The return of Concorde???
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ...
Can Concorde fly again? Of course, just needs money throwing at it and Airbus to buy into the concept ...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MIKE7777777
.
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).
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?
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 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?
Last edited by M2dude; 25th Jul 2010 at 21:39.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A
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).
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.
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.
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).
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Return of Concorde
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?
Last edited by flyawaybird; 26th Jul 2010 at 01:52.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
