Thanks a lot Brit312, at least my memory is not TOTAL garbage. :sad:
mmmmm... yep New York CAN get a tad chilly in the winter :p
Regard Brit

Dude :O

Brit312
I remember; wouldn't it have been great if we'd had cabotage rights between IAD and MIA? The attraction of flying down in the winter from a very chilly Washington to Miami in less than one and a half hours would I'm sure been very attractive for our American friends.

Dude :O

The great race!
 

Hy guys,
I think this is really interesting for all of you! :cool:

From magazine "Airliner World":

- In June 1974 Air France pitted Concorde against the B747 in a direct race. The B747 departed Orly Airport in the French capital Paris at 08:22 on the morning of June 17 bound for Boston. At the same time one of the airline's Concorde fleet took off from Boston's Logan Airport bound for Paris. When Concorde passed the B747, albeit at twice the altitude and flying in the opposite direction, it had already covered 2400 miles (3862km), the B747 barely covering 600miles(966km). The Concorde landed at Paris, spent an hour on the ground while it was refuelled, and took off for its return flight to Boston, where it arrived eleven minutes before the B747. -

Those were the times! :sad::sad::sad::sad::sad::sad::sad:

That's post #1 that started this thread.
The subject was dealt with in some depth, and in the course of the discussion is was described how the two preproduction and the first two production aircraft were equipped with an MEPU (monopropellant emergency power generator).

I've only just found this photo again... it's the MEPU of Delta Golf (202 - G-BBDG).
The photo was taken after 'DG was moved to the Brooklands museum, but before the tail cone was put back into place.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...aanJ/0005b.jpg


CJ

bio161
Hi, I think that they are refereing to the French development aircraft 102 F-WTSA, I remember the event really well, the aircraft was even delayed on the ground in Paris while one of the 'passengers' (An American press reporter) went shopping in the terminal building. In spite of the delay Concorde still won the 'race' with ease. :D

Dude :O

And it also gives a nice demonstration of the 'milled from solid' skins.

(The beige-coloured areas in this pic)

The blue area at the front is the MEPU firewall. My main memories of the MEPU on Concorde (Apart from the fact that it was always breaking down)was the awful STINK of the Hydrazine insode the tailcone. (Made your eyes water). Good photo though.

Dude :O

Let's not stop!

Did I understand correctly? This space where the MEPU used to be installed is empty space on production aircraft?

Since DG had a MEPU, that means other production aircraft could have one installed?

Were the charter flights much different from the scheduled ones?

I've seen the 1999 Around the World video, and they took some engineers aboard (They should've taken M2Dude with them, LOL). Did they make the flight-planning on each stop or everything came from the mothership @ London?

I don't think you'll be finding hydrazine on a pax-carrying aircraft anytime soon! And it wasn't an APU as such, but a source of power for non-normals potentially found in the flight test programme. M2D and ChristiaanJwill know far more.

The charter flights were different insofar as they often went to non-BA stations, so there was a bit more donkeywork to be done to get all the paperwork organised, but nothing a regular charter pilot won't be used to. Generally one would get a fuel plan/flight plan filed from Ops at LHR, but apart from LHR/JFK/BGI/IAD (and presumably MIA/BAH/SIN in earlier days) we produced our own loadsheet. I only once had to produce a fuel plan/route plan from scratch and that was at Sondrestrom (as it was) with a dodgy fax line. You'd have to file a flight plan occasionally.

We carried a 'PR' on most of them - a line pilot or FE - to carry out a running PA and do general liaison. They were volunteered to do the loadsheet.

The atmosphere on board was very different - these were pleasure flights and so were the opposite of the JFK business run. Landlady may be able to elaborate on this.

The round-the-worlds were just a big charter in this respect. As you note we carried a 'flying spanner', since Concorde-qualified LAEs are hard to come by downroute. It looked like a great job on paper, but they were often at the airport for many hours before or after the sectors carrying out routine maintenance or dealing with snags.

I enjoyed the charters a lot - everyone was geared up for a good time and in general the flight had something different for us, too: Whether a lightweight departure on a 'round-the-bay', squeezing into a short runway (e.g. Bournemouth), visiting SFJ or Rovaniemi, or setting off around the world, predominantly to non-BA destinations. My favourites, though, were the RTBs out of Filton - EVERYONE was either connected to Conc development or manufacture, or was related to someone who was. Fantastic atmosphere. Shame the runway wasn't a bit longer........

