane
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, by the time she could have been developed as a bomber, the nuclear deterant had been passed to the Navy subs (high altitude aeroplanes being no longer safe from shoot-down), and in-flight refuelling was a regular military practice, so there probably wasn't a military role for her.
SSD
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 53
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there is a crossed purpose amongst some posters here. What we are talking about is getting a concorde back into the skies as a tribute to those that designed and built her, and to celebrate the finest engineers of their generation who overcame all the "cannot be done" obstacles to actually get it done. A display of true grit and determination if you like, and that isn't forgetting that the French did have more than a passing interest in the design & build as well. But to look at the British angle it was a one off, and something that the British nation should be proud of! Like him or loath him, Jeremy Clarkson has it right when he says that something that well engineered has a soul of it own!
But let's forget about the sentimentality of getting her in the air again, we are not talking about putting paying passengers on board, and re-starting BA001/002 every day. We are talking about an aircraft flown to please the crowds at airshows. No-one suggest that we return the spitfire to front line service, but we are happy to see them flying at displays all around the country in the summer, in that we as a nation can pay tribute to a machine that we in fact owe a great deal to, and the same rule of thumb applies, and that being the case, then surely Concorde can return to flight on a "permit". If this is possible, then why not. Let us not forget that according to a recent thread on the site that the French are continually ensuring that one is available should the need arise. Perhaps the time to start doing that is now. I understand that all the machines are without the engines and certain other parts, apart from AC at Manchester that by all accounts is still fully equipped. So why not?
But let's forget about the sentimentality of getting her in the air again, we are not talking about putting paying passengers on board, and re-starting BA001/002 every day. We are talking about an aircraft flown to please the crowds at airshows. No-one suggest that we return the spitfire to front line service, but we are happy to see them flying at displays all around the country in the summer, in that we as a nation can pay tribute to a machine that we in fact owe a great deal to, and the same rule of thumb applies, and that being the case, then surely Concorde can return to flight on a "permit". If this is possible, then why not. Let us not forget that according to a recent thread on the site that the French are continually ensuring that one is available should the need arise. Perhaps the time to start doing that is now. I understand that all the machines are without the engines and certain other parts, apart from AC at Manchester that by all accounts is still fully equipped. So why not?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL,
I agree with your view that RB was very serious...he isn't known to miss a real opportunity when he feels there is one. And that AF needed to be out of the SST business prior to a privatisation.
I'm however less than convinced of Airbus's opposition. From what I have learnt they were obliged to provide a 'fixed' minimum of engineering and design support for the Type, regardless of the number of airframes in commercial service.
Each user payed a percentage of this minimum (so 2 users meant each pay half etc) plus a fee for the number of airframes it had in service. I think my understanding is correct, but not 100% certain somebody here will know more.
So when AF informed Airbus they were withdrawing their fleet, Airbus were forced to inform BA that it alone had to carry the entire cost of the design authority contract, plus the fee for its own airframes.
Now I understand that there was some saving on the DA fee as AF and BA birds were not identical (batteries plus a few other electrical items) but broadly speaking BA faced a massive % increase in the fee...which the business case did not cover...
What is more difficult to know is where or not the DA fee was 'reasonable'...but compared to what?
I believe that Airbus were free to charge whatever they wanted for this service..as who else could provide it? I'm certain they were not 'unreasonable' in that they could have justifed every Euro if challenged in court, but they would have made sure the price was in their favour.
An interesting dilemma...knowing Airbus's desperate requirement for more engineering support at Toulouse it seems possible that the senior, experienced engineers dedicated to Concorde were in theory more 'profitably' employed on a current design....if you are really cynical.
If AF had not made the move to retire then she would have flown at least until this year and economics not with standing recieved a further life extension if warranted and requested by both BA and AF.
Airbus would have continued to support her as long as AF wanted to fly her. I think the link between AF and the French Government was influential enough to ensure that Airbus was not in a position to 'assist BA' in any significant manner.
No doubt the CAA were also consulted as to how a 'new' operator could be accommodated.
Imagine if they said to RB, 'Sure, no problem, provided all the maintenance is carried out by an experienced maintainer based in the UK'.. ie BA.. what a hoot.. BA being paid a fortune to maintain an aircraft they retired because it could not afford to fly it for a competitor who thinks he can...
Cessna,
None of the BA concordes are complete. Check on Gordon's site (www.concordesst.com) for more details of the decomissioning and what was removed.
