4 Olympus engines and some metal for the 2012 Olympics......
Discussion
......Concorde to be ready for the Opening 2012 ceremony?....surely not....anyone in the Aircraft Heritage circles got any news?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8712806.st...
..If its true and it happens it will share top spot of the best athletics opening ceremonies,
with the Morris Minors at the Manchester Commonwealth games
for me anyway
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8712806.st...
..If its true and it happens it will share top spot of the best athletics opening ceremonies,
with the Morris Minors at the Manchester Commonwealth games
for me anyway
Nice thought, but I also agree it's never going to happen in a million years. No design authority/engineering support, and the aircraft is a hugely complex mish-mash of 1960's technology. The amount of extra systems compared to a subsonic jet is considerable, fuel trim transfer, intake ramp scheduling, 1960s air data computers capable of autoflight at M2.0... XH558 is relatively straightforward in comparison.
If it was cleared to fly but unloaded and strictly below supersonic, would all the fuel trim adjustment, reheat etc be required? Maybe that's their plan, not have all the "complexities" in the way?
Or maybe they're just a load of hobbyists who want to take a Concorde to bits, something to do at the weekends
Or maybe they're just a load of hobbyists who want to take a Concorde to bits, something to do at the weekends
john_p said:
If it was cleared to fly but unloaded and strictly below supersonic, would all the fuel trim adjustment, reheat etc be required? Maybe that's their plan, not have all the "complexities" in the way?
Interesting thought, but taking out those systems would be a major modification, and pilots of complex aircraft often get twitchy about having things on their aircraft that aren't maintained in working order even if they aren't planning to use them. Also, I'm not sure Concorde can take off without reheat.Dr Jekyll said:
john_p said:
If it was cleared to fly but unloaded and strictly below supersonic, would all the fuel trim adjustment, reheat etc be required? Maybe that's their plan, not have all the "complexities" in the way?
Interesting thought, but taking out those systems would be a major modification, and pilots of complex aircraft often get twitchy about having things on their aircraft that aren't maintained in working order even if they aren't planning to use them. Also, I'm not sure Concorde can take off without reheat.
There would be heavy restrictions placed on it even if it were allowed to fly just Subsonic. It would be hugely expensive to modify and wouldn't be any benefit.
In the UK there were certainly the following obstacles that needed to be overcome before you could take to the air.
With a complex aircraft like Concorde you would need the original Design Authority on board i.e Airbus and major manufactuers such as Rolls Royce for the engines. I believe Design Authority could be transferred to someone like qinetiq, I don't know whether it ever went this far, but I believe Airbus may not have been willing to do this.
So both parties would need to be on board.
Spares are a major problem, as all of these were auctioned off to collectors after retirement. Parts would have to be remanufactured to the original specification, most probably by the OEMs or legacy companies.
The technicians have also moved onto other aircraft, Concorde is bespoke 60's technology, and vastly different to modern aircraft systems. There were parts on the aircraft I am lead to believe which were a real pig to work on.
I think I am right in saying the CAA effectively shut the door on any Concorde operations by amending some regulations.
Aircraft like the Vulcan can fly on a Permit to Fly, like an experimental Certificate, which does not have to comply with full regulations like a Civil airliner would. Now because Concorde complied with the full regulations and had a Certificate of Airworthiness to carry passengers, it would now have to be recertified to the full regs and could not go in an experimental category.
The thing is Air France wanted out, Airbus probably did not want to continue with supporting such old technology, so were happy to close down Concorde support. BA had a choice of stumping up the full running costs or pulling the plug.
We all know the cost involved in getting the Vulcan into the air. The technology is very simple compared to Concorde. The Vulcan had a set of zero timed engines, a load of spares and was maintained in a way that it could be made airworthy in the future. Even then, many time expired parts had to go back to the original manufacturers for overhaul.
Those parts aren't there for Concorde, they have all gone.
I went to a Concorde SST meeting shortly after the final Concorde passenger flights, and Gordon Roxburgh, and one of the technicians were telling us what had happened and why it could no longer fly. They were/are hugely knowledgeable people.
It is a shame that the Save Concorde group are still banging on about this, as they seem to think they can bring Concorde back, they can't, no Manufacturer support, no technicians, no spares, no servicing equipment, and a huge amount of regulations that would be firmly against it. £15million would not cover it.
Even if it got to the stage of flying, airshow appearance fees would be so enormous, no show could ever afford it. The Vulcan is not making a profit (probably not even covering it's running costs from appearances), and the Sea Vixen (which is self supporting to a certain extent) is not being booked by show organisers because they cannot afford to pay for it. What would Concorde cost??
In the UK there were certainly the following obstacles that needed to be overcome before you could take to the air.
With a complex aircraft like Concorde you would need the original Design Authority on board i.e Airbus and major manufactuers such as Rolls Royce for the engines. I believe Design Authority could be transferred to someone like qinetiq, I don't know whether it ever went this far, but I believe Airbus may not have been willing to do this.
So both parties would need to be on board.
Spares are a major problem, as all of these were auctioned off to collectors after retirement. Parts would have to be remanufactured to the original specification, most probably by the OEMs or legacy companies.
The technicians have also moved onto other aircraft, Concorde is bespoke 60's technology, and vastly different to modern aircraft systems. There were parts on the aircraft I am lead to believe which were a real pig to work on.
I think I am right in saying the CAA effectively shut the door on any Concorde operations by amending some regulations.
Aircraft like the Vulcan can fly on a Permit to Fly, like an experimental Certificate, which does not have to comply with full regulations like a Civil airliner would. Now because Concorde complied with the full regulations and had a Certificate of Airworthiness to carry passengers, it would now have to be recertified to the full regs and could not go in an experimental category.
The thing is Air France wanted out, Airbus probably did not want to continue with supporting such old technology, so were happy to close down Concorde support. BA had a choice of stumping up the full running costs or pulling the plug.
We all know the cost involved in getting the Vulcan into the air. The technology is very simple compared to Concorde. The Vulcan had a set of zero timed engines, a load of spares and was maintained in a way that it could be made airworthy in the future. Even then, many time expired parts had to go back to the original manufacturers for overhaul.
Those parts aren't there for Concorde, they have all gone.
I went to a Concorde SST meeting shortly after the final Concorde passenger flights, and Gordon Roxburgh, and one of the technicians were telling us what had happened and why it could no longer fly. They were/are hugely knowledgeable people.
It is a shame that the Save Concorde group are still banging on about this, as they seem to think they can bring Concorde back, they can't, no Manufacturer support, no technicians, no spares, no servicing equipment, and a huge amount of regulations that would be firmly against it. £15million would not cover it.
Even if it got to the stage of flying, airshow appearance fees would be so enormous, no show could ever afford it. The Vulcan is not making a profit (probably not even covering it's running costs from appearances), and the Sea Vixen (which is self supporting to a certain extent) is not being booked by show organisers because they cannot afford to pay for it. What would Concorde cost??
Will BA have an A380 by then? 
Odie said:
Ive just had a google, in 1977 it cost BA (well the government) £23million to purchase a concorde in todays money that would be what £500-£600million.
That's irrelevant though. The development, testing and manufacturing costs would have been split across all of the Concordes. Buying a single, one off plane, either then or now would been hugely more expensive. fadeaway said:
Odie said:
Ive just had a google, in 1977 it cost BA (well the government) £23million to purchase a concorde in todays money that would be what £500-£600million.
That's irrelevant though. The development, testing and manufacturing costs would have been split across all of the Concordes. Buying a single, one off plane, either then or now would been hugely more expensive. Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff