Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Plans for Concorde

I thought I would share this for anyone interested in Concorde topics. It talks about a new display piece in London, and about a 'return to flight'.

here

I did wonder why if they 'need' a Concorde, they want to bring G-BOAD from New York, back to the UK. New York was a significant place for Concorde and it's good to have some British (and French of course) talent displayed in the US even if it is not making much profit. Also, why not use G-BOAF at Britsol Filton which is already doing nothing or G-BOAB at Heathrow?

I might well as 'Club Concorde' these very questions, but posted this as there might be some interesting views here.

PiperArcher

I would rather call it "Dreams for Concorde" than "Plans for Concorde"...

The most realistic statement in the referenced text is: "On the Paris front we are in discussions with several parties about the relocation of a French Concorde to a new display site in the Capital City." Several times per year when I fly to LeBourget and have a couple of hours to spare, I visit the Musee de l'air just to see the two Concordes there. They are parked really close together within a very confined space and it would do them certainly good to put them in two separate hangars/museums. But I can't see how one of them could be transported to a more central position in Paris without being dismantled into such small pieces, that it would be virtually destroyed in the process.

And regarding the various "Concorde back to the skies"-projects: Unfortunately, this is not going to happen due to an infinite number of reasons that cannot be overcome even with very substantial amounts of money.

EDDS - Stuttgart

They may be dreams, but some dreams come true. I'd rather the Filton one was displayed in London, or elsewhere, but maybe they have plans to move it to Kemble along with some of the other parts of the aircraft collection. The River Thames area is full of Icons (Tower of London, Tower Bridge, HMS Belfast, Boris Johnson's office, to name but a few. A Concorde would be a fitting place.

And regarding the various "Concorde back to the skies"-projects: Unfortunately, this is not going to happen due to an infinite number of reasons that cannot be overcome even with very substantial amounts of money

Your probably right. I remember ex Concorde Captain John Hutchinson recalling a conversation he had directly with Richard Branson about what was required to maintain the fleet, and that was while Concorde was still in operation. The main blockage was Airbus politically not wanting to hand over the maintenance and support resources to anyone else, and that killed it. Certification is now probably a massive uphill struggle. So, your right, money can't buy everything, but its interesting to see people try :-)

The main blockage was Airbus politically not wanting to hand over the maintenance and support resources to anyone else, and that killed it

Obviously anything like this can be solved with money, but do you think Airbus were instructed by the French Govt to sabotage the project?

Otherwise, as Concorde was worth nothing to them scrapped, they ought to have accepted an offer for the Type Certificate.

I am sure this stuff has been done to death in many books

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

...but its interesting to see people try :-)

In a sense, yes. But there are a million other things worth trying that have at least a little probability of success. I'm also an aircraft - and specially Concorde - enthusiast, but I would not donate a single Euro or a single hour of my time to a project that is doomed from the beginning.

Why not instead build a half- or one-third-scale Concorde powered by four bizjet engines specifically for the airshow circuit? A company like Scaled Composites or Flugwerk will manufacture a couple of those for half the money it would take to get one real Concorde airborne again. Operation will be safe, reliable and extremely cost-efficient compared to fly a real Concorde again. And from more than 200m away, nobody will know the difference (noise apart).

EDDS - Stuttgart

Obviously anything like this can be solved with money, but do you think Airbus were instructed by the French Govt to sabotage the project?

My flippant answer would be yes, but its extremely debatable and there's loads of conspiracy theories, and I speak with no authority. The way the Air France crash of July 2000 was handled has been openly challenged and is equally debatable.

Why not instead build a half- or one-third-scale Concorde powered by four bizjet engines specifically for the airshow circuit?

I have no problem with these, and wish them all the luck, but for me its partly about the character of Concorde, its look, all it's dials and gauges and so on. If I had the spare cash I'd love to take a ride on a Flugwerk or something but I just dont think it would excite me as much as a Concorde would.

What are the main challenges if I may ask naively?

The TC should be still valid and extensive modifications were made after the 2000 crash and only after they were completed, they canned the project (decades after they should have). So shouldn't it be possible to still fly them provided one has the funds to keep them in good state?

Consider that these airframes have not been certified aeroplanes since 2003. They are museum artefacts. So if we take one of these artifacts and decide to return it to flight, what would need to be done?

The machine would have to be stripped to component level, the airframes examined for corrosion and any other damamge, and that put right.

Each component would have to be re-certified for flight. Many would not even work after getting on for 10 years of inactivity, perhaps out in the open air, never mind be re-certifiable.

There are no spares - none! So any failed components would have to be re-manufactured. The drawings and specs don't exist, and in many cases neither do the companies who originally manufactured those components. There is no test kit or specialist tools any more to assemble and test components. The engineers who understood all this are mostly retired or gone, and those left will have long forgotten the intricacies of the tasks required.

Even if all of that was overcome, there would need to be a pre-flight assembly and test phase similar to that originally undertaken on the Concorde programme.

The Type Certificate and Cof A would need to be regained. Would the CAA certify probably the most technically complex aeroplane ever made (using 1960s technology, too) to fly again?

Apart from the last point, it could be done, given enough money. After all it was done once, so could be again (except maybe certification). But it would probably be cheaper and easier to forget Concorde, a magnificent aeroplane of her time, and build a new equivalent using 21st century technology.

£40M wouldn't even start the ball rolling to a flying Concorde. I think it coat BA not much less than that when they had to re-engineer and re-certify a circuit board in the intake control system! You'd probably be talking billions to get her flying!

In summer 2003 BA had five certified flying Concordes, a dedicated Concorde maintenance facility, massive stocks of spares, all the specialist tools, all the drawings and full documentation, a staff of highly trained and deeply experienced Concorde engineers to maintain the fleet, flight crews current on type.... and they couldn't keep the aeroplane flying.

Now, none of that exisits; all we have is a few aged airframes that haven't flown for nearly a decade.

Concorde was magnificent! Come and see ours at Manchester. Let's celebrate 27 years of supersonic airline service, daily Mach 2 services, and London - NY in not much more than 3 hours. Remember her as she was, the most magnificent aeroplane that ever flew. But her time has passed.

Barton is my spiritual home.

The way the Air France crash of July 2000 was handled has been openly challenged and is equally debatable.

I seem to remember a post from Vince some time ago which detailed quite comprehensively the omissions in the original BEA accident report (read: whitewash)

£40M wouldn't even start the ball rolling to a flying Concorde. I think it cost BA not much less than that when they had to re-engineer and re-certify a circuit board in the intake control system!

Unless there was much else involved it would appear that somebody got away with a massive ripoff, having correctly judged that he/they had BA over a barrel.

What does suprise me is that the component drawings and specs have been lost. Normally, with abandoned high-profile projects like this, a bunch of people try to save stuff like that. Many years ago I worked in a firm which was renting an old building, in the corner of which were the original drawings for a coal fired power station, built c. 1930. When it was shut, somebody took care to save the drawings. And for many years now, it's been easy to scan stuff and digitise it, etc.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
33 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top