Concorde to fly again ?
Discussion
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.
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.
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.I'll just repeat my point, just because it doesn't crash, doesn't mean it's safe.
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.
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 ?
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 ?
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.
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 ?
MoneyFill it with fuel, fire it up and hope for the best ?
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.
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 ?
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!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.
As much as I would love to see it, it's just not possible, myabe 10 years ago, but certainly not now.
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 ?
MoneyFill it with fuel, fire it up and hope for the best ?
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.
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 ?
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 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
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....
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....
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff