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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Originally posted by RichardPrice






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.




Thanks Richard. Your usual well-informed corrections are appreciated.

I am just thankful that there is no one as well informed on the rest of the stuff I talk about. Either that or they just don't want to bother correcting the insane.




posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
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?


This rubbish again?! BA purchased its Concordes, and the title of ownership to the Concordes in its possession passed to the shareholders when BA was privatised years later.

BA actually paid full sticker price for the 4 planes they ordered (well, BOAC ordered), and paid below sticker for the three extra airframes Aerospatial needed to get rid off after the market crashed.

BA owned them, lock stock and barrel. No one else has *any* claim to them.

Its amusing how often this fallacy comes up - its a false malicious rumour, nothing more.



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?


Where would Branson have secured the tooling from since the only kit available was at Air France and British Airways?

Quite aside from BA and AF not selling them, there were two other major events in Concordes retirement that meant no one had a snowballs chance in hell of flying them again:

1. Airbus withdrew its support as airframe manufacturer.

2. CAA withdrew the aircrafts Airworthiness Certificate.

Without either of those, Concorde doesn't fly. Period.

The CAA even told Branson that they would never issue him an Airworthiness Certificate for Concorde, because it was an aging airframe and Virgin had zero experience of operating the type.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


But according to this
www.concordesst.com...
In the end only British Airways and Air France purchased Concordes, with the airlines initially purchasing 5 and 4 aircraft respectively. The 5 surplus models were placed with the airlines in 1980 and eventually purchased for a nominal cost of £1 / 1 Franc each at the end of the Concorde programme a few years later, as part of a multi million pound support costs deal. British Airways acquired the 2 unsold UK built aircraft, while Air France bought the 3 unsold French built craft.

AFAIK it was these 5 'surplus'models that Branson was interested in.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton

But according to this
www.concordesst.com...
In the end only British Airways and Air France purchased Concordes, with the airlines initially purchasing 5 and 4 aircraft respectively. The 5 surplus models were placed with the airlines in 1980 and eventually purchased for a nominal cost of £1 / 1 Franc each at the end of the Concorde programme a few years later, as part of a multi million pound support costs deal. British Airways acquired the 2 unsold UK built aircraft, while Air France bought the 3 unsold French built craft.

AFAIK it was these 5 'surplus'models that Branson was interested in.


That Concorde SST web page is actually inconsistent with what they post elsewhere on that site, for example in the fleet details text for G-BOAF it says the following:



Concorde 216 was purchased by BA as their 6th Concorde, although sold by British Aerospace for a token sum rumourded ot be £1000 + 10,000FF for the airframe and £100 + 1000FF for each engine).

BA then paid the full costs of over a Million pounds for their own Buyer Furnished equipment, such as radios, nav gear, galleys, seat etc.. On entry into service is was pretty much the same as the original 5 a/c.


www.concordesst.com...

My own investigations suggest the reality is more like the above price than £1/1FF.

G-BOAG was loaned to BA on a sale or return basis, but suffered engine surges. She was eventually purchased by BA as a source of spares, eventually to be returned to service.

Branson still had no rights to them, since they were both owned by British Airways 100% no matter what the price BA paid for them. They were BA's when BA was privatised, they belong to BA's shareholders - no one has any legitimate claim to them.

Also, the following from the British Airways Concorde FAQ:



Did the British Government give Concorde to British Airways for one pound UK sterling?
Claims that we paid GBP1.00 (UK Sterling) for the Concorde fleet or that it was given in trust are wrong.

British Airways predecessors paid the manufacturers more than GBP155 million for the Concorde fleet (source:1977/78 Report and Accounts) and over the following 27 years of operation British Airways has invested more than GBP1 billion in the fleet.


www.britishairways.com...

If that doesn't clear this up, what will?!


[edit on 18/8/2007 by RichardPrice]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   
If they ever somehow revive the Concorde then i would see the revival off the TU 144 too because then they can compete and it would give people a choise...

But it are all false hopes... It will never happen and every day that goes by, the planes are weakening and its qualified personell gets older untill its too late....



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   
With all due respect Richard

you are extremely well informed on the aircraft and I am grateful for the information - but still the question is - what is a concord doing at Heathrow sitting in full view of the public outside the BA maintianence hangers ?



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silk
With all due respect Richard

you are extremely well informed on the aircraft and I am grateful for the information - but still the question is - what is a concord doing at Heathrow sitting in full view of the public outside the BA maintianence hangers ?


It used to be parked by the side of runway 23 (the cross wind runway) until BAA required the space for operational use, so BA moved it to their maintenance area.

Its literally doing nothing, its waiting for Terminal 5 to be complete so BA can decide where to put it - at the moment it has no cabin fittings or cockpit so it won't ever be opened to the public. It will eventually end up as a gate guard somewhere on static display, hopefully T5 if BA can find a place for it (T5 was designed prior to the Concorde retirement), but if not then chances are it will have its wings removed and be trucked somewhere else.

It is serving a useful purpose however - its full of British Airways flight magazines



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
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.


- Same reason as always Freedom ERP, cost.

You can't just take the Concorde blueprints and swap aluminium for composites etc etc.
It would require a new plane - and of course anyone connected with such an undertaking would undoubtedly want to go for a new plane designed with current market projections as opposed to those dreamt up in the 1950s/60s.
Getting new engines that could be certified & be capable of day-in-day-out sustained & extended supersonic flight would be a huge exercise in itself (this was one of the often unremarked outstanding qualities Concorde and her Olympus engines had, very very few, if any, of the supersonic military large aircraft could do this).
It would just be too expensive and complex (and as Richard has so rightly pointed out even a return to the air of the actual machines themselves would be another utterly huge and complex task).

Concorde was a truly vast undertaking (in actual fact according to some observers it was not so different to large elements of the then contemporary US or USSR manned space programs in terms of ground breaking technology, complexity, costs and testing).

To research, design, test and fly a successor aircraft is undoubtedly going to require multi-national partnership (again) but this time quite possible a trans-global effort involving several of the leading technologically advanced nations instead of just two.

The costs will be astronomic and the returns probably limited to say the least (as was the case with Concorde......that's usually how come this sort of thing requires a national prestige 'label' to get going where nations can choose to ignore the basic economic argument when the economic case is hardly compelling but right now that kind of 'national project' is out of fashion hence the lack of any visible efforts to date).

Mind you, things change & mankind has a habit of ignoring the 'bean-counters' every once in a while......after-all if we'd always listened to them almost all of mankind's truly greatest achievements would never have happened......what immediate economic value could there have been in the Pyramids or the Sphinx, eh?

[edit on 19-8-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   
This might be a little off-topic.

Does anyone else feel that Concordes in museums in the U.S. should be preserved in France or Britain? I just don't think it does Concorde justice to be sitting on a barge in New York (Intrepid museum-now in Brooklyn, but will be coming back). First of all, most New Yorkers hated this plane because it broke many windows. Also, French and British taxpayers payed for it, not U.S. taxpayers (btw, I'm American). They should have the right to admire it, even when not in service. How can you put such a graceful bird in a foreign city with big, ugly (many) buildings? If one Concorde could go back to the UK, this has got to be the one. Please speak up if you want Concordes to return home.

[edit on 19-8-2007 by bdn12]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
I have joined Club Concorder for £10.00. I have since mailed them back and had no reply it seems that they have gone to ground. Just before I paid for my membership I asked them which Concorde they were thinking of trying to get back in the air. They replied saying that non of the BA Concordes would ever fly again, but they wanted to try for the AF Foxtrot Charlie that is in Toulouse, as this had the best chance of getting back in the air.
It seems they may have relised that there is no chance of getting this plane even if the parts and manuals were still available, I would have loved to have seen Concorde fly again but I am now convinced it will never happen. It is a shame so all we have left are the memories and some good clips on Youtube.


[edit on 18-4-2008 by NickAston]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by bdn12
Does anyone else feel that Concordes in museums in the U.S. should be preserved in France or Britain?


- So long as we still have a few of them (and we do) then I don't suppose we'll mind too much if a couple go elsewhere
(tho hopefully they're being looked after properly).

It's only fair - we have an equally rare SR71 at our Duxford IWM for instance.


Originally posted by bdn12
most New Yorkers hated this plane because it broke many windows.


- Now this is interesting, did it really?

Cos I know the 1970's US anti-Concorde gang made all sorts of claims about how terrible it was and how damaging it would be in regular service but I doubt this is anything more than a myth.

Concorde operated under strict guide-lines and never flew at supersonic speeds over the US (and therefore could not have generated the over-pressures necessary to break windows from it's sonic boom etc).


When the US ban on JFK Concorde operations was lifted in February 1977, New York banned Concorde locally. The ban came to an end on 17 October 1977 when the Supreme Court of the United States declined to overturn a lower court's ruling rejecting the Port Authority's efforts to continue the ban
(The noise report noted that Air Force One, at the time a Boeing 707, was louder than Concorde at subsonic speeds and during takeoff and landing.).

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 18-4-2008 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 06:01 AM
link   
I started a post ages ago on this:

?French to get Conrcorde Flying Again

Dont know how prgressed it is.

Jensy



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
its not going to happen - all the spares have been sold off - the machinery to make the spares has been sold , the aircraft themselves have been gutted unless they are to be preserved - in essence the cost to get it to fly again would be similar to a totally new aircraft.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   
I agree with Freedom ERP's post it is running costs why concorde was retired, the crash in france was all down to a piece of metal on the runway.

I think they should have at least 1 concorde in the sky as it's such a great plane hopefully they will 1 day.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join