Concord may fly again!

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 03:28 AM
link   
This is great news!


The Rolls Royce engines of the former Air France Concorde will undergo an initial examination to see what work needs to be done to start the engines.

Concorde was retired seven years ago, but it is hoped the jet could return to flight in a heritage capacity.


Work starts in £15m plan to get Concorde flying

So only in a Heritage capacity, so not for passengers, but it will be an airshow favourite I bet if they can get one of them flying again.

I always thought it a shame that a) there was only a limited number of aircraft, the orders just never came in thus putting the elite opportunity to fly on it out of the reach of just about everyone, and b) it was retired after it's single accident, you would never see every other aircraft of any given type retired in that way - but that accident was just too high profile.

I really hope they can make this happen!




posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Oh for the love of ... its the Save Concorde Group yet again.

No, Concorde will not fly again, SCG have been beating this to *death* ever since Concorde was retired - but they don't have the funding (if British Airways cannot maintain a flying Concorde for less than £100m with a fully working aircraft, supply chain, manufacturer backing and crew manifest, how the hell can SCG do it for £15m and none of the above?)

Its a publicity move - SCG and another heritage group are doing the examinations, not Rolls Royce, and not Snecma. So what expertise do SCG have in order to make a judgement? Precious little.


it was retired after it's single accident, you would never see every other aircraft of any given type retired in that way - but that accident was just too high profile.


Concorde was not retired because of the accident, it was due to be retired in the first half of the decade anyway because the entire fleet needed C and D checks (up to $15m per plane for a standard fleet aircraft, considerably more for Concorde). The retirement was moved forward for financial reasons.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   
The best title would be "Concorde will run again" as it will only run on the ground for show purposes..



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
"They" said XH588 would never fly again.

How wrong "they" were.

If enough determined people want this to happen, it will.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romanian
The best title would be "Concorde will run again" as it will only run on the ground for show purposes..


That's really not practical, who would put effort into making an aircraft taxi under it's own power? - If that was all that was required they could have the thing towed up and down with tractors.

No it has to take off and land under it's own power.


It is hoped the jet will be able to fly as part of the opening ceremony of the 2012 London Olympics.


Now that is a very admirable goal if you ask me, £15 mill and a lot of help and I don't think that's unreasonable - this single aircraft is not going to go back into regular service, it's simply been mothballed for 7 years.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
"They" said XH588 would never fly again.

How wrong "they" were.

If enough determined people want this to happen, it will.



Who is "they"? I followed XH558 closely for years, and what I saw was massive support from all angles, with everyone certain that the day would come when XH558 would fly.

Plus there is a *huge* difference between the Vulcan restoration project and Concorde:

1. XH558 was taken on from the RAF with an eye to fly her again from the very outset. Concorde was never put in this position, it was simply retired.

2. The Vulcan Operating Company (TVOC) took everything they could lay their hands on when XH558 was handed over to them, including maintenance manuals, spare parts (including engines), certification and training manuals. Concordes spare parts and manuals were auctioned off for charity.

3. TVOC enjoys close support from Vulcans manufacturers (BAE these days), engine manufacturers (Rolls Royce) and all of the manufacturing shops that supplied the RAF for spare parts. Concorde does not have any of these things in place - the manufacturer withdrew support, there is no supply chain remaining, and the engines are being examined by a third party, which just about says it all.

4. TVOC sat down with the Civil Aviation Authority from the very outset and agreed with them how they would get the Vulcan restored and flying again, and the CAA have been partners in the project ever since. Concorde had its airworthiness certification withdrawn and no plan was put into effect for restoration to flight.

5. An order of magnitude more Vulcans were built than Concordes, and they were significantly less complex. This means there is a larger skill base for maintenance, supplies and training out there.

Concorde will not fly again for £15m and 2 years is not realistic - the airframes already required significant checks before they were retired, and the situation has not improved since.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then

That's really not practical, who would put effort into making an aircraft taxi under it's own power? - If that was all that was required they could have the thing towed up and down with tractors.

No it has to take off and land under it's own power.


You do a great disservice to those at Bruntingthorpe, who maintain a lot of cold war jets to taxiing capability, and regularly put on demonstrations.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


OK clearly your fixed in your views, one question though - Why would BA and others involved spend time and money redesigning tyres, kevlar lined fuel tanks, undercarriage components and a total redesign of the interior of the cabin (and I mean total redesign - lots of money) in the time between the aircraft being suspended from flight and the plug actually being pulled?

All of that is no small thing, the tyres alone were of a bespoke design, that indicates an intent to return to flight. The aircraft they are looking at has been maintained in a 'near flight' condition and genuine interest was shown by a number of party's including Virgin airways and Dubai in not just returning Concorde to flight but actually using it on scheduled routes.

The knowledge base is still present, it seems the engines may still be viable. The pieces of the puzzle are there.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


OK clearly your fixed in your views, one question though - Why would BA and others involved spend time and money redesigning tyres, kevlar lined fuel tanks, undercarriage components and a total redesign of the interior of the cabin (and I mean total redesign - lots of money) in the time between the aircraft being suspended from flight and the plug actually being pulled?


Because Concorde would still earn money for several years before its planned retirement - the retirement was brought forward not because of hte crash, but because of the events on September 11th, 2001.

9/11 caused a world wide aviation depression, and coupled with the fact that BA lost quite a few of its best customers, Concorde rapidly began to lose money again. So it was retired.



All of that is no small thing, the tyres alone were of a bespoke design, that indicates an intent to return to flight.


The tyres are not bespoke, for the period between the crash and the retirement of Concorde, both Air France and British Airways used tyres designed for the Airbus A380 on Concorde.


The aircraft they are looking at has been maintained in a 'near flight' condition


A lot of Concorde engineers disagree with that statement - the aircraft in question has been kept in better condition than its siblings, but its far from 'near flight' condition - there is no maintenance chain for one, and it still requires a C and D check.


genuine interest was shown by a number of party's including Virgin airways and Dubai in not just returning Concorde to flight but actually using it on scheduled routes.


Virgin was never realistic in its interest, it was a PR scam - they were told from the very outset by the CAA that they would never be given certification to fly Concorde as they did not have the experience, and the fleet was old which would put a lot of reliance on experience to maintain.

Plus Virgin offered a pittance for the fleet and its maintenance systems - well below that which BA would have got for selling it all as scrap.

No, Virgin was simply engaging in marketing - and by all indications they succeeded.

I also saw no real offers from Dubai.



The knowledge base is still present, it seems the engines may still be viable. The pieces of the puzzle are there.


Then I am sorry to say that you vastly underestimate the issues at hand - there is no knowledge base, no one was retained by either AF or BA as a senior maintenance technician on Concorde and thus has lost their rating to work on the aircraft in such a manner.

Also, the Vulcan restoration had the benefit of receiving several complete and unused sets of engines from the manufacturers, but no such sets exist for F-BTSD - the only engines they have are the ones on the airframe, which have not run in almost seven years (its final commercial flight ended on June 3rd 2003).

Quite a few people vastly overestimate the level at which F-BTSD has been maintained - I fully stand by my assertion that it will not fly for 2012, if indeed ever again.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   
What is also amusing (and pretty standard fair for Save Concorde Group unfortunately) is that the people actually carrying out the inspections (a group called Olumpus 593 which was set up last year) have said that they have no intentions of restoring the aircraft to flight, the entire intention of this check was to see if they could restore the aircraft to taxi condition.



"The objective is not to get it (Concorde) to fly again but to get the engines working again, hoping one day to see it taxi on the tarmac for the pleasure of visitors to the museum," said Frederic Pinlet, head of Olympus 593, named after the Rolls Royce/Snecma engines used on the aircraft.


news.yahoo.com...

Sorry, but Save Concorde Group are grandstanding once again.





new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum