The return of Concorde???
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The return of Concorde???
I was, on Sunday morning, watching Something for the Weekend on BBC 2 when the presenter Tim Lovejoy made a comment about Concorde "coming back". At the time I was watching no more was said about it so I dont know if this is based on factual evidence or him just guessing/hoping.
Does anyone on here know anything about this? Is there the remotest chance this is true?
It would be fantastic if it is (and if they could persuade the Australians that its not too loud and wont destroy the ice caps!), but I have my doubts about its commercial viability these days, plus with the ongoing investigation into the French crash I would be surprised.
Does anyone on here know anything about this? Is there the remotest chance this is true?
It would be fantastic if it is (and if they could persuade the Australians that its not too loud and wont destroy the ice caps!), but I have my doubts about its commercial viability these days, plus with the ongoing investigation into the French crash I would be surprised.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something to do with a track and field get together in London in 2012......................
Concorde may fly again for 2012 Olympics
Concorde may fly again for 2012 Olympics
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe there is a big difference between getting a limited-very-restricted Permit To Fly for a special once-only occasion and getting back a fully fledged CofA.
In the former case, if no passengers are carried and the pilots waive their liability claim rights, who knows?
In the former case, if no passengers are carried and the pilots waive their liability claim rights, who knows?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would anyone want to associate their modern, clean, eco puff, 'elf n' safety obsessed Olympic Games with an obsolete, half French, chronically uneconomic, shockingly noisy, 1960s dinosaur coal-burner with a dodgy safety record that was even abandoned by it's manufacturer?
I know we love anything that turns this country even further into a retro museum but I can't see anything positive or useful being conveyed by putting Concorde up over the Olympics; quite the opposite.
Strikes me as about as pointless and forward-looking as providing the Olympians with a fleet of Ford Corsairs or Morris Oxfords to drive around in.
How on earth does this showcase modern Britain?
(only partly tongue-in-cheek)
I know we love anything that turns this country even further into a retro museum but I can't see anything positive or useful being conveyed by putting Concorde up over the Olympics; quite the opposite.
Strikes me as about as pointless and forward-looking as providing the Olympians with a fleet of Ford Corsairs or Morris Oxfords to drive around in.
How on earth does this showcase modern Britain?
(only partly tongue-in-cheek)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chedburgh, Bury St.Edmunds
Age: 81
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
5 Posts
It's really time to put these 'Concorde to fly again' threads to bed. If you read all the previous threads about it taking to the air, all the reasons have been explained as to why it simply 'aint going to happen' You can dream, of course, but time for a reality check.
At very best there MAY be a taxi-ing one in France, but thats as far as its going to get. [ Mind you, I said the Vulcan would never get to display again, some years ago.................]
At very best there MAY be a taxi-ing one in France, but thats as far as its going to get. [ Mind you, I said the Vulcan would never get to display again, some years ago.................]
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How on earth does this showcase modern Britain?
Forget Concorde, the UK is bankrupt. By the time the Olympics get here we'll be lucky to get a Microlight towing a Union flag behind it.
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks
Thanks to people who have commented on this. I should have known it would only be something like a fly past, but I can only hope.
JEM60 - I did think it was highly unlikely and have to admit I only half heartedly looked through previous Concorde threads before posting.
I had thought that maybe a new design was being developed as I still maintian it is a crime not to develop this sort of technology, just think how good it would be to get to Australia (for example) in only a few hours (from the UK).
oh and, hopefully you'll be as correct as you were about the Vulcan
JEM60 - I did think it was highly unlikely and have to admit I only half heartedly looked through previous Concorde threads before posting.
I had thought that maybe a new design was being developed as I still maintian it is a crime not to develop this sort of technology, just think how good it would be to get to Australia (for example) in only a few hours (from the UK).
oh and, hopefully you'll be as correct as you were about the Vulcan
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Swindon, Wilts,UK
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MDHAC There are designs Reaction Engines Lapcat A2
We just can't afford them! Well we could if we could whip up the same frenzied following for aerospace that the cult of talentless celebrity enjoys
We just can't afford them! Well we could if we could whip up the same frenzied following for aerospace that the cult of talentless celebrity enjoys
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still maintian it is a crime not to develop this sort of technology, just think how good it would be to get to Australia (for example) in only a few hours (from the UK).
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness
It wouldn't bother me. It might if it happened every half hour.
Agaricus bisporus
Concorde wasn't obsolete when withdrawn from service. It would have been in about 10 years.
The BA fleet wasn't chronically uneconomic. It consistently made a healthy profit from the mid-80s until the Paris crash in 2000. (Post crash, it wasn't profitable - until the retirement was announced and then flights were full because many people took their last opportunity to fly in Concorde.)
I've lived under the LHR flightpath for more than 30 years and, although Concorde was louder than other aircraft, never found it 'shockingly noisy'.
I agree the fuel-burn would have been unacceptable to some people in modern times. The strength of their objection would depend upon how extreme their green views.
Concorde didn't have a dodgy safety record. After the Paris crash even minor incidents were exaggerated out of all proportion by some sections of the British media.
The manufacturer's successor (Airbus Industrie) announced it was no longer prepared to continue charging the two operators less than the actual cost for its work. Air France wanted (arguably needed) to withdraw Concorde from service: the airline was in dire financial straits pre the KLM merger and, unlike BA, had never made a financial success of its Concorde fleet. BA couldn't afford to bear the DA cost alone given the declining market post crash and economic downturn.
We'll never know if Airbus, as the design authority, would have taken that stance if Air France had not wanted to get out of Concorde. But we can have our suspicions.
Who the Hell wants a clap of thunder overhead every day of their lives?
Agaricus bisporus
Concorde wasn't obsolete when withdrawn from service. It would have been in about 10 years.
The BA fleet wasn't chronically uneconomic. It consistently made a healthy profit from the mid-80s until the Paris crash in 2000. (Post crash, it wasn't profitable - until the retirement was announced and then flights were full because many people took their last opportunity to fly in Concorde.)
I've lived under the LHR flightpath for more than 30 years and, although Concorde was louder than other aircraft, never found it 'shockingly noisy'.
I agree the fuel-burn would have been unacceptable to some people in modern times. The strength of their objection would depend upon how extreme their green views.
Concorde didn't have a dodgy safety record. After the Paris crash even minor incidents were exaggerated out of all proportion by some sections of the British media.
The manufacturer's successor (Airbus Industrie) announced it was no longer prepared to continue charging the two operators less than the actual cost for its work. Air France wanted (arguably needed) to withdraw Concorde from service: the airline was in dire financial straits pre the KLM merger and, unlike BA, had never made a financial success of its Concorde fleet. BA couldn't afford to bear the DA cost alone given the declining market post crash and economic downturn.
We'll never know if Airbus, as the design authority, would have taken that stance if Air France had not wanted to get out of Concorde. But we can have our suspicions.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 22nd Jul 2010 at 17:44.
Who the Hell wants a clap of thunder overhead every day of their lives?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting article on Concorde's demise here:
THE BETRAYAL OF CONCORDE
Apologies if it's been posted before.
THE BETRAYAL OF CONCORDE
Apologies if it's been posted before.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL, with respect, MīLud
A steam driven 3 flightcrew aircraft with that sort of fuel burn is obsolete. It may have been marginally useful, but so are DC3s. Still obsolete.
No, never economical. It was given to BA and AF cost free. It never had to earn its keep on a commercial basis, it never could have. Thats why no one else bought it.
No safety record? I submit you might examine its tyre damage history a bit more closely, and the accident record, albeit one only from that cause is not at all impressive. That accident was all too predictable I think.
Not shockingly noisy??? You must have rose tinted ear defenders! It was fantastically noisy. I too lived beneath its flight path and loved it. The noise made your chest vibrate 5000 below. It was the noisiest by far, vastly, hugely more than 707s, tridents, VC10s. It stopped conversation. They never did.
ps
Didnīt you read the bit about tongue in cheek...?
A steam driven 3 flightcrew aircraft with that sort of fuel burn is obsolete. It may have been marginally useful, but so are DC3s. Still obsolete.
No, never economical. It was given to BA and AF cost free. It never had to earn its keep on a commercial basis, it never could have. Thats why no one else bought it.
No safety record? I submit you might examine its tyre damage history a bit more closely, and the accident record, albeit one only from that cause is not at all impressive. That accident was all too predictable I think.
Not shockingly noisy??? You must have rose tinted ear defenders! It was fantastically noisy. I too lived beneath its flight path and loved it. The noise made your chest vibrate 5000 below. It was the noisiest by far, vastly, hugely more than 707s, tridents, VC10s. It stopped conversation. They never did.
ps
Didnīt you read the bit about tongue in cheek...?
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with everything that FL says, in fact he sums Concorde up quite neatly.
As for noise, Concorde came over my house daily at around 5:30, give or take. You could easily tell by the noise what it was, but at 4000' what noise are YOU talking about? I never endured chest 'pains' or anything like it. It was a lovely noise and I truly miss it.
But, as they say, that's another story.
My fingerprints, as are FL's, deep inside the inards of AF and were made at a time when it an the others were undergoing a back to service re-fit at Ģ15m a time and were shortly ready to take to the air - as indeed they all did. That is what makes the whole thing so sad and gut wrenching to my mind.
As for noise, Concorde came over my house daily at around 5:30, give or take. You could easily tell by the noise what it was, but at 4000' what noise are YOU talking about? I never endured chest 'pains' or anything like it. It was a lovely noise and I truly miss it.
But, as they say, that's another story.
My fingerprints, as are FL's, deep inside the inards of AF and were made at a time when it an the others were undergoing a back to service re-fit at Ģ15m a time and were shortly ready to take to the air - as indeed they all did. That is what makes the whole thing so sad and gut wrenching to my mind.
The manufacturer's successor (Airbus Industrie) announced it was no longer prepared to continue charging the two operators less than the actual cost for its work.
So, Concorde could have been kept going by BA (or Virgin!), but this essentially meant their finding an organisation with the large and necessary design and airworthiness engineering capability to support the type. That wasn't coming from Airbus and so far as I know nobody else was prepared to take it on (BAe Regional or maybe Marshalls could probably have done), so that lack of commercial will doomed the type in service.
Even for a single flight, that design support will still be needed - I don't see it coming from anywhere right now.
G
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agaricus bisporus
OK, now let's deal with some of this total drivel, and give these comments of yours a little perspective, not to mention inject some FACTS. Agaricus bisporus, you may be interested to know that the aircraft was not driven by steam!!! She was in fact driven by the power of 4 TURBOJET engines; namely Rolls-Royce Olympus 593-610-28, rated at 38,050lb static thrust. Yes, Concorde had 3 flight crew, as did every other long haul aircraft of the era, so what's your point?.
FUEL BURN? Yes, the take-off fuel burn was extremely high, as was subsonic flight. But at the Mach 2 cruise it all turned on its head; the fuel burn per engine was a little over 5 tonnes/hour, falling to around 4 tonnes/hour at the end of supersonic cruise. So, here you have 100 passengers, sitting in total comfort and drinking champagne, flying at 1,320 ish MPH, with a fuel burn far lower than ANY Mach 2 aircraft of any size or type. (No afterburning , or reheat). You are showing total ignorance here yet again; this was a truly amazing technical achievement.
If you look at history, the airlines were NEVER given the aircraft as such, and had to bear all of the product support costs. The aircraft DID earn her keep on a commercial basis, earned it' and how. CHECK YOUR FACTS !!
