concorde

Roomic Cube

question, ever since that french plane crash concorde basically shut down entirely, was there a rediculous flaw that meant they pulled the whole thing, or just not enough customers or high cost to run or something?

regular planes crash too and it seems strange that a clearly superior technology fell into decline

dr.bollocko

Moved from AH. Might get a better answer in here OP.

Sigi

As far as I recall,with the negative pr surrounding the crash along with the low passenger capacity of 100 passengers and high fuel consumption it just wasn't economically viable anymore.

Roomic Cube

just noticed theres already a thread in here about a show about concorde all my questions would probably be answered there!

owenc

Sigi wrote: »

As far as I recall,with the negative pr surrounding the crash along with the low passenger capacity of 100 passengers and high fuel consumption it just wasn't economically viable anymore.

Well then why didn't they make a bigger version or say make the a380 like that so that they wouldn't be wasting money.

mickdw

My understanding is that it was pretty much down to economics. 2 airlines operated concorde, British airways & airfrance. BA made better use of the aircraft & carried much healthier passenger loads. Air france were making huge losses on concorde while BA were happy to continue in my opinion.
The problem was that concorde required technical support from airbus in order to fly. This support was very expensive & the cost was split between BA & air france. Air france then decided they didnt want concorde as it was a blight on the companies accounts so the whole support cost was to fall onto BA if they continued to operate. The increase in costs would make it uneconomical for BA so they were left with little choice but to finish flying. THe French were responsible for the grounding.
Interestingly, one of the french concordes is being inspected with a view to getting the engines running again & taxiing the aircraft. Some believe this can lead to a return to flight in a heritage capacity. It is a possibility but will require huge funding & support of airfrance & also airbus.
BA also have a concorde in reasonable condition & is on display in bristol. This could also be a suitable for return to flight again with support & funding. In the last week, it has been reported that this uk concorde is being removed from display & hidden away by airbus in a hanger at bristol. Some believe it is to be dismantled out of the public eye. BA would be foolish to allow this, thereby giving the french the only really intact concorde. How silly would BA lok if the french ended up with a flying concorde after being allowed butcher the best uk aircraft & after them being responsible for the grounding of the fleet originally.

Not

According to that programme on TV the other night, Concorde lost 40 of its most regular flyers in the 9/11 terrorism attacks, which didn't help it.

I dont know what Air France were charging for flights, but I see one website claiming BA were at one stage charging a standard return fare of over £6000, so obviously means it was far too expensive for the majority of Joe Public to fly on the thing (although the programme did mention that some Concordes were made available for charter at much lower rates than the scheduled flight rates)

Then I think they said Air France decided they could not afford to maintain it any more (and were flying only 4 passengers on some flights !) Also Air France had another near disaster with it when an engine blew up in flight causing a massive fuel leak and the aircraft only just made it into Halifax Nova Scotia before running out of fuel. It appears these two things undermined Air Frances confidence in it so they effectively pulled the plug, and BA didn't want to go it alone (didn't catch why - edit : mickdws post explains -) so followed suit.

Melion

Not wrote: »

According to that programme on TV the other night, Concorde lost 40 of its most regular flyers in the 9/11 terrorism attacks, which didn't help it.

What? Concorde's last flight was August 2000

Not

Melion wrote: »

What? Concorde's last flight was August 2000

2003. It returned to service in late 2001 after refitting, but it only flew for 17 months until it was retired permanently for the reasons explained above. Coincidently, it's proving flight before returning to service was on the day of the 9/11 attacks.

Melion

Not wrote: »

2003. It returned to service in late 2001 after refitting, but it only flew for 17 months until it was retired permanently for the reasons explained above. Coincidently, it's proving flight before returning to service was on the day of the 9/11 attacks.

My apologies.

Tea 1000

mickdw wrote: »

My understanding is that it was pretty much down to economics. 2 airlines operated concorde, British airways & airfrance. BA made better use of the aircraft & carried much healthier passenger loads. Air france were making huge losses on concorde while BA were happy to continue in my opinion.
The problem was that concorde required technical support from airbus in order to fly. This support was very expensive & the cost was split between BA & air france. Air france then decided they didnt want concorde as it was a blight on the companies accounts so the whole support cost was to fall onto BA if they continued to operate. The increase in costs would make it uneconomical for BA so they were left with little choice but to finish flying. THe French were responsible for the grounding.
Interestingly, one of the french concordes is being inspected with a view to getting the engines running again & taxiing the aircraft. Some believe this can lead to a return to flight in a heritage capacity. It is a possibility but will require huge funding & support of airfrance & also airbus.
BA also have a concorde in reasonable condition & is on display in bristol. This could also be a suitable for return to flight again with support & funding. In the last week, it has been reported that this uk concorde is being removed from display & hidden away by airbus in a hanger at bristol. Some believe it is to be dismantled out of the public eye. BA would be foolish to allow this, thereby giving the french the only really intact concorde. How silly would BA lok if the french ended up with a flying concorde after being allowed butcher the best uk aircraft & after them being responsible for the grounding of the fleet originally.

BA also have an intact Concorde in Barbados, I was on it. It was flown in there and the guide informed us that BA engineers come over every year to run a few tests on it.

Fratton Fred

Tea 1000 wrote: »

BA also have an intact Concorde in Barbados, I was on it. It was flown in there and the guide informed us that BA engineers come over every year to run a few tests on it.

it's a **** job, but someone has to do it i suppose

mickdw

Tea 1000 wrote: »

BA also have an intact Concorde in Barbados, I was on it. It was flown in there and the guide informed us that BA engineers come over every year to run a few tests on it.

All the old airframes are around. Some had the wings cut off for transport & stuck on again for display purposes, others had the fuel tanks filled with concrete to weigh them down for display. Some also had random holes cut in the airframe to allow cabling into the aircrft for display reasons. The bristol one is, as far as Im aware the most intact. It is also the newest or the one with the least useage & is the best one for any future works.
Im not aware of what the barbados one has had done to it but in terms of condition, it would be somewhat behind the bristol one.

Roomic Cube

how many were there?

lord lucan

Roomic Cube wrote: »

how many were there?

There were 14 Concordes flying out of 20 built(that includes prototypes).

Blue Punto

lord lucan wrote: »

There were 14 Concordes flying out of 20 built(that includes prototypes).

1 x W/O @ paris

1 x scrapped(center section survives at the back of paris mueseum)

Tea 1000

mickdw wrote: »

All the old airframes are around. Some had the wings cut off for transport & stuck on again for display purposes, others had the fuel tanks filled with concrete to weigh them down for display. Some also had random holes cut in the airframe to allow cabling into the aircrft for display reasons. The bristol one is, as far as Im aware the most intact. It is also the newest or the one with the least useage & is the best one for any future works.
Im not aware of what the barbados one has had done to it but in terms of condition, it would be somewhat behind the bristol one.

Apparently it's not behind the Bristol one at all. It was literally flown in, rolled into the hangar and had all it's fluids drained, hydraulic and fuel. That's all. It's literally as ready to go as an aircraft can be after 6 years idle. So if anything it's on par with the Bristol one.

mickdw

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Apparently it's not behind the Bristol one at all. It was literally flown in, rolled into the hangar and had all it's fluids drained, hydraulic and fuel. That's all. It's literally as ready to go as an aircraft can be after 6 years idle. So if anything it's on par with the Bristol one.

I hope it is but I dont hear it mentioned generally as being as suitable an aircraft for return to flight.
Certainly the bristol one has the least flight cycles on it but the Barbados plane may well be next.

InTheTrees

I drive past one every day here in Seattle at the Museum of Flight at Boeing Field.

I dont think they have any plans to fly it, although I expect they'd have a huge turnout if they did.

Discodog

The Save Concorde Group have launched a campaign to get it flying for the London Olympics. Apparently BA are the major obstacle. There will be massive public support for this & it has just been on Sky News.

http://www.save-concorde.co.uk

mickdw

THat campaign is underway for a number of years but certainly getting on sky news is a big help.

It needs airbus & one of the airlines who operated it to come on board in order to get it in the air. It will also need 100s of millions in my opinion. However I feel it is very possible. The power of the people is very much needed & if the uk governent got behind the bid it would happen. I also believe there would be adequate private funding out there from big business to get this done specially if it was obvious that large numbers of the public wanted this to happen - Im sure there is a good advertising campaign in this for the right businesses.
It is reported that the biggest problems apart from airbus & BA are the lack of certified parts, tooling for making parts & special fluids that are no longer produced. much of the parts that were available on retirement were sold off around the world to ensure it would never fly again. Once the parts are removed from certified storage, they are no longer fit for use.
I believe if airbus really wished, they could easily overcome all this.
Many of the concorde technicians are still with BA & airbus as are the pilots which would help.

Airbus have refused any future technical backup for the aircraft but I feel if BA did have a change of heart, they would be able to change airbus mind with possibility of large orders for new aircraft into the future etc

Discodog

Big problem. Airbus are seen as being very French & they never had the same enthusiasm for Concorde. The French have no interest in promoting the UK Olympics. Not long after the "retirement" I was introduced to a senior designer who was based at Filton. He echoed the view of many on the English side that the only thing wrong with Concorde was the French. They never forgave Tony Benn for allowing the "e" !.

There is also a view that Willie's BA will be far less "patriotic" than previously. The obvious target could be a Middle Eastern Airline that might like to see a Concorde in the air bearing their colours.

I can remember when "Vulcan to the Skies" started & we all thought that they were mad. I wonder if Concorde might get airborne on a strictly subsonic basis.

Podman

It seems that economics was one of the real reasons for shutting down Concorde, as stated before.

I remember that the actual crash was due to runway debris being sucked into Concorde's engine, causing the fire.
Apparently, components from a DC10 that used the runway before had broken off the plane and not been removed from the runway.

For me, Concorde was an aviation icon, mostly representing progress.
Even in those days I knew you had to be very wealthy to ever go on one, but at least supersonic flight was available to people other than military.

Discodog

chompy wrote: »

It seems that economics was one of the real reasons for shutting down Concorde, as stated before.

I remember that the actual crash was due to runway debris being sucked into Concorde's engine, causing the fire.
Apparently, components from a DC10 that used the runway before had broken off the plane and not been removed from the runway.

For me, Concorde was an aviation icon, mostly representing progress.
Even in those days I knew you had to be very wealthy to ever go on one, but at least supersonic flight was available to people other than military.

You need to watch the documentary - nothing went into the engines.

Podman

Discodog wrote: »

You need to watch the documentary - nothing went into the engines.

I never mentioned the documentary, I said "I remember".

The news from around the time it happened mentioned DC10 debris on the runway.

mickdw

Discodog wrote: »

Big problem. Airbus are seen as being very French & they never had the same enthusiasm for Concorde. The French have no interest in promoting the UK Olympics. Not long after the "retirement" I was introduced to a senior designer who was based at Filton. He echoed the view of many on the English side that the only thing wrong with Concorde was the French. They never forgave Tony Benn for allowing the "e" !.

There is also a view that Willie's BA will be far less "patriotic" than previously. The obvious target could be a Middle Eastern Airline that might like to see a Concorde in the air bearing their colours.

I can remember when "Vulcan to the Skies" started & we all thought that they were mad. I wonder if Concorde might get airborne on a strictly subsonic basis.

To be honest, Its hard to see concorde flying commercially due to age of the airframes & the costs involved.
Subsonic flight is I think what everyone is aiming at & in a heritage capacity.
I also read how one of the most unreliable systems on the aircraft were the controllers for the variable engine intakes and that they were very old technology. Interestingly it seems the prototype concordes in the 70s flew with fixed intakes to a speed of 1.5 mach so posibly that is not an issue at all for heritage flight below mach 1.
Having siad all that, some of the middle eastern people are rich enough & powerful enough to do whatever they wish & getting concorde flying commercially is not beyond the bounds of what they would consider doing. Could they get there hands on an aircraft though? A few A380 orders (or the lack of) should soften airbus cough so to speak to get them on board.

Andrew33

I was in the one in Duxford a couple of weeks back, I'd known they were not the roomiest of planes but I couldn't get over just how small the interior was! Do we really need the ability to get across the pond in 3 hours? With modern communications I don't really think so. It was status symbol for Fat Cats and nothing more.

Discodog

I would suspect that keeping flights below Mach 1 & for display flights would be much easier. There would be no problems with heating, fuel transfer etc & with no passengers she wouldn't even need reheat !.

Andrew33

chompy wrote: »

I never mentioned the documentary, I said "I remember".

The news from around the time it happened mentioned DC10 debris on the runway.

Debris from the runway burst one of Concordes tyres, it was a piece of tyre that punctured a fuel tank which then ignited once it had streamed back to the engine. It was a typical "Swiss cheese" accident with all the holes lining up:(

Tea 1000

Andrew33 wrote: »

I was in the one in Duxford a couple of weeks back, I'd known they were not the roomiest of planes but I couldn't get over just how small the interior was! Do we really need the ability to get across the pond in 3 hours? With modern communications I don't really think so. It was status symbol for Fat Cats and nothing more.

I didn't find it all that cramped, the seats were nice and comfortable. The one thing I'd like to improve with flying is making trips shorter. I think there is a certain need for one, of course you can't justify everything, in reality there's no need for me to ever go to the USA, but if it comes to that you're splitting hairs.
The big need for it was a symbol of technical achievement, not as a status for fat cats.
Also, there probably was some business needs for a meeting in London at 11am and a meeting in New York at mid-day were possible with it. Some meetings are not suitable for video conferencing.

Andrew33

Tea 1000 wrote: »

I didn't find it all that cramped, the seats were nice and comfortable. The one thing I'd like to improve with flying is making trips shorter. I think there is a certain need for one, of course you can't justify everything, in reality there's no need for me to ever go to the USA, but if it comes to that you're splitting hairs.
The big need for it was a symbol of technical achievement, not as a status for fat cats.
Also, there probably was some business needs for a meeting in London at 11am and a meeting in New York at mid-day were possible with it. Some meetings are not suitable for video conferencing.

I'll agree, it was a symbol of technical achievement (in the '60s and '70s!)
There is nothing that special about it now, the only reason it flew at all was because it's flights were massively subsidised by the British and French taxpayers (the vast majority of whom could never afford to fly on Concorde) so I stand by my original remark that it had become a Fat Cats symbol and toy. We will see supersonic passenger flights in the (not too distant) future but with greatly improved technology and reduced costs.

Tea 1000

Andrew33 wrote: »

I'll agree, it was a symbol of technical achievement (in the '60s and '70s!)
There is nothing that special about it now, the only reason it flew at all was because it's flights were massively subsidised by the British and French taxpayers (the vast majority of whom could never afford to fly on Concorde) so I stand by my original remark that it had become a Fat Cats symbol and toy. We will see supersonic passenger flights in the (not too distant) future but with greatly improved technology and reduced costs.

I'd disagree with that. Concorde is a more impressive plane than any other commercial plane out there today. It's an exceptional mechanical device that represents an era of when we used money to push our technical boundaries much farther than we ever thought possible. 41 years ago today we walked on the moon, 9 years ago today we were in the final week of where supersonic flight was available for the same price as the comfortable chairs in first class on a 777. Today we can do neither readily, today the Irish Government are probably putting an amount of money into Anglo that is really gaining us nothing.
Supersonic flights in the not too distant future? You underestimate Concorde at a major level if you believe that. We'll be lucky to see Mach 1.1 in 20 years time, let alone Mach 2. The 787 project started in 2004, it'll be doing well to get to airlines next year, that's 7 years for an aircraft that's just the same level of improvement over it's predecessors that it makes it akin to the current Avensis versus the old Carina of the 80's. There are no plans for supersonic aircraft by any company, and even if those plans came today it would take until 2025 to get something in the air.
To be honest, I'm fairly confident that I'll never see supersonic public transport again in my life time. What they're focused on now is trying to get what we have from alternative fuels. Very exciting - if you're a memeber of the green party! For the rest of us, dull. The world has moved from an attitude of "What can we do? How far can we go? Lets find out!" to an attitude of "What can we make the most money from?". That's what the Concorde story really highlights.

