Concorde Ever Returning ?

KoRn101

Just a quick question for all you aviation lovers out there, last night was watchin an interesting program on the return of Concorde, and on september 11th (Day of terrorism) It actually flew in england again for the first time and it then flew once over to New York in November that same year.

Unfortunately i didnt get a chance to see the rest of the program but im wondering is there any chance that concorde is coming back at all ?

Seems a waste to not use an aircracft which can reach New York from London in only 3 hours.

GK1

wasnt any use when it was here

KoRn101

GK1 wrote: »

wasnt any use when it was here

Id say really thats a matter of opinion, for transatlantic flights it was most certainly a step forward i would say..

donvito99

Dunno...fuel economy etc might hamper Concordes return.

Foggy43

It will never fly again. Air France decided to remove it from service. The French manafactured all the bits and that ceased also. BA had no alternative than to stop the service.

Aside from the entertainers it was the big bankers who were the regular flyers. That would be a rather sensitive subject today.

Delta Kilo

I seen that programme too, very interesting. It was costing them (BA) a fortune to keep pilots current on the concorde. They used to do touch and goes at Shannon (there were clips that were obviously filmed at Shannon) to keep current. BA really wanted to bring them back and invested millions in upgrading them (Kevlar skin inside fuel tanks, new tyres that disintegrate into smaller particles etc) and fought hard to get the C of A back for them.

It was the public confidence that brought about the final downfall. Seats were not selling because people were afraid of them etc, so they scrapped them.

I think it is a shame that they were scrapped. It is the first time in Aviation that a step back in technology has been taken. Sadly, I do not think they will be back within the next 30 years, especially with the current economic situation.

ArphaRima

Concorde furthered mankind. We endeavoured to better ourselves through its design.
Taking existing platforms and stretching them etc does nothing to progress the leading edge of air travel. Supercruising, transonic and lower/upper space aircraft will be where innovation can bring us to the next level of technology and once again make the world smaller.
Larger airframes can continue to democratise it and keep it cheap for the masses, but innovative designs involving primarily speed will be the real prize.

Dilbert75

Delta Kilo wrote: »

I seen that programme too, very interesting. It was costing them (BA) a fortune to keep pilots current on the concorde. They used to do touch and goes at Shannon (there were clips that were obviously filmed at Shannon) to keep current. BA really wanted to bring them back and invested millions in upgrading them (Kevlar skin inside fuel tanks, new tyres that disintegrate into smaller particles etc) and fought hard to get the C of A back for them.

It was the public confidence that brought about the final downfall. Seats were not selling because people were afraid of them etc, so they scrapped them.

I think it is a shame that they were scrapped. It is the first time in Aviation that a step back in technology has been taken. Sadly, I do not think they will be back within the next 30 years, especially with the current economic situation.

+1

KoRn101

Delta Kilo wrote: »

I seen that programme too, very interesting. It was costing them (BA) a fortune to keep pilots current on the concorde. They used to do touch and goes at Shannon (there were clips that were obviously filmed at Shannon) to keep current. BA really wanted to bring them back and invested millions in upgrading them (Kevlar skin inside fuel tanks, new tyres that disintegrate into smaller particles etc) and fought hard to get the C of A back for them.

It was the public confidence that brought about the final downfall. Seats were not selling because people were afraid of them etc, so they scrapped them.

I think it is a shame that they were scrapped. It is the first time in Aviation that a step back in technology has been taken. Sadly, I do not think they will be back within the next 30 years, especially with the current economic situation.

Thats the EXACT same show i was looking at!

Someones up to date on their Sky channel 522! ';) Thanks though for the info!

Delta Kilo

KoRn101 wrote: »

Thats the EXACT same show i was looking at!

Someones up to date on their Sky channel 522! ';) Thanks though for the info!

Ya, I was on my way to bed and I saw that it was on. It was on quite late actually, if I remember. I watched it, even though I had to drive to Dublin Airport from Galway this morning!

No doubt it will probably be repeated before next week is out, being sky!!

vulcan57

I think the short answer is no. There was a hoax post by the French Museum of Air and Space on 1st April that they were going to fly one in June. Ha bloody Ha! :rolleyes:. The absolute costs involved, even to get one up for dispaly purposes is just too great. The Vulcan is a prime example.

Biro

There are only two left capable of flying in the world. One is in Barbados, I was in that one last summer, and the other I think is in Heathrow, but not sure on that one. They will definately never be back in public service, but there is a chance one or both of the last ones will fly for exhibition or maybe even for tests for information on a potential new one or something like that.
I think it's a shame they're gone. The most wonderful passenger plane ever built.
No more SR71 in the military world anymore either, and the space shuttles are retiring in another few years, and I reckon the replacement for them will be delayed due to the current economic situation. We're going backwards!!

KoRn101

It IS a shame and it really does feel like we're going backwards, i mean it doesn't even seem there is research into the development of the science.

A Huge shame.

andy_g

it is a shame that it got lost in the public eye of safety but then again the 747 never got that and how many accidents have they been involved in concord had one crash and lost its airworthyness certs ok it reclaimed them but i think it would be great to see them fly again. i know that there was an irish invester but a bid in to have one as a museam piece here in dublin and this guy had put the bid in and it got refused i must try get him on to the forun here

Run_to_da_hills

Storing any sort of Aircraft long term outside in UK climate conditions would not do it any good, It wouldn't take too long for Alzheimer's disease to creep into the skin and airframe in damp climates. :eek:

Have they mot balled any of these aircraft in the Sonora Desert?.

Biro

andy_g wrote: »

it is a shame that it got lost in the public eye of safety but then again the 747 never got that and how many accidents have they been involved in concord had one crash and lost its airworthyness certs ok it reclaimed them but i think it would be great to see them fly again. i know that there was an irish invester but a bid in to have one as a museam piece here in dublin and this guy had put the bid in and it got refused i must try get him on to the forun here

To be fair, the 747 has a remarkable safety record. Take away pilot error, extreme weather and terrorist, there's been feck all problems, and consider the amount of people that have flown on a 747 since it's launch.
The reason Concorde was put under scrutney back then was because they thought there might be a design flaw due to the level of damage done due to such a small cause. It was over the top completely, I agree, but it helped repair an image that went from impeccable to questionable. We can blame the DC10 for helping the Concorde demise!

Foggy43

I wouldn't blame the DC10. Yes, it had a part to play! Just part of a chain of events. There had been several cases of fuel tank penetration even a case where a BA Concorde on taxi out blew a tyre and caused a minor penetration to a fuel tank.

Mr Benevolent

No a chance of 'em coming back. They're deteriorating every day, and only a few of them were even halfway preserved in the first place.

wylo

Put simply,

The airlines pay for the airplanes, the airlines also want as many people in the air as possible. Customers want flights as cheap as possible, and knocking a few hours off a flight isnt worth the price hike.

Were now in a generation of budget airlines, the demise of Concorde had little to do with safety or fear. It was to do with cost, demand and competition, I dont think it ever stood a chance the way things were going.

Also whats with all the doom and gloom about taking a step backwards? What about the A380 , or even the 787, a plane which is built out of plastic.

Davidth88

From what I understand the only Concorde that could ' come back from the dead ' is a French one where the systems are ' fully ' maintained apparently.

Read an article about it , they have 2-3 engineers who do full checks etc every couple of days. No idea which one it is , I assume it's an ex AF one not the prototype in La Bouget.

However the chances of ever seeing one of these aeroplanes in it's natural enviroment again is non-existant.

It's one of my regrets that I never flew on one. I had a friend who was a stewardess , she often worked the NY route. They used ' short haul ' crews because the duration of the flight was such. It was the only times she got to go to the US for work. She was actually getting her wedding dress made in NY when they stopped flying there , she had to pay ( all be it crew rates ) to go and collect it !

Biro

Davidth88 wrote: »

From what I understand the only Concorde that could ' come back from the dead ' is a French one where the systems are ' fully ' maintained apparently.

Read an article about it , they have 2-3 engineers who do full checks etc every couple of days. No idea which one it is , I assume it's an ex AF one not the prototype in La Bouget.

However the chances of ever seeing one of these aeroplanes in it's natural enviroment again is non-existant.

It's one of my regrets that I never flew on one. I had a friend who was a stewardess , she often worked the NY route. They used ' short haul ' crews because the duration of the flight was such. It was the only times she got to go to the US for work. She was actually getting her wedding dress made in NY when they stopped flying there , she had to pay ( all be it crew rates ) to go and collect it !

There's a BA one in Barbados that's kept in flying condition too.

Milkey Bar Kid

Never going to happen . Pity

Turbulent Bill

wylo wrote: »

Put simply,

The airlines pay for the airplanes, the airlines also want as many people in the air as possible. Customers want flights as cheap as possible, and knocking a few hours off a flight isnt worth the price hike.

Were now in a generation of budget airlines, the demise of Concorde had little to do with safety or fear. It was to do with cost, demand and competition, I dont think it ever stood a chance the way things were going.

Also whats with all the doom and gloom about taking a step backwards? What about the A380 , or even the 787, a plane which is built out of plastic.

+1. Concorde is/was a fantastic piece of engineering, but its time as a practical airliner has passed. Huge fuel hikes, cheap competition, limited demand for a luxury service, environmental issues etc. have all gone against it. Even the unique advantage of speed is diluted by airport delays, security checks etc. Air transport (even transatlantic) is just a commodity now, where speed is only a minor issue. As a very broad comparison, Ferrari don't make busses!

I'd love to see a flying example preserved, but I don't think it'll happen.