scrapping Boeing 777's

[Radleigh]

Still over 800 in the air. When we get down to the last 10 in the air, i'll go start taking more photos, take them for granted while you can. Something I kick myself for, missing getting photos of other aircraft that have been WFU. IL-86 being one....

[Airbusians]

As Airbusians spoke about a wise man, I must also mention a wise man who spoke these words: There is no such thing as a silly question, only silly answers.

I'm not sure if it's conjecture, but I do seem to recall there being some talk of getting a Concorde up and running. Only as a display piece, mind.

Trying not to give a silly answer, I'm afraid that the 'Concorde up and running' is really never going to happen. Unfortunately she is not a safe piece of equipment to fly in. Actually, more accurately, she's not a safe piece of equipment to taxi in at high-speed. To understand why, read the accident report of the Air France Concorde published by the BEA. She suffers from a failure mode that was not ever a part of her design criteria because the phenomenon was not known or understood before the accident. The accident report is here - see pages 111 thru 118 about the wing skin rupture. Sad but true.

Dan

[Alan P]

Interesting point made earlier regarding Southwest - their business decisions have shaped the way the 737 has developed. I remember converting from the-300 to the -700 (in easyJet!) and being most unimpressed that despite the obvious upgrade in flight deck instrumentation and displays, the overhead panel was still the original 1970s config of the original -200.

The reason given by Boeing was exactly as outlined above - as their biggest customer, Southwest insisted on the closest commonality possible with the earlier marks, which meant a golden opportunity to upgrade the tired and confusing overhead panel was lost in the name of commercial expediency. In the event, the conversion to what was quite a new aeroplane was only five days, compared to almost six weeks for the original conversion.

What I hope is becoming evident from this thread and the expert input, us that in commercial airlines, the bottom line dominates everything. And before anyone starts about safety first, believe me when I say everything has a cost vs risk analysis when it comes to commercial aviation.

[pigsty]

As for SSTs, I was just thinking that the Concorde was powered by engines developed with 1960/70s technology. Advances in engine technology have allowed super-cruise performance in military applications, I was wondering if any of that advancement could somehow make aircraft such as the Concorde economically feasible. I guess it would save a lot of money on fuel, but there wouldn't be enough "butts in seats", viable routes and scheduled flights to make it profitable. I guess in the end it still wouldn't be profitable, just less un-profitable. Oh well...

Concorde did supercruise. The afterburners were used only to take off and to go transonic; once past Mach 1, they were switched off. Greater economy could still be achieved with more modern engines, mind you, although I wouldn't overestimate it. Stuff like the F-22 is rare and isn't expected to supercruise for the sort of distances that a viable airliner would need. A better comparison would be with long-range bombers, where the few that are truly supersonic have to use less efficient engines than subsonic airliners. That difference is an inevitable result of the need to maintain high speeds. The most efficient high-bypass fans are simply too draggy to be supersonic.

[Philbky]

Trying not to give a silly answer, I'm afraid that the 'Concorde up and running' is really never going to happen. Unfortunately she is not a safe piece of equipment to fly in. Actually, more accurately, she's not a safe piece of equipment to taxi in at high-speed. To understand why, read the accident report of the Air France Concorde published by the BEA. She suffers from a failure mode that was not ever a part of her design criteria because the phenomenon was not known or understood before the accident. The accident report is here - see pages 111 thru 118 about the wing skin rupture. Sad but true.

Dan

But the work done by BA/Air France after the accident met the points made in the report, rectified the faults and allowed the aircraft back into service with no restriction to their C of A

[Airbusians]

Except that one of the faults wasn't rectified by the fix. I can't say much more than that except to say that even after modification the previously unknown failure mode was found (and found the hard way) to still be present.

But now we're massively off topic and a whole can of worms is open.

Dan

Edited January 6, 2012 by Airbusians

[Radleigh]

One of the biggest problems about getting Concorde back in the air is money. Bruntingthorpe host a 'Cold war jet day' and some jets do about £400's of fuel very quickly (can't remember which), But thats not even the whole day, doing taxi runs etc, then you got to think about everything else, maintenance, spares etc - Soon add's up. I bet this year we won't see half as many Hunters in the air due to money, 2011 was an exception as it was an anniversary!

[Philbky]

Except that one of the faults wasn't rectified by the fix. I can't say much more than that except to say that even after modification the previously unknown failure mode was found (and found the hard way) to still be present.

But now we're massively off topic and a whole can of worms is open.

Dan

Dan, one thing I learned in a lifetime's work, and particularly in aviation, is that hints, rumours and (and I'm not accusing you of misleading anyone) half truths only cause confusion. Openness is paramount in aviation. The French and British authorities were satisfied enough to restore the C of A and Air France and BA state they withdrew the aircraft for economic reasons and the fact that the spares inventory was not going to be replenished by the manufacturer.

I've seen no evidence in the aviation media, in talking to friends and former colleagues in the industry, or in any official reports to support your statement. If the safety issue was still found to be there, was it the cause of the withdrawal and if so, why did five months elapse between the AF and BA withdrawals - or was it BA found the problem still existed after the AF withdrawal?

If you don't want to publish on a public forum perhaps you could PM me with your information.

[Philbky]

And before anyone starts about safety first, believe me when I say everything has a cost vs risk analysis when it comes to commercial aviation.

Never a truer word. The bean counters rule.

[Airbusians]

I've seen no evidence in the aviation media, in talking to friends and former colleagues in the industry, or in any official reports to support your statement.

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

If you don't want to publish on a public forum perhaps you could PM me with your information.

Sorry, but that is much more than my job is worth. I can only say that the source of my information was a face-to-face conversation with a signatory on the design authority (after transfer of that authority to Airbus) of the type who is now retired. I have tried to give a little insight into a lot of aspects and share a bit of what I know about the industry from a current insider perspective. I am not prepared to go any further than I have on this subject - sorry.

Dan

[Philbky]

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

Sorry, but that is much more than my job is worth. I can only say that the source of my information was a face-to-face conversation with a signatory on the design authority (after transfer of that authority to Airbus) of the type who is now retired. I have tried to give a little insight into a lot of aspects and share a bit of what I know about the industry from a current insider perspective. I am not prepared to go any further than I have on this subject - sorry.

Dan

Fair enough - I wouldn't expect you to jeopardise your position. What I would say - as far as the UK CAA goes - is that in over 45 years of serious study of aviation safety, in dealing with the CAA on a professional basis at very many levels to the very top, I have no doubt that the organisation operates to the very highest standards, devoid of partiality, nationalism or any other interest that would colour its decisions. It is a major pillar of EASA, many of EASA's principles being modelled on the CAA, as are many regulatory authorities around the world.

I've always maintained that if the CAA says it is OK then, as far as human fallibility allows, it will be OK. The safety record of British airlines over the last 40 years seems to bear this out, as does the safety of UK airspace.

[Philbky]

Back to the 777. From today's BA Source web page:

"Boeing 777-236ER G-RAES performed a Cardiff - Cardiff demonstration flight today as BA9116 in order to showcase the aircraft’s new interior to invited guests. This is the first Boeing 777-200 to receive the Boeing 777-300ER style interior. The flight routed north to Belfast then around the coast of Scotland before crossing Newcastle and returning to Cardiff."

This aircraft was delivered on 10/6/1997 so is (in calendar terms) at around half airframe life and probably heading towards 2/3rds life with BA. Don't know how many cycles or hours are on the airframe but the investment on the new interior is not insignificant so it can be assumed that BA consider the aircraft has a reasonable lifespan ahead of it. The remainder of the fleet is to be upgraded which actually means most of the fleet will eventually have the upgrade - a welcome change as many of the cabins are looking tatty - but the last 4 aircraft were only delivered in 2009, after a gap of seven and a half years in deliveries, so the last 4 may never have the latest cabin but whatever is current in 10 or 12 years time.

[Kev1n]

fascinating.....this has to be one of the most interesting threads I've seen

[Glen]

The shame about the whole Concorde saga was the politics that went with it. The crash was extremely sad but if it had been a mainstream airliner would the fleet have been grounded? Of course not - as Al alluded to previously, safety and cost are totally inter related. 737s (rudder hardovers), 777 double engine rollback etc didn't lead to fleet groundings because commercial aviation would have been crippled instantly. A CAA engineer I spoke to at the time was distinctly unimpressed that the operating certificates had been withdrawn for the BA jets. He was adamant that the the BA aircraft were very different animals to the Air France ones due to the modifications that had been done over the years.

I think it is highly unlikely Concorde would gave been in commercial service today, whatever had happened. It was always marginal commercially and the price of fuel along with the environmental lobby would have surely killed it by now. In today's beancounter run world, the prestige and PR of Concorde can't be allocated a number so on pure economics it would be unsustainable. It was rumoured that Air France wanted out before the crash happened anyway and the grounding/mods didn't help the economics at all.

It's a real shame that the public will always remember Concorde by the tragic crash. She was/is a beautiful aeroplane and a technological triumph and turned heads where ever she went.

[Jennings Heilig]

As for SSTs, I was just thinking that the Concorde was powered by engines developed with 1960/70s technology.

Actually it was developed with 1940s engine technology. The first prototype of the Olympus ran in 1950. And the airplane flew in the '60s. The late '60s, but still the '60s. Hard to believe it'll soon be half a century ago!

Edited January 8, 2012 by Jennings Heilig

[Silverstone 2]

Guess the 777s are getting old now (16yrs +) some of them.

The new versions as this thread has pointed out, are much more efficient.

GE-90-115bs are simply an amzing breakthrough in sheer grunt and econemy

the 747s I've been flying have the almost the same Fuel flow / Engine as the New GE90s.

Phil