The real issue is that none of the BA Concordes were preserved for future re-commissioning. The hydraulic systems were drained and left empty for example and in the intervening time the seals therein will have deteriorated sufficiently to render them inoperable. In order to provide flightworthy hydraulic systems these seals would need replacement by certified new ones. These no longer exist...and that is the real issue. All of the spares have left the controlled environment (traceability etc) that is required for flight rated spares. It would of course be possible to remanufacutre but the cost issues associated with this means its improbable.
I'm sure FL will know more than I but my understanding is that if an a/c has a previous UK TC it is not all owed to operate under a Permit....which makes that avenue a dead end. Again taking an airframe in for a major is possible, returning it to full operational status is possible, even getting insurance is possible.. funding all of this is possible, but improbable.
I doubt that any of the AF birds are near flight status. The last Concorde (FC)to move under its own power was in Toulouse as part of the investigation. I believe that this a/c is complete, but not maintained in 'live' condition. It would need a serious amount of work to bring back on line, less than any of the BA airframes but nevertheless it would be a big job. (She is however open to visitors and the cockpit is blocked off by a glass door).
The museum planned for Toulouse (adjacent to the new factory) is going to be home to one of the Toulouse Concordes. This is planned to open in April 2009 and not only allows one of the two to be undercover, but also to house a Super Guppy, A300 and Caravelle. It will also be part of the Airbus factory visit...so what happens to the other....a flying example...?
I agree with your view that RB was very serious...he isn't known to miss a real opportunity when he feels there is one. And that AF needed to be out of the SST business prior to a privatisation.
I'm however less than convinced of Airbus's opposition. From what I have learnt they were obliged to provide a 'fixed' minimum of engineering and design support for the Type, regardless of the number of airframes in commercial service.
Each user payed a percentage of this minimum (so 2 users meant each pay half etc) plus a fee for the number of airframes it had in service. I think my understanding is correct, but not 100% certain somebody here will know more.
So when AF informed Airbus they were withdrawing their fleet, Airbus were forced to inform BA that it alone had to carry the entire cost of the design authority contract, plus the fee for its own airframes.
Now I understand that there was some saving on the DA fee as AF and BA birds were not identical (batteries plus a few other electrical items) but broadly speaking BA faced a massive % increase in the fee...which the business case did not cover...
What is more difficult to know is where or not the DA fee was 'reasonable'...but compared to what?
I believe that Airbus were free to charge whatever they wanted for this service..as who else could provide it? I'm certain they were not 'unreasonable' in that they could have justifed every Euro if challenged in court, but they would have made sure the price was in their favour.
An interesting dilemma...knowing Airbus's desperate requirement for more engineering support at Toulouse it seems possible that the senior, experienced engineers dedicated to Concorde were in theory more 'profitably' employed on a current design....if you are really cynical.
If AF had not made the move to retire then she would have flown at least until this year and economics not with standing recieved a further life extension if warranted and requested by both BA and AF.
Airbus would have continued to support her as long as AF wanted to fly her. I think the link between AF and the French Government was influential enough to ensure that Airbus was not in a position to 'assist BA' in any significant manner.
No doubt the CAA were also consulted as to how a 'new' operator could be accommodated.
Imagine if they said to RB, 'Sure, no problem, provided all the maintenance is carried out by an experienced maintainer based in the UK'.. ie BA.. what a hoot.. BA being paid a fortune to maintain an aircraft they retired because it could not afford to fly it for a competitor who thinks he can...
Cessna,
None of the BA concordes are complete. Check on Gordon's site (www.concordesst.com) for more details of the decomissioning and what was removed.
The real issue is that none of the BA Concordes were preserved for future re-commissioning. The hydraulic systems were drained and left empty for example and in the intervening time the seals therein will have deteriorated sufficiently to render them inoperable. In order to provide flightworthy hydraulic systems these seals would need replacement by certified new ones. These no longer exist...and that is the real issue. All of the spares have left the controlled environment (traceability etc) that is required for flight rated spares. It would of course be possible to remanufacutre but the cost issues associated with this means its improbable.
I'm sure FL will know more than I but my understanding is that if an a/c has a previous UK TC it is not all owed to operate under a Permit....which makes that avenue a dead end. Again taking an airframe in for a major is possible, returning it to full operational status is possible, even getting insurance is possible.. funding all of this is possible, but improbable.
I doubt that any of the AF birds are near flight status. The last Concorde (FC)to move under its own power was in Toulouse as part of the investigation. I believe that this a/c is complete, but not maintained in 'live' condition. It would need a serious amount of work to bring back on line, less than any of the BA airframes but nevertheless it would be a big job. (She is however open to visitors and the cockpit is blocked off by a glass door).
The museum planned for Toulouse (adjacent to the new factory) is going to be home to one of the Toulouse Concordes. This is planned to open in April 2009 and not only allows one of the two to be undercover, but also to house a Super Guppy, A300 and Caravelle. It will also be part of the Airbus factory visit...so what happens to the other....a flying example...?
Too mean to buy a long personal title
So when AF informed Airbus they were withdrawing their fleet, Airbus were forced to inform BA that it alone had to carry the entire cost of the design authority contract, plus the fee for its own airframes.
Now I understand that there was some saving on the DA fee as AF and BA birds were not identical (batteries plus a few other electrical items) but broadly speaking BA faced a massive % increase in the fee...which the business case did not cover...
Now I understand that there was some saving on the DA fee as AF and BA birds were not identical (batteries plus a few other electrical items) but broadly speaking BA faced a massive % increase in the fee...which the business case did not cover...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 53
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said, I am not expecting our taxes to be frittered away (more than they are already) on providing an airframe for public transport. But surely there must be some way of getting one up again for airshows and other public display, and is that not what this new law is about??
I totally understand traceablility (I work as a CRS inspector amongst other things I do) and agree that a lot of the parts are out of those limits now, especially as most of it went onto e-bay. However, if the needed parts could be aquired, then surely all they need is a full inspection against the relevant CMM to ensure cmpliance with the design standard ??
I totally understand traceablility (I work as a CRS inspector amongst other things I do) and agree that a lot of the parts are out of those limits now, especially as most of it went onto e-bay. However, if the needed parts could be aquired, then surely all they need is a full inspection against the relevant CMM to ensure cmpliance with the design standard ??
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
clp - To fly a complex aeroplane like Concorde (and they don't come any more complex than that) you need manufacturer support. Not only (as BA and AF did) to keep her flying, but also as part of the re-certification process with the CAA.
As I said before, there is no 'reduced requirement' for non-passenger flights. She would have to be fully re-certificated for flight (type certificate, C of A) or remain grounded. She would not qualify for a permit. Cricky, the CAA won't even let a Lightning fly again - and that is a tiny fraction as complex as a Concorde.
As I said before, there is no 'reduced requirement' for non-passenger flights. She would have to be fully re-certificated for flight (type certificate, C of A) or remain grounded. She would not qualify for a permit. Cricky, the CAA won't even let a Lightning fly again - and that is a tiny fraction as complex as a Concorde.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde fly again?
Was amazed to read it as anyone, ...but read in the French press a few weeks ago that the AF Concorde at Le Bourget is indeed being maintained with a long-term possibility to it flying again.
Article concerned a female AF engineer who previously worked on the fleet & now pops over to Le Bourget (once a week I think it was...) to conduct the work.
Anyone else know any more about this...? Is it an AF-sponsored intiative or pure volunteer effort??
Struck me as all the more strange since there is practically no talk of this & far less interest in the topic this side of the Channel...
Article concerned a female AF engineer who previously worked on the fleet & now pops over to Le Bourget (once a week I think it was...) to conduct the work.
Anyone else know any more about this...? Is it an AF-sponsored intiative or pure volunteer effort??
Struck me as all the more strange since there is practically no talk of this & far less interest in the topic this side of the Channel...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shaggy Sheep Driver
"an insurmountable obstacle. Branson must have known this"
I didn’t say there was an insurmountable obstacle. As mfaff points out, there is more than one way of complying with an obligation. See his paragraph beginning ‘What is more difficult to know ......’
It would be a mistake to assume that, at the time Branson talked about Virgin taking over Concorde, he knew what we all learned later. Many share your view, especially those who don’t care for him. I’ve said all I properly can without asking my contact how much I’m allowed to repeat, but what I've said isn't based on a hunch.
mfaff
I happened to be sitting next to a senior chap from Airbus at the RAeS Centenary of Flight dinner who worked in the department directly relevant to this subject. He put forward very compelling arguments (although he didn’t change my mind as a committed Concorde fan) which were broadly what you suggest. In a nutshell - as Concorde got older, Airbus was spending more time on Concorde DA matters than on all the other models (combined) for which they are the DA. And, that they were effectively subsidising BA/AF ops by not charging the full cost. He conceded Concorde had another 8, possibly 10, years life left and, had BA and AF both wanted to continue, not only would the bare obligations have been honoured but they would have continued to assist as before. I assume the profits from supplying/supporting the Airbus fleets of both airlines would have been a factor in that.
Globaliser
You're right about the passenger loads/revenue when ops resumed post crash - a number of different factors, not all related to the crash. However, in stark contrast to AF, BA's Concorde fleet had previously consistently made a profit. Those in BA in a position to make an informed assessment were divided about whether BA could weather the fall in revenue. The decision was overtaken by events when AF pulled out, so we'll never know.
"an insurmountable obstacle. Branson must have known this"
I didn’t say there was an insurmountable obstacle. As mfaff points out, there is more than one way of complying with an obligation. See his paragraph beginning ‘What is more difficult to know ......’
It would be a mistake to assume that, at the time Branson talked about Virgin taking over Concorde, he knew what we all learned later. Many share your view, especially those who don’t care for him. I’ve said all I properly can without asking my contact how much I’m allowed to repeat, but what I've said isn't based on a hunch.
mfaff
An interesting dilemma...knowing Airbus's desperate requirement for more engineering support at Toulouse it seems possible that the senior, experienced engineers dedicated to Concorde were in theory more 'profitably' employed on a current design....if you are really cynical.
Globaliser
You're right about the passenger loads/revenue when ops resumed post crash - a number of different factors, not all related to the crash. However, in stark contrast to AF, BA's Concorde fleet had previously consistently made a profit. Those in BA in a position to make an informed assessment were divided about whether BA could weather the fall in revenue. The decision was overtaken by events when AF pulled out, so we'll never know.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 26th Jan 2007 at 06:34.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL,
Your comments complete the 'circle' as it were. It would appear that had the demand (and hence finances) been there Airbus would have supported Concorde ops as long as was reasonable...rather than a 'vendetta' against her...
Thanks.
Better,
Le Bourget has two Concordes within its very confined Concorde display Hall.
In order to get one outside they would need to remove a 'fixed' wall, which they did to get the production bird in after retirement.
Secondly there is a small team of AF/ ex-Af and other volunteers who maintain a very few and very limited number of native systems in limited operation using no native power souces.
This is more akin to a moving museum display than an active or even live aircraft. Its better than nothing for sure, but in no way reduces the potential demands to return her to flight.
CLP,
You will probably know more than me, but repurchasing items and tryin to get them re certified seems like a fraught route to me..can this really be done to full C of A status....unlike getting bits of a Spit overhauled etc this is full certification....
GLobaliser,
Absolutely correct. Diminishing revenues and worse a prediction of further reductions meant that the additional 'fixed' cost would negate any operating profit for the programme.
I know that major (and possibly individual) shareholders would not have been impressed had BA continued to operate Concorde at a loss, evne when their own predictions showed no return to profit in the future.
We may decry the retirement (and I'm one who misses her every single day... no 5.25pm walk outside to see her fly over head, just as she goes 'dirty') when BA were operating an icon as much as plane, but its a private company who purchased them legally (albeit on a pretty good deal) and were 'free' to do as they saw best. That said the pssing away of millions to teach Civil Servants to have tidy desks does seem insane... I'm sure an additional £7M would have helped a Heritage case....who knows.
Your comments complete the 'circle' as it were. It would appear that had the demand (and hence finances) been there Airbus would have supported Concorde ops as long as was reasonable...rather than a 'vendetta' against her...
Thanks.
Better,
Le Bourget has two Concordes within its very confined Concorde display Hall.
In order to get one outside they would need to remove a 'fixed' wall, which they did to get the production bird in after retirement.
Secondly there is a small team of AF/ ex-Af and other volunteers who maintain a very few and very limited number of native systems in limited operation using no native power souces.
This is more akin to a moving museum display than an active or even live aircraft. Its better than nothing for sure, but in no way reduces the potential demands to return her to flight.
CLP,
You will probably know more than me, but repurchasing items and tryin to get them re certified seems like a fraught route to me..can this really be done to full C of A status....unlike getting bits of a Spit overhauled etc this is full certification....
GLobaliser,
Absolutely correct. Diminishing revenues and worse a prediction of further reductions meant that the additional 'fixed' cost would negate any operating profit for the programme.
I know that major (and possibly individual) shareholders would not have been impressed had BA continued to operate Concorde at a loss, evne when their own predictions showed no return to profit in the future.
We may decry the retirement (and I'm one who misses her every single day... no 5.25pm walk outside to see her fly over head, just as she goes 'dirty') when BA were operating an icon as much as plane, but its a private company who purchased them legally (albeit on a pretty good deal) and were 'free' to do as they saw best. That said the pssing away of millions to teach Civil Servants to have tidy desks does seem insane... I'm sure an additional £7M would have helped a Heritage case....who knows.