french concorde (F-BTSD)
Discussion
If it's true it looks like the french are going it start one of the Concorde jets up (F-BTSD)
see links below.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_a...
http://concordesst.yuku.com/topic/4366/t/This-arri...
Can anyone confirm?
I hope it's true but it is a shame it aint going to be a UK one.
from the story.
The project is to study a re-start of the 4 engines, to see how it can be done and to roll the aircraft on the tarmac powered by her own 4 engines. This is what their intention is. There will be Air France engineers and pilots working on this study.
see links below.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_a...
http://concordesst.yuku.com/topic/4366/t/This-arri...
Can anyone confirm?
I hope it's true but it is a shame it aint going to be a UK one.
from the story.
The project is to study a re-start of the 4 engines, to see how it can be done and to roll the aircraft on the tarmac powered by her own 4 engines. This is what their intention is. There will be Air France engineers and pilots working on this study.
Edited by 528Sport on Friday 5th February 10:18
Eric Mc said:
For the same reason we have live and running Lightnings and Victors. Keeping an airacraft in good mechnical order and in running order is the next best thing to keeping it airworthy. I'm all in favour of this approach.
Lightnings and Victors still fly though (not here though, obviously).Dunno, all seems a bit, meeeh.....
Concord would make an ideal presidential jet, with the safety record its got and of course the speed at which it can travel, perhaps its a bit small.
Im suprised the us president doesnt have a supersonic airliner as part of the airforce 1 fleet. Considering the size of the US and his frequent trips to europe.
Im suprised the us president doesnt have a supersonic airliner as part of the airforce 1 fleet. Considering the size of the US and his frequent trips to europe.
TEKNOPUG said:
Eric Mc said:
For the same reason we have live and running Lightnings and Victors. Keeping an airacraft in good mechnical order and in running order is the next best thing to keeping it airworthy. I'm all in favour of this approach.
Lightnings and Victors still fly though (not here though, obviously).Dunno, all seems a bit, meeeh.....
This is the forum where all the aviation geeks hang out.
We are well aware of the UK based non-flying Lightnings, Buccaneers and (one) Victor. And, of course, we all know that the Victor inadvertantly got itself airborne last year. And, of course, following the sad loss of one of the South African Lightnings last November, maybe the CAA's stance on keeping these complicated aircraft airworthy was vindicated to some extent.
I like the idea that a machine is kept alive. We can still see, hear and smell it in action. OK, it's not flying, but oil, fuel, electricty etc are still pulsing through its systems and we can still get a feel for some of its power and awe.
We are well aware of the UK based non-flying Lightnings, Buccaneers and (one) Victor. And, of course, we all know that the Victor inadvertantly got itself airborne last year. And, of course, following the sad loss of one of the South African Lightnings last November, maybe the CAA's stance on keeping these complicated aircraft airworthy was vindicated to some extent.
I like the idea that a machine is kept alive. We can still see, hear and smell it in action. OK, it's not flying, but oil, fuel, electricty etc are still pulsing through its systems and we can still get a feel for some of its power and awe.
I'm with Eric on this one. Yes it's great to see these old jets fly, but the cost is prohibitive, (See TVOCs continued money raising problems). To see a Lightning, Victor and Buccaneer trundle past you on a taxi run is just as good. I just love the smell of AVCAT/AVTUR and hydraulic fluid eminating from an aircraft after a run.
What gets me about all this, & it happens in other projects, is this is to look at 'if it can be done'.
eerr...didn't we build the thing from scratch 40 years ago!? And they are now looking to see if it is possible to start it up!
I really do wonder how we managed to build things in the past like Concorde, old railway lines is another, they often say it cant be re opened as there's no bridge etc, well it was completed 100 years ago so now why cant we do it!
The human race could do anything years ago but now nothing seems to ever be possible because of tiny things getting in the way. Where's the 'we can do it' attitude we used to have instead of the 'we better not' attitude we seem to have now a days.
Good luck Frenchies
and I don't say that often 
eerr...didn't we build the thing from scratch 40 years ago!? And they are now looking to see if it is possible to start it up!
I really do wonder how we managed to build things in the past like Concorde, old railway lines is another, they often say it cant be re opened as there's no bridge etc, well it was completed 100 years ago so now why cant we do it!
The human race could do anything years ago but now nothing seems to ever be possible because of tiny things getting in the way. Where's the 'we can do it' attitude we used to have instead of the 'we better not' attitude we seem to have now a days.
Good luck Frenchies
and I don't say that often splodge s4 said:
What gets me about all this, & it happens in other projects, is this is to look at 'if it can be done'.
eerr...didn't we build the thing from scratch 40 years ago!? And they are now looking to see if it is possible to start it up!
I really do wonder how we managed to build things in the past like Concorde, old railway lines is another, they often say it cant be re opened as there's no bridge etc, well it was completed 100 years ago so now why cant we do it!
The human race could do anything years ago but now nothing seems to ever be possible because of tiny things getting in the way. Where's the 'we can do it' attitude we used to have instead of the 'we better not' attitude we seem to have now a days.
Good luck Frenchies and I don't say that often
I agree with everything you said. I guess in todays world it's down to money and not pride.eerr...didn't we build the thing from scratch 40 years ago!? And they are now looking to see if it is possible to start it up!
I really do wonder how we managed to build things in the past like Concorde, old railway lines is another, they often say it cant be re opened as there's no bridge etc, well it was completed 100 years ago so now why cant we do it!
The human race could do anything years ago but now nothing seems to ever be possible because of tiny things getting in the way. Where's the 'we can do it' attitude we used to have instead of the 'we better not' attitude we seem to have now a days.
Good luck Frenchies
and I don't say that often The people who agrue about Concorde not being able to fly (using this as an example) have some valid points regarding safety. But to say there is no spares/support infastructure in place is silly, money could put that right. There was no spares infastructure back in the 50's or 60's... If this country got off its ass we could do great things again IF we wanted to but we dont.
Edited by 528Sport on Friday 5th February 11:44
Technology gets abandoned when it is no longer wanted or needed. Concorde was no longer wanted, unfortunately. The economics didn't make sense.
That is also why railways declined and why canals declined.
In 100 years time there will be equally incredulous postings on whatever has replaced the internet bemoaning the fact that "sensible" technology like mobile phones can't be made any more.
That is also why railways declined and why canals declined.
In 100 years time there will be equally incredulous postings on whatever has replaced the internet bemoaning the fact that "sensible" technology like mobile phones can't be made any more.
Eric Mc said:
Technology gets abandoned when it is no longer wanted or needed. Concorde was no longer wanted, unfortunately. The economics didn't make sense.
That is also why railways declined and why canals declined.
In 100 years time there will be equally incredulous postings on whatever has replaced the internet bemoaning the fact that "sensible" technology like mobile phones can't be made any more.
Trucks and planes replaced railways and canals. But what replaced Concorde?That is also why railways declined and why canals declined.
In 100 years time there will be equally incredulous postings on whatever has replaced the internet bemoaning the fact that "sensible" technology like mobile phones can't be made any more.
Dr Jekyll said:
Eric Mc said:
Technology gets abandoned when it is no longer wanted or needed. Concorde was no longer wanted, unfortunately. The economics didn't make sense.
That is also why railways declined and why canals declined.
In 100 years time there will be equally incredulous postings on whatever has replaced the internet bemoaning the fact that "sensible" technology like mobile phones can't be made any more.
Trucks and planes replaced railways and canals. But what replaced Concorde?That is also why railways declined and why canals declined.
In 100 years time there will be equally incredulous postings on whatever has replaced the internet bemoaning the fact that "sensible" technology like mobile phones can't be made any more.
Not every technology directly replaces a previously existing one. As I said, technologies die off when they are no longer needed - not necessarilly when it is possible technically to replace them.
The other classic example of a discarded technology is the Saturn V rocket. A rocket capable of lifting 100 tons directly into low earth orbit - or sending 30 tons to the moon - was eminently useful and capable. But it was abandoned without a replacement when it was no longer needed. It still hasn't been replaced today - and with Obama's declaration at the start of this week, will not be replaced for possibly another 20 years.
The other classic example of a discarded technology is the Saturn V rocket. A rocket capable of lifting 100 tons directly into low earth orbit - or sending 30 tons to the moon - was eminently useful and capable. But it was abandoned without a replacement when it was no longer needed. It still hasn't been replaced today - and with Obama's declaration at the start of this week, will not be replaced for possibly another 20 years.
Eric Mc said:
The other classic example of a discarded technology is the Saturn V rocket. A rocket capable of lifting 100 tons directly into low earth orbit - or sending 30 tons to the moon - was eminently useful and capable.
And with 1960's technology, and, I think, no failures. Now that we have 21st century technology nothing works properly. Sometimes I think that the 1960s saw about the limit of human achievement, and now we are steadily disappearing into our computers, cyberspace etc and doing very litle.Edited by Simpo Two on Friday 5th February 13:40
Ewan S said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Eric Mc said:
Technology gets abandoned when it is no longer wanted or needed. Concorde was no longer wanted, unfortunately. The economics didn't make sense.
That is also why railways declined and why canals declined.
In 100 years time there will be equally incredulous postings on whatever has replaced the internet bemoaning the fact that "sensible" technology like mobile phones can't be made any more.
Trucks and planes replaced railways and canals. But what replaced Concorde?That is also why railways declined and why canals declined.
In 100 years time there will be equally incredulous postings on whatever has replaced the internet bemoaning the fact that "sensible" technology like mobile phones can't be made any more.
surely there is some Russian billionaire or Arab prince a tiny bit mad enough to throw copious sums of money at it!
Eric Mc said:
Not every technology directly replaces a previously existing one. As I said, technologies die off when they are no longer needed - not necessarilly when it is possible technically to replace them.
The other classic example of a discarded technology is the Saturn V rocket. A rocket capable of lifting 100 tons directly into low earth orbit - or sending 30 tons to the moon - was eminently useful and capable. But it was abandoned without a replacement when it was no longer needed. It still hasn't been replaced today - and with Obama's declaration at the start of this week, will not be replaced for possibly another 20 years.
Was it not hideously expensive though? £$4.5billion per launch in todays money.The other classic example of a discarded technology is the Saturn V rocket. A rocket capable of lifting 100 tons directly into low earth orbit - or sending 30 tons to the moon - was eminently useful and capable. But it was abandoned without a replacement when it was no longer needed. It still hasn't been replaced today - and with Obama's declaration at the start of this week, will not be replaced for possibly another 20 years.
S3_Graham said:
Ewan S said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Eric Mc said:
Technology gets abandoned when it is no longer wanted or needed. Concorde was no longer wanted, unfortunately. The economics didn't make sense.
That is also why railways declined and why canals declined.
In 100 years time there will be equally incredulous postings on whatever has replaced the internet bemoaning the fact that "sensible" technology like mobile phones can't be made any more.
Trucks and planes replaced railways and canals. But what replaced Concorde?That is also why railways declined and why canals declined.
In 100 years time there will be equally incredulous postings on whatever has replaced the internet bemoaning the fact that "sensible" technology like mobile phones can't be made any more.
surely there is some Russian billionaire or Arab prince a tiny bit mad enough to throw copious sums of money at it!
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff