Jump to content

Concorde to fly again?


Rick Brown

Recommended Posts

Whilst I like the idea of putting Concorde back in the air, I think the money could be better spent on getting something that is at the moment extinct in this country. So would rather see a Mosquito, Hornet, or even a Sterling brought back from the dead.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could probably return a dozen or more less complex and money hungry types to the sky with the budget these guys are alleged to have on tap. I thought that all the spare parts had been sold off too, to prevent Mr Branson getting his mitts on them and proving that they could be flown at a profit. if you could get Airbus and RR on side, you'd still have a big battle with the CAA, and I can foresee huge reticence on their part :hmmm:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read on another forum that the fuel tanks and hydraulics on most of the Concordes have been filled with concrete to prevent any attempt to resurrect them although the one kept at Le Bourget, not the prototype, is apparently still 'live'. Whether they'd sell it is quite another matter.

Edited by noelh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I like the idea of putting Concorde back in the air, I think the money could be better spent on getting something that is at the moment extinct in this country. So would rather see a Mosquito, Hornet, or even a Sterling brought back from the dead.

Would that be Pounds Shillings and Pence (£-s-d) ?

Now that would be worth bringing back from the dead!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they talking about F-BTSD the one at Le Bourget that they've had the electrics and hydraulics running on?

Yes. The other candidate has always been AC I think.

I understood (from a Concorde flight engineer) that the whole reason they stopped flying was down to Airbus. The airframes themselves had plenty of life left in them but as was pointed out above, those which have not ben abused into practical extinction are not going anywhere near flying without a design authority. It's all politics and money though, isn't it? Someone, somewhere has an agenda for this particular project and will doggedly frustrate whatever Club Concorde try to do.

I really hope I'm wrong. Good luck Club Concorde!

(Edit: I thought wrong. AC not AD!)

Edited by Kirk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that would be worth bringing back from the dead!

Concorde is a non-starter for the reasons previously mentioned. In truth I'm not sure I'd be entirely comfortable with such an elderly and eye wateringly complex airframe zooming around at displays anyway -even though it would be great to see it again.

As for a Stirling, well that has crossed my mind more than a few times. What would it take to do a data plate restoration? Is it physically possible? I'm not even sure if the plans still exist? A Shackleton or Just Jane would be a far more realistic proposition and are more likely to happen than not.

What else could be brought back from extinction? Whitley, Halifax, HP42? Would the CAA even allow this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, we're missing one very important point.

As far as i can tell, the group with the money ONLY want to bring the Concorde back, not any of the others WE'D like to see!

Maybe they need distracting with a more doable project first?

Rick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does it have to be a UK aircraft? There are some in the states and they fly lots of things that the CAA wont entertain. SHAR comes to mind

Rodders

There would be a HUGE irony in a US located Concorde flying again. Most of the credible books I have read on the matter point out that a key reason for Concorde's commercial difficulties (I don't say failure deliberately) were some decidedly anti-competitive actions that took place that side of the pond. There are technical reasons too iirc, that make it much, much more difficult to start with either AD (New York) , AG (Seattle) or FA (DC).

Incidentally, I'll correct my earlier post. It's AE(Barbados) or AC (in Manchester) not AD as I earlier typed that is apparently in the 2nd best condition. Linky.

Edited by Kirk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attended an AirAces lecture last evening in Chichester. It was given by Jock Reid, a Concorde pilot, on the passenger experience of Concorde, and the Paris accident and how they go the aircraft back into service. One of the questions asked was on whether Concorde could be brought back into service. HIs view was no.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did he elaborate John? You'd have thought that to put a Concorde airframe back in an airworthy state would be time-consuming and expensive but not impossible. I believe that the simulators have been decommissioned and this represents a problem for pilot retraining but again, you wouldn't think that this is insurmountable with sufficient funding. The Design Authority thing does seem to be the brick wall though. Does anyone know why Airbus have taken the position?

I can only think that the main question for them must be "why do it?" Doing low speed flypasts at a handful of air shows might seem a bit like using an aircraft carrier as a fishing boat. Returning the type to any form of passenger service would presumably attract at least an order of magnitude of further capital cost and you'd have an expensive to maintain analogue aircraft in a digital world. If a passenger SST were economically viable then it might be cheaper to design and build "Concorde II" with modern composites and computers - but somehow this line of thinking seems to me to miss the point. Concorde was (is?) a statement about human ingenuity, creativity and engineering capability that ought to be inspiring the next generation from the air rather than corroding slowly in hangars and museums.

Kirk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kirk - the main reason he gave was lack of Airbus support, plus the sheer cost of operating Concorde which he put at £50k/hour. in addition there would be the environmental issues - including noise and perhaps the market is no longer there. Despite all that it was a wonderful aeroplane.

John

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There would be a HUGE irony in a US located Concorde flying again. Most of the credible books I have read on the matter point out that a key reason for Concorde's commercial difficulties (I don't say failure deliberately) were some decidedly anti-competitive actions that took place that side of the pond. There are technical reasons too iirc, that make it much, much more difficult to start with either AD (New York) , AG (Seattle) or FA (DC).

Incidentally, I'll correct my earlier post. It's AE(Barbados) or AC (in Manchester) not AD as I earlier typed that is apparently in the 2nd best condition. Linky.

After reading their link Kirk, I come away thinking they're either being very clever or are just full of naive, boyish enthusiasm!

Strip the aircraft down, a year?!

They also give you the impression you can change the oil, kick the tyres and away you go! Permit to fly.

Blimey.

Rick.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect the main issue behind the DA not supporting any attempt to get the aircraft flying again is the exposure the company would then have to any litigation if the worse happened.

Following the tragic Air France Concorde loss in 2000 the heads of the Concorde program at Aerospatiale faced manslaughter charges, although were subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing.

The cost/ benefit analysis looks a little skewed to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect the main issue behind the DA not supporting any attempt to get the aircraft flying again is the exposure the company would then have to any litigation if the worse happened.

Following the tragic Air France Concorde loss in 2000 the heads of the Concorde program at Aerospatiale faced manslaughter charges, although were subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing.

The cost/ benefit analysis looks a little skewed to me.

This. they have powerful motives, both commercial and personal not to let it fly. And really no motives in play on the other side of the argument. It's all downside for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lovely idea, will never happen.

In a country where relatively high performance jets such as the Bucc and Lightning are not allowed to be flown by private individuals or organisations, can you really see the CAA letting this go up ? Let alone the basics regarding the DA, Rolls Royce support for the engines etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see that the CAA would be a blocker. I could see them imposing restrictions on an airworthy, DA supported Concorde but I can't see a basis on which they could justify preventing it flying at all; it's a bit different to a single-engined warbird. The Airbus issue is another matter; they don't have to justify why they say no. It's enough for them to not feel like it and the whole thing is scuppered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that comment is not grounded in an understanding of European airworthiness regulation. You correctly point out that it's not the same as a single engined warbird. It is much bigger, much heavier, and much faster, and carries a lot more fuel. In general you will find the strictness of airworthiness regulation goes UP in rough proportion to the kinetic energy of the aircraft. Not DOWN.

There is no general authorisation for aircraft to fly. The principle in law is that aircraft may not fly unless specifically allowed by part of the relevant law, in the UK generally the Air Navigation Order and other documents which it incorporates by reference.

Edited by Work In Progress
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry WIP, I don't understand your point - quite possibly because the extent of my experience in certification is limited to the tiny (and hard work) section on air law found on the PPL syllabus.

So, are you saying that IF (and it's a pretty big if) one were to bring a duly restored and supported aircraft to the CAA it would be refused an Aircraft Type Certificate? On what grounds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just the CAA anymore. It's EASA and most certainly it would fall under EASA particularly give the stated desire to operate charters. The simple reality is that getting a Concorde ready for flight is not insurmountable but the legislative side is impossible. I was involved albeit peripherly in getting an AOC (Air Operators Certificate) for a small light aircraft based sightseeing operation. The blizzard of paperwork had to seen to be believed. Multiply it exponentially for a supersonic transport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...