Concorde Comeback

jonnybegood

Do you think this will happen

http://www.independent.ie/life/travel/travel-news/concorde-comeback-plans-to-resume-flights-on-iconic-aircraft-by-2019-31537403.html

Shannon757

Where would you get the parts?
How would you get it certified?
How could you make a profit?

It's not gonna happen.

jonnybegood

The two-part plan begins with purchasing a Concorde currently stationed at Orly Airport in France — paid for by an initial $62 million investment. The Concorde would be restored and placed on a specially designed platform near the London Eye over the River Thames as a tourist attraction.

The club would then charge roughly $25 per entrant and offer meals like those originally served on the Concorde.

Club Concorde International Rives Thames
Club Concorde International would invite tourists onboard to experience the plane's majesty on a specially designed platform over the River Thames.
Once that phase of the plan is off the ground, the second portion of the plan, the "Return to Flight" project, is to purchase a second Concorde, currently housed at Le Bourget Airport in Paris. The plane would also be restored, and would then be offered as a private charter — ideal for a London to Monaco flight, for example — or as a flyover spectacle for airshows.

The Club Concorde International plans to have the London attraction completed by late 2016 and wheels up on the second plane by 2019 to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the Concorde's inaugural flight.

If things go well financially for the endeavor, the club would like to launch a second charter Concorde in the future.

smurfjed

Sorry but it wont happen, Concorde is a 50 year old aircraft so I dont see Rolls Royce and Airbus accepting the liability that would be required to put one aircraft back in the air. It will be the same as the the Vulcan in the UK.

Not going to happen the hydraulic systems on the French Concordes have been permanently decommissioned after some knowledgeable "enthusiasts" woke them up a couple of years ago to prove that a return to flight was possible. AF didn't like this one bit so sabotaged them to prevent a return to flight.

arubex

smurfjed wrote: »

Sorry but it wont happen, Concorde is a 50 year old aircraft so I dont see Rolls Royce and Airbus accepting the liability that would be required to put one aircraft back in the air. It will be the same as the the Vulcan in the UK.

The ending of participation by BAE / RR was a convenient excuse for VTTS to wind-down flying. The manufacturers had no 'liability' for XH558, as it was never a certificated type.

Under the Permit to Fly VTTS had no need to rely on the manufacturers so long as they could obtain compatible and documented parts and have them installed properly. That was becoming increasingly difficult but not insurmountable, I had heard 2018 mentioned first-hand as a target continuation date.

The more pressing problem was that the flight crews were all, frankly, advancing in age and no training / replacement plan had been developed. The youngest is, I believe, 63.

Avatar MIA

jonnybegood wrote: »

The club would then charge roughly $25 per entrant and offer meals like those originally served on the Concorde.

Club Concorde International Rives Thames
Club Concorde International would invite tourists onboard to experience the plane's majesty on a specially designed platform over the River Thames.

That's possibly as far as it will ever get...

PukkaStukka

Deleted User wrote: »

Not going to happen the hydraulic systems on the French Concordes have been permanently decommissioned after some knowledgeable "enthusiasts" woke them up a couple of years ago to prove that a return to flight was possible. AF didn't like this one bit so sabotaged them to prevent a return to flight.

Plus BA filled the fuel tanks on theirs with concrete. Scorched earth tactics at their finest...:(

roundymac

Wonder how much research or lack of research went into this story.

Jonti

Not a chance as the "Yanks" didn't think of it first or build it. If Boeing had thought of it first and built it there'd be hundreds of them flying now!

Strumms

The same story and subsequent thread pops up every couple of years. Slow news day is all. It would be commercially unviable to try and get one back in the air. Remember the fleets were grounded because they were economically unviable to operate. Nothing will ever change to make it happen. Shame but that's how it is.

PukkaStukka

PukkaStukka wrote: »

Plus BA filled the fuel tanks on theirs with concrete. Scorched earth tactics at their finest...:(

Yeah I heard the AF hydraulics were also filled or flushed with a concrete solution to ruin them.

murphaph

WTF? Why did AF/BA resort to such extreme measures?

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

WTF? Why did AF/BA resort to such extreme measures?

For a start AF never wanted the Concorde to be returned to flight post the crash, but BA did as they were making money from the flights AF struggled from day 1.

AF started slowly retiring aircraft and then both AF and the French Government pressurised Airbus etc to withdrawn OEM support which basically got Concordes CoA pulled. Without Airbuses support Concorde won't ever fly again. I've been trying to find a document I saw a few years ago which put the history of Concorde post crash together and it's very very damning of AF, French Gov and Airbus and shows how they colluded to have this happen. I'll post it IF I find it.

billy few mates

It doesn't have a Type Certificate anymore so it would have to be a whole new type certification process to get one back in the air and a lot of the specifications will have changed since the 1960s so would probably not be acceptable these days. Plus RR would have to commit to the continued airworthiness and development programs for the engines and BAe/Aerospatiel/AI would have to commit to the airframe and systems which they'd never ever do.
From a practical point of view it would be reasonably straightforward to get one airworthy again, from a regulatory point of view it would be impossible.
Have a read of the book Vulcan 607 to see how resourceful the RAF were to get the Vulcan back into service for the attack on Port Stanley, they didn't have to worry about the CAA or EASA so they didn't have to worry about the regulatory hurdles.

Simon2015

Jonti wrote: »

Not a chance as the "Yanks" didn't think of it first or build it. If Boeing had thought of it first and built it there'd be hundreds of them flying now!

Boeing had planed to make a wide bodied supersonic plane but they lost funding for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707

roundymac

BBC ran big time with it.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34301689


I was in CDG recently, there is a concorde mounted like a "gate guardian", is that the one they are talking about?

smurfjed

There are two more stored indoors at the LeBourget Museum, these would be more likely candidates as they aren't exposed to the weather.

Pat Dunne

Simon2015 wrote: »

Boeing had planed to make a wide bodied supersonic plane but they lost funding for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707

Yes, but this happened back in the late 60's early 1970's.

goingnowhere

F-BTSD in Le Bourget is the most likely as it still 'works' plus its the youngest (and therefore lightest) one built, it holds all the circumnavigation records. Its connected to a GPU and there are trays on the floor to catch leaking fluids. The nose and flight control surfaces seemed to work

01 next to it is a no go, very little part commonality between the prototype and production, different wing, different engine, different trust reversers/divergent nozzle, shorter fuselage

That said they will be lucky just to start an engine let alone taxi

Simon2015

Pat Dunne wrote: »

Yes, but this happened back in the late 60's early 1970's.

Yeah but it would have been a better plane than Concorde if it had gone into production.

Hotblack Desiato

As has been said, this can't happen without Airbus's support and they're opposed to it, I can't imagine RR/SNECMA being enthusiastic about it either, and the economics are totally bonkers (although a friendly billionaire might overcome that, for a while)

billy few mates wrote: »

Have a read of the book Vulcan 607 to see how resourceful the RAF were to get the Vulcan back into service for the attack on Port Stanley, they didn't have to worry about the CAA or EASA so they didn't have to worry about the regulatory hurdles.

The Vulcan was due to be withdrawn shortly at the time, but was still in service. The inflight refuelling gear hadn't been used in years though and had to be refurbished. IIRC slight adaptions were required to drop 'conventional' bombs as it had always been intended for a purely nuclear role

Simon2015 wrote: »

Yeah but it would have been a better plane than Concorde if it had gone into production.

Define 'better'. An airliner that can't make money for its operator is certainly not 'better'.

The economics of the 2707 and the Lockheed concept were even more bonkers than Concorde, even before the oil crisis they were doomed to failure, and the whole FAA SST programme was cancelled in 1971 when oil was still cheap. Concorde was designed to go as fast as possible with conventional aluminum alloys (and on occasion it had to slow down a bit if the atmosphere was warmer than average, 127 deg C at the nose could not be exceeded), going faster and using titanium puts the airframe costs way up before you even consider the extra fuel burn. It turns out that subsonic economy class hits a sweet spot between inconvenience of travel vs. cost for most people, few enough are prepared to pay the extra for business or first if it's coming out of their own wallet, and the extra costs to the airline of those classes is far less than supersonic operations would be.

Simon2015

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Define 'better'.

It would have been bigger and faster than Concorde.

Hotblack Desiato

It would have lost vast quantities of cash for all involved but mercifully it was cancelled.

Simon2015

I actually think Concorde would have been a success if it wasn't for the oil crisis in the 70s. They had planed to build a version of Concorde that was 25% more fuel efficient, but that was canceled when the crisis hit along with all the orders other airlines had to buy Concorde.

With todays technology they could probably build a Concorde that would use half the amount fuel.

Also back in the 60s supersonic jets only used about twice the amount of fuel compared with subsonic jets. If supersonic jet technology had become mainstream there would probably be little difference with subsonic jets in terms of fuel efficiency.

Shannon757

Simon2015 wrote: »

I actually think Concorde would have been a success if it wasn't for the oil crisis in the 70s. They had planed to build a version of Concorde that was 25% more fuel efficient, but that was canceled when the crisis hit along with all the orders other airlines had to buy Concorde.

With todays technology they could probably build a Concorde that would use half the amount fuel.

Also back in the 60s supersonic jets only used about twice the amount of fuel compared with subsonic jets. If supersonic jet technology had become mainstream there would probably be little difference with subsonic jets in terms of fuel efficiency.

You could but why would you?

Simon2015

Shannon757 wrote: »

You could but why would you?

So you can cross the atlantic in less than 3 hours.

Who wants to be on a plane for any longer than they have to ?