Andrew33

Tea 1000 wrote: »

I'd disagree with that. Concorde is a more impressive plane than any other commercial plane out there today. It's an exceptional mechanical device that represents an era of when we used money to push our technical boundaries much farther than we ever thought possible. 41 years ago today we walked on the moon, 9 years ago today we were in the final week of where supersonic flight was available for the same price as the comfortable chairs in first class on a 777. Today we can do neither readily, today the Irish Government are probably putting an amount of money into Anglo that is really gaining us nothing.
Supersonic flights in the not too distant future? You underestimate Concorde at a major level if you believe that. We'll be lucky to see Mach 1.1 in 20 years time, let alone Mach 2. The 787 project started in 2004, it'll be doing well to get to airlines next year, that's 7 years for an aircraft that's just the same level of improvement over it's predecessors that it makes it akin to the current Avensis versus the old Carina of the 80's. There are no plans for supersonic aircraft by any company, and even if those plans came today it would take until 2025 to get something in the air.
To be honest, I'm fairly confident that I'll never see supersonic public transport again in my life time. What they're focused on now is trying to get what we have from alternative fuels. Very exciting - if you're a memeber of the green party! For the rest of us, dull. The world has moved from an attitude of "What can we do? How far can we go? Lets find out!" to an attitude of "What can we make the most money from?". That's what the Concorde story really highlights.

You're so wrong on so many points that its not funny. the 787 is as far ahead of its predecessor as an Avensis is ahead of a Carina???? hahahaha!
End of.

mickdw

Andrew33 wrote: »

There is nothing that special about it now.

???
Have you got a few supersonic commercial planes operating from your back garden or something?
I think its still pretty special.

Tea 1000

Andrew33 wrote: »

You're so wrong on so many points that its not funny. the 787 is as far ahead of its predecessor as an Avensis is ahead of a Carina???? hahahaha!
End of.

Let me see... A Carina got a family from A to B in relative comfort and was reliable and dependable, and spacious compared to the competition. 20 years later, an Avensis has many electronic aids, has more power, uses less fuel, is more spacious, is made from more advanced materials, and is quieter and more comfortable, but it still justs takes a family from A to B, the same size family!
A 767 will take around 250 - 300 people from A to B in relative comfort. It's reliable and dependable for airlines to use. A 787 is fresher, made from more advanced materials, uses less fuel, should be cheaper to run, has many electronic aids to help the pilots out, but still takes 250 - 300 people from A to B in not much more comfort. And no faster.
Yep, you're right... I'm way off... I'm completely wrong in thinking that the Concorde is a fantastic piece of engineering. It's actually exactly like a Morris Minor, and should be confined to history. :rolleyes:
How about a real discussion Andrew33?

sealgaire

It was a perfect excuse for them to scrap it

mickdw

The french grounded it. BA would never have grounded it given any reasonable way around it. The french knew they were giving BA no choice but to retire it.
Still, the interest is growing slowly in it & when the average person on the street realises the politics that was behind the grounding f the aircraft, more pressure will come to at least have one flying for shows etc.

Lapin

Is it true that BA purchased their fleet for £1 ?

Blue Punto

well yes i suppose legally they did

Cookie_Monster

Tea 1000 wrote: »

To be honest, I'm fairly confident that I'll never see supersonic public transport again in my life time.

well made post and I'd agree with nearly everything, but this. The only difference IMO is its likely to be some form of rail or maglev train, rather than aircraft and still fairly far off, 30+ years.

Discodog

The supersonic shockwave was considered unacceptable at 30,000 ft +. It would be impossible to live with at ground level. The only possibility would be if we had the technology to reduce or remove it.

St. Leibowitz

Lapin wrote: »

Is it true that BA purchased their fleet for £1 ?

Not strictly true.

BOAC paid BAC/Sud Aviation £155 million in the early '70s. There were enormous development and technology costs which were taken by the governments and their share were written down to nil by the British government in 1983. The previous Labour government had written down the book value of the BA Concorde fleet to nil in '79.

In '84, the government completely ended its involvement with the programme and BA assumed full responsibility for Concorde engineering support. The government had a profit sharing scheme whereby they collected 80% of the Concorde operational profits. BA were released from this by a deal whereby they paid £16.5m to aquire the government's stock of spares. Within this spares inventory, there were two government owned Concordes which had been made available to BA four years earlier. They were included for a token £1.

cyrusdvirus

Discodog wrote: »

The supersonic shockwave was considered unacceptable at 30,000 ft +. It would be impossible to live with at ground level. The only possibility would be if we had the technology to reduce or remove it.

Good thing Concorde travelled at @ 60000 ft then, isn't it

Lapin

Discodog wrote: »

The supersonic shockwave was considered unacceptable at 30,000 ft +.

gatecrash wrote: »

Good thing Concorde travelled at @ 60000 ft then, isn't it

Same thing.

cyrusdvirus

Lapin wrote: »

Same thing.

No... if you look REAL carefully, you'll see that 60,000 ft is twice 30,000.

3+3=6

therefore 30,000 + 30,000 = 60,000

If one thing is twice another thing then they cannot be the same

QED

Lapin

gatecrash wrote: »

No... if you look REAL carefully, you'll see that 60,000 ft is twice 30,000.

3+3=6

therefore 30,000 + 30,000 = 60,000

If one thing is twice another thing then they cannot be the same

QED

If you look real carefully, you'll see that Discodog said 30,000+ feet.
Note the plus sign.
I believe he took it as a given that we are intelligent enough to know that conventional jet airliners fly at an altitude closer to 30,000 feet.
A height with acceptable noise levels to those on the ground.
And that Concorde, given its sonic boom was compelled to fly at a higher altitude. Hence 30,000+ feet in this case can equate to 60,000 feet.
QED (Although Concorde regularly flew closer to 50,000 feet.)


Anyway, I'm not interested in getting bogged down with a silly debate over semantics. I was just highlighting my understanding of Discodog's post in relation to your reply.

cyrusdvirus

Lapin wrote: »

If you look real carefully, you'll see that Discodog said 30,000+ feet.
Note the plus sign.
I believe he took it as a given that we are intelligent enough to know that conventional jet airliners fly at an altitude closer to 30,000 feet.
A height with acceptable noise levels to those on the ground.
And that Concorde, given its sonic boom was compelled to fly at a higher altitude. Hence 30,000+ feet in this case can equate to 60,000 feet.
QED (Although Concorde regularly flew closer to 50,000 feet.)


Anyway, I'm not interested in getting bogged down with a silly debate over semantics. I was just highlighting my understanding of Discodog's post in relation to your reply.

it was compelled to fly at 60k for noise abatement, it was more fuel efficient. simples

Discodog

There might be little to choose between a sonic boom generated by an aircraft at 30,000 or 60,000. The 60,000 boom might be less in volume but it would cover a much wider area.

The disappointing thing is that Concorde could of been significantly improved as shown by the studies for Concorde B.

amen

And that Concorde, given its sonic boom was compelled to fly at a higher altitude

I don't believe that is true. Concorde was designed to fly at 50,000 + to enabled it to go at Mach 2.

The noise of the sonic boom only started to become an issue when test flights started and some flights over the usa.

At that point the plane design was completed and you had a saleable product.

When planes are designed they are designed with a max ceiling. You don;t come back and suddenly change the max ceiling from 30,000 to 60,000.

trellheim

anyone remember the noise protests in New York over Concorde ? imagine having to recertify.

Discodog

Concorde "B" would of been significantly quieter as it would not of used reheat. The increase in engine power & economy would of given longer range.