BlueConcorde
As far as the MEPU went, yes there was just mainly empty space inside the tailcone, Aside from the tail wheel assembly there was just the power supply for the tail beacon as well as the fuel vent and jettison pipes. (On the forward bulkhead there were pumps and valves for tank 11). Having this great empty void did create problems in the early days of airline operation; there were some internal structural failures inside the tailcone (a low stressed area, so it was never serious). These failures were quickly attributed to acoustic fatigue inside the tailcone, due to resonance with engine and aerodynamic noise. This never occurred during any of the development flying; the prototypes and aircraft 1010 had a far smaller tailcone anyway, and aircraft 102, 201 and 202 had the bulk of the MEPU assembly complete with Hydrazine tank to fill up most of the void. The fix to the cracking problems was both very simple and quick to implement, and it never became a big deal. The MEPU, as has been mentioned a few times previous, was both useless and unsafe as far as a commercial aircraft goes; being replaced by a ram air turbine.
It's funny, but this is how this wonderful thread started over one month ago by stilton , I for one am so glad that it has both progressed and diversified the way that it has.
As far as charters go I'll leave it up to EXWOK or one of the other guys to answer, as far as flight planning goes. Thanks for your comments BlueConcorde, they always took a ground engineer on RTW charters, and although I never had the pleasure of directly participating in one (although I was on the end of a phone several times when problems occurred en-route)I WAS due to go in 2000, but tragic events in Paris caused that charter to be cancelled. I was however lucky enough to participate in various other charters, my most memorable one was in October 1991, when the World Bank chartered Concorde to Bangkok. The most amazing thing about RTW charters (or earth orbiters, as I would call them) was that the aircraft often returned to London with only a very small handfull of minor defects. The thing about Concorde was the more that she flew, the happier she was, and less likely to catch a cold.

PS. oops, EXWOK is already 'there' :D

Dude :O

Such is the way with machinery.
 

I would venture to suggest Dude, that what you describe pretty much holds true with any complex system. While I hesitate to anthropomorphise such systems, I know from my own experience with MRI/CT systems that the hard worked ones are the most reliable.

Indeed, the ones that are worked way beyond what is 'reasonable' - and some are truly 'hammered' :eek: - tend to break down more than the 'hard worked'. At the other end of the scale, the lightly or intermittently used systems definitely break down more than the 'hard worked' norm. And don't leave a system unused for any length of time :=- a week or so will do it - and don't even think about turning it off at the A1 breaker!:ugh:

While we are at it, there is also the 'sympathetic brain waves' syndrome, a theory a much missed, late engineer friend of mine in the past had. :) As the amount of current required to consider a junction 'switched' went down and down, the closer it got to the amount of current/ion exchange necessary to 'fire' brain synapses. Stay with me - I more than half believed this! :uhoh:

Neil theorised that as the users - radiographers - got more stressed by patients, doctors and life in general, the more their synapses transmitted some sort of negative signal to the equipment - and it broke down. :uhoh: When I, or one of my engineer colleagues arrived on site, our more sympathetic 'engineer vibe' synapses did what our hands would have done and 'fixed it'. As a result, we rarely ever saw evidence of the weirder problems the user reported. :ugh:

So, while Concorde clearly 'enjoyed' doing her job, did she respond to your obviously sympathetic synapses? :D

Roger.

Oh yes Roger, I do agree (and a point well made too). Concorde was very much a 1970's era electronics design (with even a little 1960s thrown in too). It was typical that as long as things were left alone and warm, they more or less were happy.
At Heathrow when the crew arrived to depart the aircraft, she was already fairly well tested and fired up, systems wise, even to the extent that the INSs were usually aligned (but not put into NAV mode). Now this all helped immensely as far as systems reliability went, but a last minute INS or ADC failure could often still occur, and hit you in the 'you know wheres' when you had least time. Such was the nature of the beast. (But we all loved her :)).
I hope so Roger, I think we all did our best. :ok:

Dude :O

Charters
 

So nice to come back to find this thread is still running! :ok:

The various charters we had the pleasure of crewing were great fun; it certainly didn't feel as though one was at work!