Strumms

goingnowhere wrote: »

F-BTSD in Le Bourget is the most likely as it still 'works' plus its the youngest (and therefore lightest) one built, it holds all the circumnavigation records. Its connected to a GPU and there are trays on the floor to catch leaking fluids. The nose and flight control surfaces seemed to work

01 next to it is a no go, very little part commonality between the prototype and production, different wing, different engine, different trust reversers/divergent nozzle, shorter fuselage

That said they will be lucky just to start an engine let alone taxi

There are a couple of videos that I can't link to right now as I'm on the dodgiest of iPads but in youtube search 'F-BTSD Le Bourget' you should easily come across a couple of videos of this aircraft being powered up and the nose and control surfaces being moved as well as a couple of interior shots of the cockpit being powered up and cabin as it is now on display.

FWVT

A charter from London to Monaco.

Totally over land, so subsonic all the way. Where's the joy in that?

goingnowhere

Landing in Nice obviously...

eatmyshorts

Simon2015 wrote: »

It would have been bigger and faster than Concorde.

A 1970's built 747-200 is bigger and faster than a new built 777-300ER.

Does that make the 747 a better aircraft?

sully2010

Simon2015 wrote: »

I actually think Concorde would have been a success if it wasn't for the oil crisis in the 70s. They had planed to build a version of Concorde that was 25% more fuel efficient, but that was canceled when the crisis hit along with all the orders other airlines had to buy Concorde.

With todays technology they could probably build a Concorde that would use half the amount fuel.

Also back in the 60s supersonic jets only used about twice the amount of fuel compared with subsonic jets. If supersonic jet technology had become mainstream there would probably be little difference with subsonic jets in terms of fuel efficiency.

You only seem to be talking about fuel efficiency. That was only 1 downside the Concorde had in losing orders in the first place. Having said that it was profitable for many years when they figured out they could charge huge prices for tickets so fuel efficiency didn't matter.

A much bigger problem for Concorde was noise on take off and landing(it was really loud) and sonic booms created when going supersonic meaning they could only go supersonic over water.

Engineers working on future supersonic jets are working on ways to reduce the sonic boom to enable it to fly supersonic over land and open up more routes, as well as more fuel efficient engines.

BionicRasher

I remember being in London back in 2003 and not knowing that it was the final flight of these beauties. We went up to Greenwich park and spotted them coming in over the city on a fly by. Amazing

Irish Steve

Whatever about the issues that eventually grounded it, the Concorde was to commercial aviation what Apollo was to the Space program, they both represented a pinnacle of achievement that has still be be bettered nearly 50 years later, and there are plenty of people who would still have been prepared to pay for a Bay of Biscay trip on Concorde had they still been available.

I can still remember the first time Concorde (G-BOAC) visited Exeter for a Bay of Biscay charter flight, the subsonic flights to and from London were both full, as was the supersonic flight, and the other aspect of the day was that over 7,000 people turned out to see it. The airport was opened up as it would have been for an airday, which was a huge plus, as it meant that I was able to get some spectacular video of the arrival and departure, less than 200 Ft from the runway, the cars were parked between the taxiway and the runway, and I got some spectacular video of the return from the Biscay trip, as the wind had changed, so what had been the "wrong" end for the departure became the touchdown end, and I was 200 Ft from the PAPI's at the touchdown point, so had an almost unique view that was so much like an eagle descending on its' prey as it came down the approach.

As for the noise levels, you didn't HEAR Concorde, you felt it, but while it was indeed well loud, and capable of setting off every car alarm within a mile of the runway, it did move away at a rapid rate, and didn't use reheat for long, so the overall effect wasn't as bad as some made it out to be. Where we used to live in the west of Somerset we also used to hear the sonic boom that was generated at the end of the supersonic descent into the Bristol Channel, but it wasn't an issue and certainly didn't do any damage, or cause any upset, it was not so loud as to cause concern. we only tended to notice the evening flight, there was too much other background noise for the day flight to stand out above the background noise.

A good few years later, I had the very good fortune to get some significant (loggable as p/ut) time in the Concorde Simulator at Bristol, I was working there for over 12 months with British Aerospace on an A320 style simulation project that was researching some of the human factors of alarms and other unexpected events, and BAE were responsible for the care and maintenance of the Concorde Sim, even though it was being used by BA for crew training, and their service engineers were happy to facilitate a couple of sessions in it. It was a very thought provoking session, the busiest person on the flight deck was the flight engineer, as he spent a lot of his time moving fuel around between the different tanks to keep it in trim, they couldn't use traditional trim systems as the end of the trim devices would have overheated due to the airflow over them.

As has been mentioned, the problem was Air France, they couldn't make a profit with their fleet, and the problems they had with the aftermath of the crash, the subsequent Fuel tank upgrade, and then the loss of passengers after 9/11 were the things that meant the end of the most iconic aircraft that has ever graced the skies.

BA also suffered badly, it wasn't widely reported at the time, but 9/11 resulted in the loss of 40% of their regular New York/London route passengers, and that also hurt them very badly on their scheduled operations, and while the charter flights were profitable, they were not at the same frequency as the scheduled services.

I certainly miss seeing what was the most beautiful aircraft ever made in it's natural environment, it was made to fly, and it did so very effectively indeed. The costs involved in keeping one (or more) flying would have been significant, but in some respects, given the unique place in aviation history that Concorde owned, it's a great shame that we will not see it in the air again.