The tyre damage issue has been reported in so many learned papers; The Paris incident was truly unique, in that it is the ONLY incident where soft material only (ie the tyre segment), caused fuel tank rupture, there is enough comment elsewhere, as well as evidence, to show that this disaster was NOT down to a simple tyre failure, but down to a long chain of events, all of them preventable. There were serious issues however, regarding Concorde tyre failures that had to be addressed; you were dealing with a very high pressure, high speed tyre, living below a delta wing; we are talking about an SST here after all, and several improvement modifications were carried out. (The Michelin NZG tyre fitted after the crash was truly amazing, but this technology was just not available when the aircraft was developed). To clarify one point here, after BA modified it's water deflectors in the early1990's, there was NEVER another incident of airframe damage due to tyre failure with that fleet. (AF however never carried out that particular modification).
Aviation is all about learning from incidents, it is not about making glib remarks about a subject you plainly know nothing about . Concorde had a wonderful safety record prior to Paris, and nomatter what YOU think, this accident was not predictable; it should just never had happened.
It is so sad, when such an amazing aircraft gets her history distorted by people who plainly do not know their undercarriage from their elbow!!!
A steam driven 3 flightcrew aircraft with that sort of fuel burn is obsolete. It may have been marginally useful, but so are DC3s. Still obsolete.
No, never economical. It was given to BA and AF cost free. It never had to earn its keep on a commercial basis, it never could have. Thats why no one else bought it.
No safety record? I submit you might examine its tyre damage history a bit more closely, and the accident record, albeit one only from that cause is not at all impressive. That accident was all too predictable I think.
No, never economical. It was given to BA and AF cost free. It never had to earn its keep on a commercial basis, it never could have. Thats why no one else bought it.
No safety record? I submit you might examine its tyre damage history a bit more closely, and the accident record, albeit one only from that cause is not at all impressive. That accident was all too predictable I think.
FUEL BURN? Yes, the take-off fuel burn was extremely high, as was subsonic flight. But at the Mach 2 cruise it all turned on its head; the fuel burn per engine was a little over 5 tonnes/hour, falling to around 4 tonnes/hour at the end of supersonic cruise. So, here you have 100 passengers, sitting in total comfort and drinking champagne, flying at 1,320 ish MPH, with a fuel burn far lower than ANY Mach 2 aircraft of any size or type. (No afterburning , or reheat). You are showing total ignorance here yet again; this was a truly amazing technical achievement.
If you look at history, the airlines were NEVER given the aircraft as such, and had to bear all of the product support costs. The aircraft DID earn her keep on a commercial basis, earned it' and how. CHECK YOUR FACTS !!
The tyre damage issue has been reported in so many learned papers; The Paris incident was truly unique, in that it is the ONLY incident where soft material only (ie the tyre segment), caused fuel tank rupture, there is enough comment elsewhere, as well as evidence, to show that this disaster was NOT down to a simple tyre failure, but down to a long chain of events, all of them preventable. There were serious issues however, regarding Concorde tyre failures that had to be addressed; you were dealing with a very high pressure, high speed tyre, living below a delta wing; we are talking about an SST here after all, and several improvement modifications were carried out. (The Michelin NZG tyre fitted after the crash was truly amazing, but this technology was just not available when the aircraft was developed). To clarify one point here, after BA modified it's water deflectors in the early1990's, there was NEVER another incident of airframe damage due to tyre failure with that fleet. (AF however never carried out that particular modification).
Aviation is all about learning from incidents, it is not about making glib remarks about a subject you plainly know nothing about . Concorde had a wonderful safety record prior to Paris, and nomatter what YOU think, this accident was not predictable; it should just never had happened.
It is so sad, when such an amazing aircraft gets her history distorted by people who plainly do not know their undercarriage from their elbow!!!
Last edited by M2dude; 23rd Jul 2010 at 10:11. Reason: typo