The 'Father Christmas' trips were full of very happy children, (and even happier parents!) We would take Connie to Lapland and the passengers would have a fully organised day ahead of them, meeting Santa Claus etc, with a very early start and a late finish. (It was a day trip.) As crew we would nightstop and be entertained royally at the hotel...on one occasion I remember us all sitting down in uniform to dinner, I can't remember why, and something like 20 courses (16 of them herring!) being served to us. I was fortunate to be able to do a few of these trips, each one absolutely great fun for all involved.(Fortunately, I am quite partial to herring.) With the help of a Harley owning steward, I was even taught how to drive a snowmobile! We had sleigh rides which were pulled along by reindeer, gluwien in hand, and the best bit of all was always standing on the tarmac, (which, of course was covered in snow), watching Connie arrive from London - on touch-down a great plume of snow cascading behind her. All our cameras froze, but thankfully, there was a professional photographer taking shots which we were all given copies of. (Some of our cold weather civvies were a bit suspect. Having never skii-ed, I was lacking in the warm clothing department....I'm a beach girl through and through. I remember my wardrobe consisting of various pieces borrowed from all over the place, none of it matching and some just too big. Bang went the designer-bitch-from-the-Concorde-fleet reputation. :cool:)

We went to Moscow quite often to take the passengers to see the Bolshoi Ballet, and of course we accompanied them, resplendent in our evening wear. (Some of those F/D chappies certainly scrubbed up well.)(The gloss wore off the next morning when, on one such trip the water system on board froze on the ground and then provided us with a spectacular galley flood on thawing out.....causing a six hour delay if I recall.)(No need to chill down the fizz on that occasion.) :\

We were also part of the round trip that was the Venice -Simplon Orient Express, and we would either take pax to Venice where they would join the train, or bring them home after they had journey to Venice on the train. (I have done that trip as a passenger. Very nice too.) I also went on Concorde to Washington with my new husband on the day we were married, almost 30 years ago. To say the crew spoiled us would be somewhat of an understatement! (Even a wedding cake was provided on board!) Must have done something right, as Mr Landlady is still around to tell the tale. He has done some great trips accompanying me, usually most of the time spent on the F/D jumpseat, completely enthralled. :ok:

I haven't time right now to go into the spectacular Round-The -World aircruises, but I promise I will be back if you are still interested. I used to do some public speaking about Concorde on behalf of BA,(we were called ambassadors in those days),so I will try to dig out some catering facts and figures, which are quite interesting.

Thanks as always for your kind messages.

Landlady. :)

A few little complements to Landlady's Rovaniemi (Santa Claus) story.

I think it's a take-off, but not sure...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...YEBYESANTA.jpg
(I used this one as my screen background for a long time.)


BA arrival (sorry for the quality, blown up from a tiny website pic, but it's a nice illustration of the atmosphere.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...1113220138.jpg


Both BA and Air France had their Santa Claus charters.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3.../PIC000091.jpg


And sometimes they even met at Rovaniemi !

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...2Concordes.jpg

CJ


PS None of the photos are mine, but they're all public domain.
I'm sure there must be much better ones, but these are the only ones I had 'to hand'.

Keeping her warm
 

I used to work for BA at BHX (Engineering). BHX was one of the BA diversion airfields for when LHR got fogged out.

A few of us were therefore trained on non BHX based aircraft types in case of diversions. On my shift, I was trained on the B747 and my colleage on Concorde.

Of course we didn't see these aircraft very often, but when we did we had to get out the old course notes to refresh :}.

However, whenever Concorde turned up, my overriding memory was of my colleage who was obsessed with 'keeping her warm" - at all costs. I remember an occasion where the GPU, that had been running for a few hours (connected to a Concorde), ran out of diesel and therefore the power dropped off-line. I thought my colleage was going to have a heart attack - he did not come down from orbit until power was restored and everything appeared 'normal' again.

I think that this was something drummed into him whilst on his Concorde training course :confused:

Kangerlussuaq? Wow, that should have been awesome. Ronivaniemi flights were supersonic? I built and flew a EGLL-EFRO flightplan on the flight simulator once, supersonic along the Norwegian coast, descending and entering continent to reach Ronivaniemi from Northwest. According to my calcs, the difference to a subsonic-only trip using normal airways would be small, so that got me wondering how you actually did that.

Nice! So, by what I already read on this topic, you only worked with Concorde, right? But do you know if Concorde had the same issues as other airliners, or even for you guys "you're not (working) in an airplane, you're in Concorde" quote hold true?

For BA001 and BA003, 2 Concordes were prepared for the same flight, right? Did ever happened some situation that required a ready-for-takeoff Concorde be brought back? How long a cargo and passengers transfer would take? The backup Concorde was fueled?

Please, Landlady, that would an even bigger pleasure! Very interesting to read about Concorde from another point-of-view, much more human than Tons, Kgs, CG %, Celsius degrees, etc. :)

Hope I can speak for everyone in encouraging Landlady to post more as she has indicated.

Regards

Cron.

May I second that?
"Flying on Concorde" is as much a part of the "Concorde Story" as "Flying Concorde" or "Keeping Concorde Flying" or "Building Concorde"......

After all, Concorde may have been a technical achievement, and a beautiful aircraft.... but first and foremost she was... an airliner !!

CJ

bizdev,
They still don't like being too warm or too cold, to this day....

In the French Le Bourget Air and Space Museum, Sierra Delta (F-BTSD) has to live in a big hall, without any heating or air conditioning.

He (yes, "he", French Concordes are "he"s unlike their British sisters) is the one that is still 'alive' to some extent, and that will still greet you by lowering and raising his nose if you're there at the right time.

And he too will tell you unequivocally, even today, whe it's simply too hot or too cold to 'perform'.
Luckily, his human friend, who's been taking care of him since he arrived at the museum, understands him very well.... I know there are some "sympathetic brain waves" there.....

CJ

Thing is...........
 

If one of these a/c became airworthy again, who would be current to fly them?

D1

Perfectly pointless question, I'm afraid, dazdaz1....

Concorde is a rare, and maybe unique, case.... Out of the eighteen surviving airframes... eighteen are now in museums.

But all of them are now exactly that, museum exhibits, and none of them are even remotely likely to ever become airworthy again.

And even some of the magnificient flight simulators that are around today (like the flight sim at Brooklands, or the current PC flight simulators, such as SSTSim or the new FlightLabs one) do not allow anyone to become "current" again on Concorde.

CJ

Good Video.
 

OMG that takes me back!!!! :cool:
Alan Radford and Wally Chapman at Fairford, it seems like a million years ago. I've never even seen this one before (and I thought I'd seen them all).
I FEEL OLD :ugh:
A really great piece of nostalgia.

Dude :O

dazdaz1
At this moment in time no one is current. But as unlikely as it now seems, if someone came up with enough $$$$$ it is, in spite of enormous difficulties, TECHNICALLY possible to return at least one aircraft to an airworthy condition. Having said that, it would not be easy, it would certainly not be quick and it would most definately NOT be cheap.
If you were to ask my personal opinion, I would say that to return a Concorde to a flyable condition is extremely unlikely. But absolutely nothing in the world of aviation is impossible, nothing. (It's just usually so darned hard though!!).

Dude :O

Same here, Dude.....
So you knew Wally Chapman too....

CJ

Oh yes ChristiaanJ, I remember him. Wally was one of those unique characters that Concorde seemed to attract; a larger than life, fiery, driving character whos only objective was to get THAT test flight up in time (And once THAT test flight was completed all his fire and energies went into the next. And woe betide anyone who did not give 200% to that very aim. :)

Dude :O

Shaft109,
Thanks for your link for a start...

But it also lead me to this one ... a true gem.. I hadn't imagined it still existed.

Trubshaw on tests

The cutting of the cake after 002s first flight... many familiar faces, including André Turcat, and John Cochrane, of course
Brian's comment about the "damn furriner" and Turcat's grin alone makes it a "must-watch"

CJ

Shaft109
In your superb video link that you posted there is another 'face from the past'. Without naming the man there is the same production manager featured in the video that was directly responsible for G-BOAA sitting on its hind quarters that I mentioned in post #238.
To further clarify my post; the fuel was NOT being transferred from the front of the aircraft into tank 11 as I previously stated, but it was being pumped directly into the 'broken down' fuel transfer pipes and then into the tank. The forward trim tanks were in fact EMPTY, and that soiled underwear wearing Mr Thomas was little more than a spectator in the flight deck, with not much that he could do. (But he at least had a much closer view of the assembly hangar roof than most people ever did).
Thanks again for the video link, it was superb.:)

Dude :O

I worked as a contractor for BA in 1999/2000 and was lucky enough to have the desk in the very south-east corner of the 10th floor of TBC. With a south runway 09 departure, the LHR-JFK Concorde service would be about level with the 10th floor as she came by TBC (building speed before increasing her rate of climb presumably). Everyone, everyday would stop what we were doing and watch her climb out.

For fun, on our coffee break, a colleague and I would have a look at the res system to see who was on board. The most frequent names we saw at that time in seat 1A and 1B were ... George Michael and Geri Halliwell!

Love this thread!

Hello again!

I went on Thursday to one of the few aviation libraries in Brazil, and found a very rare book on Concorde. Once they take copies of the items I requested, will share here.

The book in question was edited in 1969, French and English, and shows all suppliers of the protoypes, with some interesting ads.

Well, just recycling my questions, lost on the previous page:
1) Were the flights to Ronivaniemi supersonic?
2) For BA001 and BA003, 2 Concordes were prepared for the same flight, right? Did ever happened some situation that required a ready-for-takeoff Concorde be brought back? How long a cargo and passengers transfer would take? The backup Concorde was fueled?

And a new question:
3) Haynes' book on page 23, says about an increased MLW of 130 tons instead of the famous 111,13 tons. I NEVER, ever, heard/read about this, can anyone shine a light on it?

Thanks again for all your posts, about to watch the BBC videos! :D

BlueConcorde

...Haynes' book on page 23, says about an increased MLW of 130 tons instead of the famous 111,13 (sic) tons. I NEVER, ever, heard/read about this, can anyone shine a light on it?...

I'm not aware of what Haynes may say about Concorde - I don't have a copy of the book and haven't read it - however it is well documented that landings at weights up to 130,000 kgs were permitted on Concorde, provided various conditions were met.

It was a Conditional Procedure called Fuel Saving Landing.

BA did not plan flights to land at 130,000 kgs but the procedure was available for use when required.

In practice it was rarely used, and the occasions on which it was used tended to be following a return to the departure airfield, or a diversion in the early part of the flight, with the aircraft still above the (normal) maximum landing weight, in order to reduce the amount of fuel to be jettisoned.


Best Regards

Bellerophon

would i be right in `guessing` that unlike a certain `tin triangle` even the likes of SD flying again is simply a fantasy? the vulcan arrived straight from display with a hanger full of spares , of which nothing like that is available for concorde? and whilst `doable` funds would a slight factor..

I would say so.

I agree with M2dude who said earlier it was not technically impossible, but the immense cost of rebuilding the necessary infrastructure (which no longer exists) is out of all proportion to the final result of a few 'heritage' flights at airshows.

What also is forgotten far too often, is that BAe accepted to maintain legacy Design Authority for the Tin Triangle, which was a pre-requisite for the Permit To Fly.

Airbus, on the contrary, returned the Type Certificate to the CAA/DGAC and thereby basically "washed their hands" of Concorde. Even if they were willing to transfer the necessary technical information to a third party, it's extremely unlikely they still would be capable of doing so.

CJ

Vortex Lift
 

There have been a couple of references in this fascinating thread to vortex lift.

I'm sure we've all seen videos of Concorde arrivals and departures where you can see those huge 'wing tip' vortices. It's pretty obvious that at supersonic speeds the airflow must be very different.

Was there some particular airspeed where the airflow pattern changed markedly?

If you decelerated through that speed in level flight did you get a sensation of a sudden increase in drag or need to increase attitude significantly?

thank you for comfirming what i thought Christiaan , that the vulcan is sadly a `unique` example - as even teasin` tina is in a better state that SD (no disprepect - XM715 is kept in taxi condition) , and even so , the wonderful team who look after her have said she wont be flying in displays anytime soon (read ever);

i have read about `SCG` - and yes i have seen your opinion on them elsewhere - they did seem to `big up` the engine testing earlier this year - then went silent , any word on the results?

Is there an aerodynamicist in the house?

Jo90,
I'm no expert, so I cannot answer fully.

On a conventional wing, with a conventional profile, at subsonic speed, everything is done to keep the airflow 'attached' to the wing as long as possible, and for as high an angle of attack as possible.
Such a wing stalls because above a certain angle of attack the airflow 'breaks away' from the upper surface of the wing, leading to a sudden loss of lift.

On a very thin slender delta, the airflow already is made to detach right at the leading edge, even at low angles of attack.

http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/highli.../image510a.gif

Rather than "ruining" the airflow, hence the lift over the entire wing, the result is a vortex that rolls up and re-attaches the airflow to the wing.

http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/highli.../image513a.gif

At high subsonic speeds, hence low angles of attack, the vortex is located just behind the leading edge, and the rest of the wing produces "conventional" lift.

With lower speeds, hence higher angles of attack, the vortex grows, and ends up covering most of the wing during take-off and landing, as one sees in some photos.

So there is no real sudden transistion from "conventional" to vortex lift.

At no time does the vortex 'break away', so there is no stall in the conventional sense. However, drag increases rapidly, and controllability doesn't improve either, so there are still angle-of-attack limits, even on Concorde.

At supersonic speeds, the entire flow is totally different, and totally unlike the vortex flow.

My own question to an aerodynamicist would be :
Looking at the subtle camber of the leading edge, is there any vortex lift at all during subsonic cruise (Mach 0.95+) or is there a fully attached airflow at that speed / angle of attack to obtain the best possible subsonic cruise?
And if so, when does the breakaway first start?

CJ

BlueConcorde
Hi again. Yes, the Ronivaniemi charters were supersonic) and VERY popular).
As far as the BA001 and BA003 go, these flights were not really 'related'. The 001 would depart LHR at 10:30, arriving at JFK at around 09:10 EST. (14:10 UK time). That same aircraft would then be turned round at JFK before returning to LHR on the BA004, which departed JFK at 13:45 EST (18:45 UK time), arriving at LHR at around 22:10. The BA004 was fairly critical as far as departure times went; if you had a technical problem you only had around an hour to an hour and a half to solve the issue, otherwise you risked running into the 23:30 LHR jet ban.
The BA003 departed LHR at 19:00; arriving at JFK at around 17:40 EST (22:40 UK time). This aircraft would night stop at JFK, departing the following morning at 08:45 (13:45 UK time), arriving at around 17:00.
We did try and provide a standby aircraft at LHR for both flights, but this was not always possible; We only had seven aircraft in the fleet and sometimes, because of charter operations etc., a standby was just not possible. The standby aircraft was not fuelled, and would be parked as close as practically possible to the Concorde departure stand. However, Terminal 4 was a very busy place, and the nearest 'practical' stand was often not that close at all. If you had to 'change aircraft' it could take anywhere between 90 and 120 minutes to implement the changeover of baggage and catering etc.

Dude :O

Anecdotal rther than aerodynamic evidence here - but there was a noticable buffet as one decelerated, accompanied by a significant step in thrust requirement. That point was where we (flight crew) decided we were in vortex lift.

Typical speeds would be 270-280 kts at TO mass and about 230-250kts at landing mass.

I'm not naive enough to believe that it was a 'switch' in aerodynamic modes, but the outcome felt like one.

I'd be slightly surprised if there was much of a vortex at M0.95 since the alpha was fairly low here and I would expect there to be plenty of shockwave activity on the upper surfaces which would suggest that a standing vortex would be likely to be badly disrupted.

Anyone know some definite answers?

M2Dude and I seem to be forever crossing posts!

The only time I recall that we consistently had a stby aircraft nearby was Saturday morning, when the BA001 machine would be parked next to the BA273 (BGI) machine. The BA001 could theoretically stand in but I doubt we'd have done it.

I have done a ship change when we found a problem with the front-runner (can't remember what it was but it was one of those 'hard to determine an exact cause' issues found in flight-crew pre-flight checks) and even though the spare was on an adjacent stand, as M2D says, it still took an hour. (The delay, of course, was less than this as we found it early enough).

HalloweenJack
This is a kind of 'eternal (tin) triangle issue. As I said in my last post on the matter, in my OPINION it will not happen. But there is a but here, quite a big one. This is a purely SUBJECTIVE matter, and NONE of us in the Concorde family can possibly state for sure that this will not happen, or is impossible; we can only give our personal opinions. There are certain spare bits around (for instance Rolls Royce have four unused Olympus 593 engines), but there are immense difficulties to overcome. (ChristiaanJ's point about a design authority is just one of them).
But this is aviation, and we can never say no, to absolutely ANYTHING in our particular 'world'. There is so much money spent on far more ridiculous ventures than trying to return a single example of the finest aircraft ever built to the air.
(But again, what do I know? This is just my OPINION; crystal balls are extra)

Dude :O