It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Concord To Fly again?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I couldnt find any mention of it anywhere so what do people think?

I had the pleasure of flying on Concord twice and was very excited both times.
Even the possibility of it flying again excites me.
Heres the website attempting it

www.clubconcorde.co.uk...




posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I hope so. I've never had the privilege of flying with Concord, but members of my family have and I have a little collectors packet with pictures and pens and stuff from there.

I don't see why not. The plane crashed. People died a horrible death. I do have sorrow, but this isn't the only plane crash in history causing mass deaths. (Need I mention it?)

I live in the United States, but all of my family is in England, and we visit on average once a year, usually around Easter. Its a mighty long flight, its boring, usually cold, and most of all, CRAMPED.

We don't have the luxury of sitting in First Class, and even if Concord made a comeback, I probably wont fly with them any time soon, we're just not the richest family.

But It should come back, for the benefit of those who have worked hard to purchase a Concord ticket. Those are just my thoughts.

[edit on 8/18/2007 by Schmidt1989]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Only the Fench concord crashed and that was as a result of damage from a piece that came off another plane.

Other than this incident, all the concords had excellent safety records.

I think running costs had much more impact on why BA decided to retire concord from service.

And I yes, we should keep at least one flying.

But why don't we use modern materials to built new concords. Material and engine technology has improved since concords were first built and there will always be a market for people who can to reduce the time they spend in the air. BA's phase was "get to New York before you left"



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Yes I agree that at least one shuld be kept flying.
Apart from anything else it was in incredibly beautifull work of art

It did make the trip to New York bearable though.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Chorlton
 


Funny you should mention this - I was driving through Heathrow yesterday and noted that they have moved one of the remaiing Speedbirds outside the maintainence hanger (visible if you drive round the perimiter road - but only the tail) I do hope this is the case and they get at least one back in the air - I only ever got to go on one on the ground :-(



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Got to add its worth a £10/$26 to see a Speedbird in the air again - anyone remember the flypast at the Belfrey when we won the Ryder cup?



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   
No, Concorde will not fly again in our lifetime.

There is no support network, no spare parts, no production method for those spare parts.

There are no maintenance facilities for these aircraft, and they would all require a very very expensive, very very long D-Check before anyone would even consider letting one fly again even in the hands of BA or Air France. This alone would take longer than 2 years 4 months.

There is no Certificate of Airworthiness. This is the most significant negative.

There is only one Concorde that has not been decommissioned, and thats impounded by a Court indefinitely - and even so, its not kept in flight capable status and it is still owned by Air France.

None of the parties needed to even consider getting Concorde flying again are amenable to such a feat - BA has said no more than once, Air France dismissed suggestions out of hand, and Airbus has withdrawn maintenance support.

This is a pie in the sky venture, nothing more than hot air and wishful thinking.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


In that case why can they work to get a Vulcan in the air - and not concord and why is Alpha Foxtrot sitting at Heathrow and not on a plinth somewhere - as for a support network they refitting of the tanks needed a total bespoke solution and that was managed?

Spelling Edit

[edit on 18-8-2007 by Silk]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Silk
 


Y'know I was just thinking the same thing.
Vulcans, Spitfires WW11 Bombers?
If the will is there......................................



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Chorlton
 


Well living by Northolt I get lots of chances to see Vintage aircraft fly by - and Spencer Flack (RIP) ran a whole company flying planes that no one would ever give a chance of flying again. Concord can be airworthy - it just takes effort and funds.

To see such a triumph of British engineering (and French) open the Olympics in London in 2012 would be a dream come true - for me at least!



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Actually even better - just thought - the Vulcan and Concord - 2 deltas that taught America the Delta was a fesible and flyable solution?

(If anyone doubts this Vulcan 607 is a good read)



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silk

In that case why can they work to get a Vulcan in the air - and not concord and why is Alpha Foxtrot sitting at Heathrow and not on a plinth somewhere - as for a support network they refitting of the tanks needed a total bespoke solution and that was managed?



When Bruntingthorpe took the Vulcan, they didn't just take a Vulcan.

They took every operating manual, every maintenance manual, every schedule, every blueprint and production document the RAF and its suppliers had.

They took every spare part the RAF had, every spare part the RAFs suppliers had, everything lying around remotely linked to the Vulcan.

They took the last few sets of engines from Rolls Royce that were in storage for the RAF after a full overhaul.

They put all of the above into the proper longterm storage.

They took a flying Vulcan, and many many people linked to the Vulcan in its final days also became part of the Vulcan to the Sky project - right at the beginning of the project.

They agreed with all required OEMS to maintain the supply chain, including certification of parts and tooling.

They did *all* of this with the express hope to get it flying again, sometime in the future. They *planned* ahead.

Concorde has none of this. The spare parts are gone, auctioned off. The airframes are degrading, they weren't even properly mothballed - their fluids were drained without the proper procedure, meaning every rubber hose and pipe in the airframe is now disintegrated and needs to be replaced. They stopped lubricating parts, which means most things are seized or degraded. They stopped maintaining parts, which means things are long past their due date.

Concordes OEMs have disposed of their toolings for spare parts, they are gone.

Concordes maintenance facilities were shut down, jigs and parts auctioned off, gone.

Concordes engineers are no longer certified for the jobs they would need to do, and the manuals needed to do this were auctioned off, gone.

Concordes OEMs had no part after its decommissioning, they have retained nothing.

G-BOAF (Alpha Foxtrot) sits at Filton, Bristol.

G-BOAB (Alpha Bravo) sits at Heathrow, totally gutted - its entire internal cabin, including cockpit and hydraulics for the nose and flying surfaces were removed in order to restore G-BBDG to public display.

G-BOAB also hadn't flown since 2000, and will go on display at Terminal 5 when its completed.

The tank modifications were made with a full maintenance line and manufacturing support from Airbus.

There were over 130 Vulcans built, and in service for over 30 years. There were over 7,000 Lancasters built. There were over 20,000 Spitfires built.

There were 14 production Concordes built, operated by two airlines. Thats it. Totally different scale.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 



Then i bow to superior knowledge - sorry it was just a hope

You might like to let the people running Club Concord know then - cos that would make their requests for money look like a scam.

Course as BA pilots I'm sure they know this - shame really



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Originally posted by Freedom ERP




Only the Fench concord crashed and that was as a result of damage from a piece that came off another plane.


That was a possibility but I believe the real cause was the mis-assembly of a wheel on the left truck (the night before by Air France maintenance). Half way through the takeoff roll the wheel disintegrated causing the remaining wheels on the truck to explode, damaging one engine, causing the strut to dig into the runway causing the airplane to veer to the left. The pilot yanked the airplane into the air and might have made it but I believe the flight engineer either accidentally or intentionally shut down one of the operating engines. The airplane could have made it around on 3 engines but not on 2. With not enough speed to keep it level with only 2 engines operating on the right side slowly rolled into the ground. At least thats the way I remember it.

The alleged piece of metal on the runway from another plane (Continental Air Lines) was the French attempt (sucessful it seems) to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the tragedy.


And I yes, we should keep at least one flying.


It might be easier to breathe life into a Tyrannosaurus Rex.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silk

Then i bow to superior knowledge - sorry it was just a hope

You might like to let the people running Club Concord know then - cos that would make their requests for money look like a scam.

Course as BA pilots I'm sure they know this - shame really


Both the Concorde Club and Save Concorde Group are nothing more than a group of hopefuls making noise - Im pretty sure they know their dreams are probably never going to come true. SCG has on more than one occasion actually upset BA, which is not something you need to do to get one of their aircraft flying again!

And thats a pity, because I would dearly love to see Concorde fly again


Just because they are or were pilots, doesn't mean they were ever aware of the whole situation.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

That was a possibility but I believe the real cause was the mis-assembly of a wheel on the left truck (the night before by Air France maintenance). Half way through the takeoff roll the wheel disintegrated causing the remaining wheels on the truck to explode, damaging one engine, causing the strut to dig into the runway causing the airplane to veer to the left. The pilot yanked the airplane into the air and might have made it but I believe the flight engineer either accidentally or intentionally shut down one of the operating engines. The airplane could have made it around on 3 engines but not on 2. With not enough speed to keep it level with only 2 engines operating on the right side slowly rolled into the ground. At least thats the way I remember it.

The alleged piece of metal on the runway from another plane (Continental Air Lines) was the French attempt (sucessful it seems) to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the tragedy.



Thats nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

The Concorde in question did have a spacer missing from the front left wheel assembly, but it had made several trips across the Atlantic to JFK and back prior to that fateful day, and the lack of a spacer would not have had a detrimental effect on the integrity of the wheel. The wheel did not fail because the spacer was missing.

What did cause Concordes crash was a chain of events, with the initial point in the chain being when the Continental engineers replaced a wear bar in one of the engines of the DC-10 with an 'out of spec' custom made bar made of titanium. That bar should never have been there, it was infact illegal.

The aircraft could never have made an airport, even if the engineer hadn't shut down the wrong engine - the fire was melting through the control systems in the left hand wing. That was what caused the final death roll just before it hit the hotel. The aircrafts fate was sealed the moment it hit that titanium bar.



[edit on 18/8/2007 by RichardPrice]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


Well Ill keep wishing and hoping, where theres a will, theres a way, and I suspect the money would be there



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   
It was a crime - against both science, the British public and aviation, that one wasn't kept airworthy for displays and research.

It was also - in my opinion - criminal that BA refused to sell at least one of them to Virgin. Branson was the man who could have kept at least one flying IMHO.

That having been said - never, ever, say never. The Russians refitted the TU-144 with help from NASA, and that project was even more dead that Concorde is.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
It was a crime - against both science, the British public and aviation, that one wasn't kept airworthy for displays and research.

It was also - in my opinion - criminal that BA refused to sell at least one of them to Virgin. Branson was the man who could have kept at least one flying IMHO.

That having been said - never, ever, say never. The Russians refitted the TU-144 with help from NASA, and that project was even more dead that Concorde is.


Actually the Tu-144 that Tupolev and NASA used was mothballed with a return to flight specifically in mind, so it wasnt that hard for them to do what they did - it was more alive than Concorde is.

Branson never made a serious offer to BA for the Concorde fleet, and also both the CAA and Airbus told Branson they would not support him flying Concorde - there was no legal way he could have done it.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


But considering that, technically the Concorde never ever belonged to BA, as it was researched and funded by British (and french) taxpayers funds, and BA never paid anything more than a peppercorn payment for it, I dont see how or what the CAA or Airbus could have done about it?
I was informed that Branson had secured the tooling and technicians, so if he had them and secured the aircraft and it was certified for flight, how could they stop him?

I think it was all down to the fact the the kickback takers from BA just didnt want that upstart Branson to have the flag carrier.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join