Concorde to fly again ?

[BarbaricAvatar]

If you throw enough snowballs into Hell eventually the climate will cool enough to allow you to maintain solidity.

I don't care how small the possibility. If there is any tiny pinprick of a chance of Concorde flying again -even just once- it's the best aviation news since XH558 returned to the sky in 2007. And that project "only" cost £6.5 million compared to the alleged £120mil available for this Concorde project.
I don't care if it's click-bait, the mere suggestion of the idea has made me feel really good today.

[J4CKO]

I don think it will happen for many reasons, but, theoretically If we ignore safety and regulations, what would it need to get one in the air, let's say the pilots aren't fussed about the risk and it's over somewhere unpopulated ?

Fill it with fuel, fire it up and hope for the best ?

[RWD cossie wil]

eccles said:

SlipStream77 said:

eccles said:

SlipStream77 said:

Sarah Billington said:

... the safety standards of today wouldn't allow it as it was always fairly ropey safety wise.

No it wasn't, it had an exceptional safety record until the incident in France. That wasn't even a fault with the a/c per se, it was due to FOD.

So all those delaminated rudder incident were perfectly safe then! Just because an aircraft doesn't crash a lot, doesn't mean it has a good safety record.

It had two rudders specifically to mitigate potential failures. In all the rudder delamination events the aircraft landed safely.

Ah, so you equate parts of your primary flying controls falling off and being perfectly safe?
I'll just repeat my point, just because it doesn't crash, doesn't mean it's safe.

Most modern airliners have a lot of issues that you don't hear about.... That's the point of double/triple/quadruple system redundancy. Airbus still suffer from flap delamination now, it's just watched far more closely & picked up on maintenance checks before it (hopefully) becomes a serious issue. 737s suffered (& still do) big problems with midflap carridgre spindles shearing, these items are the size of a coke can made of solid steel, yet they still shear! Every day thousands of aircraft land with defects, that data is shared amongst the aviation industry & fixes, modifications, inspections & procedures change to improve am already incredibly safe industry....

Other issues caused numerous deaths, yet the aircraft kept flying until a solution was found.

A good example of such was the 737 rudder valve, a number of aircraft were lost to "hard overs", yet the 737 is still considered a very safe aircraft.

Concorde was an incredible aircraft & had a zero accident rate until AFs disaster, even then it was an external event that caused it. Sadly they were very unlucky even then, the outcome could have been so different. I'd happily have flown on a Concorde without any hesitation.

[threespires]

Of course it will happen, it will transport the first new TVR to its first customer....

[V8 Fettler]

J4CKO said:

I don think it will happen for many reasons, but, theoretically If we ignore safety and regulations, what would it need to get one in the air, let's say the pilots aren't fussed about the risk and it's over somewhere unpopulated ?

Fill it with fuel, fire it up and hope for the best ?

Money

[Dr Jekyll]

V8 Fettler said:

J4CKO said:

I don think it will happen for many reasons, but, theoretically If we ignore safety and regulations, what would it need to get one in the air, let's say the pilots aren't fussed about the risk and it's over somewhere unpopulated ?

Fill it with fuel, fire it up and hope for the best ?

Money

When NASA put a TU144 back in the air for a couple of dozen flights in the 90s it reportedly cost 350 million USD, including the cost of replacing the engines with a different type.

For the ex BA Concordes and most of the air France ones the hydraulics would have to be rebuilt because they were drained of fluid after the final flights. The French one this project is supposed to be interested is claimed to have been kept close to taxiable condition so might not require much more than a major service then gas it up and kick the tyres. But this assumes that parts are available.

If NASA wanted to put a Concorde in the air on the same basis as the TU144 they could technical do it, but Airbus wouldn't agree because they want to keep SST expertise to themselves.

Ultimately, it's paperwork that makes it impossible. But even if regulations were loosened so that a complex aircraft could be flown without manufacturer support (which is about as likely as the motorway limit being abolished) I can't see it happening.

[RWD cossie wil]

Dr Jekyll said:

V8 Fettler said:

J4CKO said:

I don think it will happen for many reasons, but, theoretically If we ignore safety and regulations, what would it need to get one in the air, let's say the pilots aren't fussed about the risk and it's over somewhere unpopulated ?

Fill it with fuel, fire it up and hope for the best ?

Money

When NASA put a TU144 back in the air for a couple of dozen flights in the 90s it reportedly cost 350 million USD, including the cost of replacing the engines with a different type.

For the ex BA Concordes and most of the air France ones the hydraulics would have to be rebuilt because they were drained of fluid after the final flights. The French one this project is supposed to be interested is claimed to have been kept close to taxiable condition so might not require much more than a major service then gas it up and kick the tyres. But this assumes that parts are available.

If NASA wanted to put a Concorde in the air on the same basis as the TU144 they could technical do it, but Airbus wouldn't agree because they want to keep SST expertise to themselves.

Ultimately, it's paperwork that makes it impossible. But even if regulations were loosened so that a complex aircraft could be flown without manufacturer support (which is about as likely as the motorway limit being abolished) I can't see it happening.

They could always put it on one of the African countries register, from some of the aircraft I have worked on it seems they are not really that fussed about the trivial matters of paperwork, certification, safety etc

[mph1977]

V8 Fettler said:

J4CKO said:

I don think it will happen for many reasons, but, theoretically If we ignore safety and regulations, what would it need to get one in the air, let's say the pilots aren't fussed about the risk and it's over somewhere unpopulated ?

Fill it with fuel, fire it up and hope for the best ?

Money

plus of course 2 pilots and a flight engineer plus ATC staff and ground engineers who were willing to commit professional suicide

[moribund]

Dr Jekyll said:

When NASA put a TU144 back in the air for a couple of dozen flights in the 90s it reportedly cost 350 million USD, including the cost of replacing the engines with a different type

I didn't know about that. Very interesting to read about it. I wonder if the TU144 is the most expensive per hour flown aircraft to make it into production? Several were made, none of them flew very much, and this particular one then had another 350 mill spent for 19 flights!

[speedchick]

I was part of the group that was initially trying for this (it was someone that had signed the petition that brought me over here), too much time has passed now and there is no way Airbus are ever going to let it happen.

As much as I would love to see it, it's just not possible, myabe 10 years ago, but certainly not now.

[V8 Fettler]

Dr Jekyll said:

V8 Fettler said:

J4CKO said:

I don think it will happen for many reasons, but, theoretically If we ignore safety and regulations, what would it need to get one in the air, let's say the pilots aren't fussed about the risk and it's over somewhere unpopulated ?

Fill it with fuel, fire it up and hope for the best ?

Money

When NASA put a TU144 back in the air for a couple of dozen flights in the 90s it reportedly cost 350 million USD, including the cost of replacing the engines with a different type.

For the ex BA Concordes and most of the air France ones the hydraulics would have to be rebuilt because they were drained of fluid after the final flights. The French one this project is supposed to be interested is claimed to have been kept close to taxiable condition so might not require much more than a major service then gas it up and kick the tyres. But this assumes that parts are available.

If NASA wanted to put a Concorde in the air on the same basis as the TU144 they could technical do it, but Airbus wouldn't agree because they want to keep SST expertise to themselves.

Ultimately, it's paperwork that makes it impossible. But even if regulations were loosened so that a complex aircraft could be flown without manufacturer support (which is about as likely as the motorway limit being abolished) I can't see it happening.

I doubt if Lockheed or similar would need Airbus SST expertise to resurrect Concorde. I can't see that any of the organisations who currently have control over the future of Concorde have any meaningful interest in the aircraft flying in Europe, their perception is that the risks outweigh the benefits.

[V8 Fettler]

mph1977 said:

V8 Fettler said:

J4CKO said:

I don think it will happen for many reasons, but, theoretically If we ignore safety and regulations, what would it need to get one in the air, let's say the pilots aren't fussed about the risk and it's over somewhere unpopulated ?

Fill it with fuel, fire it up and hope for the best ?

Money

plus of course 2 pilots and a flight engineer plus ATC staff and ground engineers who were willing to commit professional suicide

In Europe, possibly.

[aeropilot]

V8 Fettler said:

I can't see that any of the organisations who currently have control over the future of Concorde have any meaningful interest in the aircraft flying in Europe ever again

EFA

[Foliage]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Foliage said:

Too fast to be intercepted by any current active military aircraft

Sorry but that is just not true, with a supersonic target it all depends upon the intercept geometry. No Fighter Controller worth their salt would set up a long stern chase against such a target.

While difficult, it always was/is perfectly possible to roll an Interceptor out within missile kill perameters.

I know, its just what all the conspiracy idiots say.

I did hear a good explanation of the reason and it pretty much boiled down to the cost vs convenience, concorde did the trip in 4hours ish but you still had 2 hours to wait in the shopping mall and another hour to wait for your bag/immigration once you arrive. It was apparently quicker to take a small private jet as you eliminated the waiting around at either end, straight on straight off pretty much, plus you didn't have to sit with the riff raff, it was private.

So the market that concorde was built for was eliminated by the increase in availability of small private jets, which while more expensive was seen as more convenient & opulent. This is also the reason why I don't think we will see another supersonic airliner in my lifetime, perhaps never. We will likely see supersonic business jets though, if that isn't already a thing. And of course their is the 'green' marketing concerns of any consumer orientated company that chooses to operate one.

TBH I think it was a compound of issues, dated expensive to maintain aircraft, better alternatives so it key client base were no longer the customers.

All things have to come to an end.

Edited by Foliage on Monday 21st September 11:51

[anonymous-user]

I agree with Foliage, at the time people we're wondering whether we would ever see another supersonic aircraft like Concorde, especially when you can fly in a private jet and bypass all of the hassle of a large airport.

[Eric Mc]

There are no supersonic business jets - yet. But I am pretty sure we will see one within the next decade.

[Foliage]

Eric Mc said:

There are no supersonic business jets - yet. But I am pretty sure we will see one within the next decade.

Yeah, just had a quick read about this, they are apparently trying to eliminate the boom, I think they have their work cut out.

The Gulfstream G650 does Mach 0.925....

[Eric Mc]

Could you hear the sonic boom on the ground from an SR-71/YF-12/A-12 when it was cruising higher than 70,000 feet?

[Mave]

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....

[Eric Mc]

Lockheed hasn't designed a civil aeroplane for close on half a century.