Concorde to fly again ?
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
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?
I recall that Col Rich Graham said he'd accidentally boomed over USA once. I don't know what altitude he had when it happened.Incidentally just announced for anyone interested: On 15 March 2016 Col Rich Graham USAF retd. will return to present a sequel to his 15 October 2014 lecture entitled “SR-71 “Blackbird” Recce Mission from RAF MIldenhall to Murmansk”. For more information see www.loughborough-raes.org.uk
Foliage said:
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.
Which small private jets do you have in mind?In any case I don't think that was a major reason. BA wanted to keep Concorde flying a bit longer so they must have been getting enough passengers to make it worthwhile. There is a big difference between being able to afford the 20% more than first class which Concorde cost and the cost of a private jet with transatlantic range, especially for just 1 or 2 travellers which is common for business trips.
One thing BA did discover during the first grounded period was that a lot of Concorde passengers travelled BA First instead, so less revenue but negligible cost for BA if the seat would otherwise be empty. But it was maintenance costs, especially once Air France pulled out, which was the main reason for permanent grounding.
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....
Dr Jekyll said:
But it was maintenance costs, especially once Air France pulled out, which was the main reason for permanent grounding.
It was the fees that had to be paid to Airbus for the DA that BA couldn't make the sums pay once AF wanted out.BA Concorde ops were screwed, many years beforehand when BAe pulled out of the commercial market and transferred it's half of Concorde DA to Airbus, putting all Concorde control (other than engines) into the hands of the French, who really were not interested in it anymore. Had BAe retained it's share in the DA, I suspect that a more favourable 'deal' would have been done to BA to allow BA to have continued flying it alone until it's proposed OSD of 2012(?) and sticking a collective two-fingers up to the French.......
Eric Mc said:
Not really. DEMAND is the key issue. You need a customer to build an aircraft. Concorde's customer was the UK and French taxpayer.
Unless someone is prepared to pay an aircraft manufacturer - they won't be building anything.
We're talking about bringing an existing aircraft back into limited service for display purposes as I understand it, not reinstating a fleet for transatlantic filghts.Unless someone is prepared to pay an aircraft manufacturer - they won't be building anything.
WinstonWolf said:
Eric Mc said:
Not really. DEMAND is the key issue. You need a customer to build an aircraft. Concorde's customer was the UK and French taxpayer.
Unless someone is prepared to pay an aircraft manufacturer - they won't be building anything.
We're talking about bringing an existing aircraft back into limited service for display purposes as I understand it, not reinstating a fleet for transatlantic filghts.Unless someone is prepared to pay an aircraft manufacturer - they won't be building anything.
WinstonWolf said:
Eric Mc said:
Not really. DEMAND is the key issue. You need a customer to build an aircraft. Concorde's customer was the UK and French taxpayer.
Unless someone is prepared to pay an aircraft manufacturer - they won't be building anything.
We're talking about bringing an existing aircraft back into limited service for display purposes as I understand it, not reinstating a fleet for transatlantic filghts.Unless someone is prepared to pay an aircraft manufacturer - they won't be building anything.
I don't think any deception is planned to be honest. The Internet has always been prone to "hey guys lets do this" projects from enthusiastic people with no idea of the problems or the work involved. If you want any further proof, just look at Kickstarter. Hardly a week goes by without someone promoting yet another under-$100-3D-printer. The amount they propose to raise is usually around 10% of the real cost, I believe this to be no different.
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 ?
MoneyFill it with fuel, fire it up and hope for the best ?
Given the current condition of the grounded fleet and the time since they were grounded, it's likely that they'd need a new battery at the very least. Possibly more.
Foliage said:
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.
I don't think biz jets had anything to do with it's demise. I remember reading an article/interview with a former BA captain Jock something in which he said it wasn't uncommon for passengers to step off Concorde and on to their waiting biz jets. The other thing i remember from said article is he said the highest groundspeed he saw was 1305 knots, bloody marvellous. 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
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....
I do not believe for one moment that they will be able to bring this one off. Rolls-Royce, SNECMA, Airbus etc simply will not allow it. That's quite aside from acquiring an aeroplane with all relevant paperwork or indeed building a new one. There is zero chance of them obtaining the relevant design authorities (or cooperation from same).
I'd love to be proved wrong. I won't be, though. It's a total and utter non-starter.
I'd love to be proved wrong. I won't be, though. It's a total and utter non-starter.
RoverP6B said:
I do not believe for one moment that they will be able to bring this one off. Rolls-Royce, SNECMA, Airbus etc simply will not allow it. That's quite aside from acquiring an aeroplane with all relevant paperwork or indeed building a new one. There is zero chance of them obtaining the relevant design authorities (or cooperation from same).
I'd love to be proved wrong. I won't be, though. It's a total and utter non-starter.
Daft question, but what is the difference between the Vulcan still flying (just) and the Concorde not flying?I'd love to be proved wrong. I won't be, though. It's a total and utter non-starter.
Is it just parts availability etc., or is there more to it than that?
A really daft question - would it be possible to fit a replacement (different) engine, slap in some modern electronics, new tyres & away we go?
Ok, it wouldn't be supersonic but would look cool at airshows & with the Vulcan going the public need something to get behind.
Simpo Two said:
RoverP6B said:
Rolls-Royce, SNECMA, Airbus etc simply will not allow it.
Can they simply 'not allow' something to happen?'I'm sorry, we're not going to allow this'
And that's ignoring the bigger elephant in the room that is BA and AF who still own all the aircraft, and so they aren't going to sell them to anyone, let alone anyone who thinks they are going to fly one. And that's ignoring the fact that they were all pretty much decommissioned in a way as to render them incapable of flying again, not to mention there's no zero time spares left or anything with paperwork.
Yes. All the surviving Concordes have been sabotaged, crucial parts removed, and no Design Authority support means no CofA or Permit to Fly.
Now, if someone were to design and build something that looked very much like Concorde and used another suitably reheated engine, such as the Pratt & Whitney F100, and put it on the FAA Experimental register, that might be another thing.
Anyone know if modern composites can withstand the friction heat Concorde sustained at Mach 2.0?
Now, if someone were to design and build something that looked very much like Concorde and used another suitably reheated engine, such as the Pratt & Whitney F100, and put it on the FAA Experimental register, that might be another thing.
Anyone know if modern composites can withstand the friction heat Concorde sustained at Mach 2.0?
Edited by RoverP6B on Tuesday 22 September 22:59
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff