Concorde to fly again ?

[eccles]

Dr Jekyll said:

Why not put the £120 million into cloning a Mammoth? Almost as exciting as bringing Concorde back and verging on the plausible.

Imagine a Mammoth with reheat!

[Simpo Two]

Well you could light their farts.

[Tango13]

el stovey said:

JuniorD said:

el stovey said:

Halmyre said:

williamp said:

lufbramatt said:

I've got a compressor blade from an Olympus on my desk at work, any spares stores have long been split up.

Right! Its a start. Anyone got anything else we can use? I might have some old kerosene in the garage we could use. How far will a gallon get us?

I know a chap who got some Concorde champagne flutes on ebay, I'll give him a call.

I know an engineer a first officer and an ex hostie who all worked on Concorde.

Me too. Plus I know a guy whose dad was a Captain on Concorde. Plus Plus I worked on Concorde myself

Excellent. We're nearly there. Now we just need manufacturer support for the engines and airframe, an aircraft and some funds to get things started.

My Dad made some springs for Concorde back in the late '60s if that's any help?

[V8 Fettler]

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

I doubt if Lockheed or similar would need Airbus SST expertise to resurrect Concorde.

Nothing is impossible (apparently)... but don't underestimate how hard it is to back-engineer the design, manufacture and operation of something as complex as Concorde without any access to the original design intent.

Could Lockheed design something like Concorde from scratch? No doubt. Could Lockheed write all the necessary paperwork for something they didn't design? Much more sketchy....

Money being the key issue.

Like I said, nothing is impossible - but we're in the billions here, not millions.

I doubt if it's possible to currently achieve anything close to cost certainty for return to flight. Feasibility study (including intrusive inspections and tests) would be a good start. GBP10m?

What criteria are you going to test and inspect against? You borescope something and find corrosion or a crack or a bit of fretting - what next? Does it need to be fixed or not? Who's going to work up the repair scheme for a part of an unknown material subjected to an unknown duty?

You're jumping too far ahead. Client's requirements -> concept -> schematic design -> detailed design. We're not at stage one yet.

You can take things one step at a time if you like but it doesn't change the end position. If I tell you I've got £500 to buy a new car, it doesn't matter that I haven't set out my requirements or studied the options. I'm not going to get a new car for £500. Similarly Lockheed aren't going to back engineer Concorde for £100M.

There is very good cost certainty associated with the purchase of a new car, so cannot be compared with costing a unique and potentially complex engineering project.

Perhaps a feasibility study has already been undertaken? I don't know. Speculative purchases on ebay can be rewarding, not certain about purchasing a Concorde unseen though.

Perhaps the Concorde at Le Bourget (I thought there was more than one Concorde at Le Bourget, could be possible confusion!) has been stored in such a way that re-commissioning is almost a formality from the engineering perspective?

[Dr Jekyll]

This all reminds me of the so called proposal back in about 1980 to put the TSR2 into service. It all came back to one nutter who commissioned an 'engineers report' based on someone peering at the one in Cosford, then cherry picked comments from it and ignored the conclusion. Oh yes, he also said the government were seriously considering the plan, when their consideration had only gone as far as realising it was all barking mad.


I'm sure it's possible to find half baked feasibility studies containing the odd comment that sounds encouraging out of context. But the fact is that even if there was total deregulation as to what could and couldn't fly, the aircraft aren't for sale, and the parts aren't available. Given a well preserved aircraft and a stock of parts including some zero time engines, £120 million might be in the right ballpark, but without the parts forget it.

[Mave]

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

I doubt if Lockheed or similar would need Airbus SST expertise to resurrect Concorde.

Nothing is impossible (apparently)... but don't underestimate how hard it is to back-engineer the design, manufacture and operation of something as complex as Concorde without any access to the original design intent.

Could Lockheed design something like Concorde from scratch? No doubt. Could Lockheed write all the necessary paperwork for something they didn't design? Much more sketchy....

Money being the key issue.

Like I said, nothing is impossible - but we're in the billions here, not millions.

I doubt if it's possible to currently achieve anything close to cost certainty for return to flight. Feasibility study (including intrusive inspections and tests) would be a good start. GBP10m?

What criteria are you going to test and inspect against? You borescope something and find corrosion or a crack or a bit of fretting - what next? Does it need to be fixed or not? Who's going to work up the repair scheme for a part of an unknown material subjected to an unknown duty?

You're jumping too far ahead. Client's requirements -> concept -> schematic design -> detailed design. We're not at stage one yet.

You can take things one step at a time if you like but it doesn't change the end position. If I tell you I've got £500 to buy a new car, it doesn't matter that I haven't set out my requirements or studied the options. I'm not going to get a new car for £500. Similarly Lockheed aren't going to back engineer Concorde for £100M.

There is very good cost certainty associated with the purchase of a new car, so cannot be compared with costing a unique and potentially complex engineering project.

There are more unknowns than unknowns. Projects never over run and over cost because you find you don't need to do things. They over run and over cost because you need to do more than you thought. Complex engineering project? Too right, and you get very little complex engineering for £100M.

[eccles]

Tango13 said:

el stovey said:

JuniorD said:

el stovey said:

Halmyre said:

williamp said:

lufbramatt said:

I've got a compressor blade from an Olympus on my desk at work, any spares stores have long been split up.

Right! Its a start. Anyone got anything else we can use? I might have some old kerosene in the garage we could use. How far will a gallon get us?

I know a chap who got some Concorde champagne flutes on ebay, I'll give him a call.

I know an engineer a first officer and an ex hostie who all worked on Concorde.

Me too. Plus I know a guy whose dad was a Captain on Concorde. Plus Plus I worked on Concorde myself

Excellent. We're nearly there. Now we just need manufacturer support for the engines and airframe, an aircraft and some funds to get things started.

My Dad made some springs for Concorde back in the late '60s if that's any help?

I used to work in the hangar where the droop nose was made. You could still see the rawl bolts in the floor from where the jig was mounted.

[V8 Fettler]

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

I doubt if Lockheed or similar would need Airbus SST expertise to resurrect Concorde.

Nothing is impossible (apparently)... but don't underestimate how hard it is to back-engineer the design, manufacture and operation of something as complex as Concorde without any access to the original design intent.

Could Lockheed design something like Concorde from scratch? No doubt. Could Lockheed write all the necessary paperwork for something they didn't design? Much more sketchy....

Money being the key issue.

Like I said, nothing is impossible - but we're in the billions here, not millions.

I doubt if it's possible to currently achieve anything close to cost certainty for return to flight. Feasibility study (including intrusive inspections and tests) would be a good start. GBP10m?

What criteria are you going to test and inspect against? You borescope something and find corrosion or a crack or a bit of fretting - what next? Does it need to be fixed or not? Who's going to work up the repair scheme for a part of an unknown material subjected to an unknown duty?

You're jumping too far ahead. Client's requirements -> concept -> schematic design -> detailed design. We're not at stage one yet.

You can take things one step at a time if you like but it doesn't change the end position. If I tell you I've got £500 to buy a new car, it doesn't matter that I haven't set out my requirements or studied the options. I'm not going to get a new car for £500. Similarly Lockheed aren't going to back engineer Concorde for £100M.

There is very good cost certainty associated with the purchase of a new car, so cannot be compared with costing a unique and potentially complex engineering project.

There are more unknowns than unknowns. Projects never over run and over cost because you find you don't need to do things. They over run and over cost because you need to do more than you thought. Complex engineering project? Too right, and you get very little complex engineering for £100M.

The primary purpose of a feasibility study is to convert unknowns to knowns. Reducing the scope of works as the construction / refurbishment phase progresses doesn't always lead to cost savings, there are several processes where potential issues can arise e.g. phasing, scheduling and co-ordination. Good design and project management should control these issues.

Do you know if the £100m is based on anything factual?

[EddyP]

Mave said:

There are more unknowns than unknowns. Projects never over run and over cost because you find you don't need to do things. They over run and over cost because you need to do more than you thought. Complex engineering project? Too right, and you get very little complex engineering for £100M.

Exactly!

The main reason that XH558 could return to the sky was the fact that the guy who bought it also bought the entire spares stock, an ENORMOUS amount of spares, and every single manual and bit of paperwork. Infact if it wasn't for the manuals she'd have never got off the ground again, they've got important documents that list every permitted mod, without these any mod would have to go through a design authority and that would cost a crazy amount of money.

Have airbus even released the technical manuals etc.? I doubt it.

[Neonblau]

V8 Fettler said:

The primary purpose of a feasibility study is to convert unknowns to knowns. Reducing the scope of works as the construction / refurbishment phase progresses doesn't always lead to cost savings, there are several processes where potential issues can arise e.g. phasing, scheduling and co-ordination. Good design and project management should control these issues.

Do you know if the £100m is based on anything factual?

I doubt if anything in the "Concorde fly again" world is based on anything factual

It won't happen. Ever.

[aeropilot]

Neonblau said:

I doubt if anything in the "Concorde fly again" world is based on anything factual

It won't happen. Ever.

[Mave]

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

I doubt if Lockheed or similar would need Airbus SST expertise to resurrect Concorde.

Nothing is impossible (apparently)... but don't underestimate how hard it is to back-engineer the design, manufacture and operation of something as complex as Concorde without any access to the original design intent.

Could Lockheed design something like Concorde from scratch? No doubt. Could Lockheed write all the necessary paperwork for something they didn't design? Much more sketchy....

Money being the key issue.

Like I said, nothing is impossible - but we're in the billions here, not millions.

I doubt if it's possible to currently achieve anything close to cost certainty for return to flight. Feasibility study (including intrusive inspections and tests) would be a good start. GBP10m?

What criteria are you going to test and inspect against? You borescope something and find corrosion or a crack or a bit of fretting - what next? Does it need to be fixed or not? Who's going to work up the repair scheme for a part of an unknown material subjected to an unknown duty?

You're jumping too far ahead. Client's requirements -> concept -> schematic design -> detailed design. We're not at stage one yet.

You can take things one step at a time if you like but it doesn't change the end position. If I tell you I've got £500 to buy a new car, it doesn't matter that I haven't set out my requirements or studied the options. I'm not going to get a new car for £500. Similarly Lockheed aren't going to back engineer Concorde for £100M.

There is very good cost certainty associated with the purchase of a new car, so cannot be compared with costing a unique and potentially complex engineering project.

There are more unknowns than unknowns. Projects never over run and over cost because you find you don't need to do things. They over run and over cost because you need to do more than you thought. Complex engineering project? Too right, and you get very little complex engineering for £100M.

The primary purpose of a feasibility study is to convert unknowns to knowns. Reducing the scope of works as the construction / refurbishment phase progresses doesn't always lead to cost savings, there are several processes where potential issues can arise e.g. phasing, scheduling and co-ordination. Good design and project management should control these issues.

Do you know if the £100m is based on anything factual?

My £100M comment is based on the estimated and incurred costs of various programmes I've been involved in- including all-new production programmes, limited flight release experimental programmes, in service mod programmes, and derivative product programmes.

[Mave]

EddyP said:

Mave said:

There are more unknowns than unknowns. Projects never over run and over cost because you find you don't need to do things. They over run and over cost because you need to do more than you thought. Complex engineering project? Too right, and you get very little complex engineering for £100M.

Exactly!

The main reason that XH558 could return to the sky was the fact that the guy who bought it also bought the entire spares stock, an ENORMOUS amount of spares, and every single manual and bit of paperwork. Infact if it wasn't for the manuals she'd have never got off the ground again, they've got important documents that list every permitted mod, without these any mod would have to go through a design authority and that would cost a crazy amount of money.

Even with all that documentation, they STILL needed to go through the design authority on occasions.... which means that the design authority needed to retain THEIR documentation and experience as well, which I don't think is the case for Concorde

[V8 Fettler]

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

Mave said:

V8 Fettler said:

I doubt if Lockheed or similar would need Airbus SST expertise to resurrect Concorde.

Nothing is impossible (apparently)... but don't underestimate how hard it is to back-engineer the design, manufacture and operation of something as complex as Concorde without any access to the original design intent.

Could Lockheed design something like Concorde from scratch? No doubt. Could Lockheed write all the necessary paperwork for something they didn't design? Much more sketchy....

Money being the key issue.

Like I said, nothing is impossible - but we're in the billions here, not millions.

I doubt if it's possible to currently achieve anything close to cost certainty for return to flight. Feasibility study (including intrusive inspections and tests) would be a good start. GBP10m?

What criteria are you going to test and inspect against? You borescope something and find corrosion or a crack or a bit of fretting - what next? Does it need to be fixed or not? Who's going to work up the repair scheme for a part of an unknown material subjected to an unknown duty?

You're jumping too far ahead. Client's requirements -> concept -> schematic design -> detailed design. We're not at stage one yet.

You can take things one step at a time if you like but it doesn't change the end position. If I tell you I've got £500 to buy a new car, it doesn't matter that I haven't set out my requirements or studied the options. I'm not going to get a new car for £500. Similarly Lockheed aren't going to back engineer Concorde for £100M.

There is very good cost certainty associated with the purchase of a new car, so cannot be compared with costing a unique and potentially complex engineering project.

There are more unknowns than unknowns. Projects never over run and over cost because you find you don't need to do things. They over run and over cost because you need to do more than you thought. Complex engineering project? Too right, and you get very little complex engineering for £100M.

The primary purpose of a feasibility study is to convert unknowns to knowns. Reducing the scope of works as the construction / refurbishment phase progresses doesn't always lead to cost savings, there are several processes where potential issues can arise e.g. phasing, scheduling and co-ordination. Good design and project management should control these issues.

Do you know if the £100m is based on anything factual?

My £100M comment is based on the estimated and incurred costs of various programmes I've been involved in- including all-new production programmes, limited flight release experimental programmes, in service mod programmes, and derivative product programmes.

Ah. I thought it was reference to the £100m referred to in the article (having re-read the article I see it mentions £120m). If substantial works are required and the aircraft is to fly in Europe on a commercial basis (assuming CAA and equivalent approve) then £100m (or £120m) would surely be the first stage payment.

[BlackLabel]

On the subject of supersonic jets does anyone think this aerion/airbus project will materialise?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerion_AS2

http://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/airbus-h...

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-11-13/ae...

[RoverP6B]

No. Look at that wing, for a start. It's as pitifully tiny relative to the rest of the airframe as that of the Lockheed Starfighter.

[hidetheelephants]

RoverP6B said:

No. Look at that wing, for a start. It's as pitifully tiny relative to the rest of the airframe as that of the Lockheed Starfighter.

It's a pretty sensible wing for an SST, small, stubby and mounted somewhere at the back to account for CoL shift at high speed. I'm slightly concerned by the spiel about engine reliability; no-one has worried about engine reliability since the 1980s, it's a non-issue unless they're proposing to use some russian engines made from potatoes, surplus tractor parts and despair. Modern aircraft that size have no business having more than 2.

[V8 Fettler]

hidetheelephants said:

RoverP6B said:

No. Look at that wing, for a start. It's as pitifully tiny relative to the rest of the airframe as that of the Lockheed Starfighter.

It's a pretty sensible wing for an SST, small, stubby and mounted somewhere at the back to account for CoL shift at high speed. I'm slightly concerned by the spiel about engine reliability; no-one has worried about engine reliability since the 1980s, it's a non-issue unless they're proposing to use some russian engines made from potatoes, surplus tractor parts and despair. Modern aircraft that size have no business having more than 2.

Triples always sound better than twins.

[mph1977]

V8 Fettler said:

hidetheelephants said:

RoverP6B said:

No. Look at that wing, for a start. It's as pitifully tiny relative to the rest of the airframe as that of the Lockheed Starfighter.

It's a pretty sensible wing for an SST, small, stubby and mounted somewhere at the back to account for CoL shift at high speed. I'm slightly concerned by the spiel about engine reliability; no-one has worried about engine reliability since the 1980s, it's a non-issue unless they're proposing to use some russian engines made from potatoes, surplus tractor parts and despair. Modern aircraft that size have no business having more than 2.

Triples always sound better than twins.

also avoids any need to by ETOPS certified , which is why the commercial tri jets existed pre extended ETOPS...

[anonymous-user]

mph1977 said:

also avoids any need to by ETOPS certified , which is why the commercial tri jets existed pre extended ETOPS...

Are you sure that's correct? etops rules don't generally cover business jets and are also being extended to cover aircraft with more than two engines.