£15m plan to get the "Queen of the Skies" flying again.

[Geo Ghost]

So I've just read this on BBC news about a plan to get one of the Concorde's flying again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8712806.stm

Won't go into the details as you can read for yourself there.
Needless to say... as I have a huge interest in flying and airliners (as well as the fact Concorde is one of my favorite aircraft in the world) I'm really looking forward to seeing how this plan and the tests go

[audigex]

Fifteen quid? I can probably cover that for them...

[Geo Ghost]

Fixed that

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Yet again it seems my proof reading skills (or lack of should I say) are normal.

[audigex]

Haha, normally I'd say that people wouldn't be daft enough to actually think it was that - but after Tornado, I thought maybe it was a "x people give £15 each" jobbie.

Either way, it looks pretty cool... I've always loved Concorde. As Jeremy Clarkson pointed out, it's got soul.

[Doorslammer]

Well, the planes haven't been sitting for long. Best trying now rather than a few years down the line when things will have obviously aged and weakened a bit.

[JGR]

Well, the planes haven't been sitting for long. Best trying now rather than a few years down the line when things will have obviously aged and weakened a bit.

Assuming that the planes were stored in a suitable environment (dry hanger of some kind, with engine covers), there should not much degradation. Age by itself does not really cause weakness relative to typical operating conditions.


I've no doubt that they could get the planes flying again from a technical point of view, with little difficulty, but the economic part and associated stigma are harder to get rid of. They're not exactly cheap to run, and travellers in general are not exactly overflowing with money at this time...
They'll probably just end up turning it into a special-occaisions hugely expensive tourist novelty rather than a viable transport alternative.

[Geo Ghost]

And also spare parts won't be easy to get hold of - if at all.

What happened to BA's last Concorde Alpha-Bravo? Most of their fleet are on display somewhere appart from the one at Heathrow.

[Chris]

Yeah the spares would be the major problem, as BAC/Aerospatiale who jointly designed concorde basically eventually got absorbed into EADS (Airbus), I think, and Airbus deciding not to support concorde spares was what originally caused BA and Air France to stop flying concorde. So I don't know how anybody is going to get around that major problem - interestingly though their fuel consumption at cruising speed was quite efficient although they are still very expensive to operate.

[61653]

They'll probably just end up turning it into a special-occaisions hugely expensive tourist novelty rather than a viable transport alternative.

Concorde was NEVER a viable transport alternative really though, was it? Better to have one running though- we do it with trains so why not planes?

[Chris]

Concorde was NEVER a viable transport alternative really though, was it? Better to have one running though- we do it with trains so why not planes?

I beg to differ. Concorde was designed as a viable transport - everybody believed the future of air transport was still in increasing speed, so much so that during the design of the 747, Trippe made sure that it would be a profitable cargo airliner, as both he and Boeing thought the future was in SSTs (Super Sonic Transport). It was thought at the time that due to Concorde's smaller capacity, it would serve on the 'thin' long haul routes, and the Boeing 2707 would basically be what the 747 is today. This all changed with the cancellation of the 2707 project, and Pan-Am cancelling its orders on Concorde. So originally it was a viable transport alternative.

[PikkaBird]

I beg to differ. Concorde was designed as a viable transport - everybody believed the future of air transport was still in increasing speed.

No, not "everybody" believed, and those who did were wrong. It doesn't matter that it was intended to be viable mass transport - it simply wasn't.

[Kevo00]

Not to mention the billions of pounds spent on R&D, by both the UK and French governments, which took years to repay themselves. This money would have been better invested in something else entirely.

[61653]

I beg to differ. Concorde was designed as a viable transport - everybody believed the future of air transport was still in increasing speed.

No, not "everybody" believed, and those who did were wrong. It doesn't matter that it was intended to be viable mass transport - it simply wasn't.

Indeed- Thanks for summarising better than I could ...

Concorde is/was a magnificent feat of engineering, and I'm not suggesting that it should've never got further than the drawing board- but the world has changed since the time of Concorde's development, and such a high-cost, high-polluting, low-capacity aircraft simply can't pay it's way in the modern economy- especially since the, ahem, "Global Financial Crisis".

[audigex]

When it was designed it did indeed look viable - business people travelling from London to NY offices etc. There were no guarantees - but it could have been profitable. In fact, aren't BA meant to have made a profit? Admittedly they got the planes particularly cheaply - but the actual flights made money... which would suggest that a heritage/preservation plane doing special flights (with higher costs) could potentially make money too.

It was just overtaken by technology. Suddenly everyone was doing their trans atlantic business via the internet etc. When it was designed/conceived in the 50s we'd barely even got phone calls accross the atlantic as a regular occurance - by the time it entered service in 1976 we were on the verge of the information revolution (if you subscribe to that phase).

Whether it ever really could have been or not, it was still a stunning piece of engineering, and more than worthy of keeping an example running. How many of the spitfires doing the air show circuit have a hope in hell of making money without donations? The same for classic cars, nobody drives them because they're cheaper in the long run.

It was a truly sad day when Concorde was grounded, I really hope this project goes somewhere.

[PikkaBird]

In fact, aren't BA meant to have made a profit?

Supposedly BA started making a modest profit after market research showed they could jack the ticket price right up (to several thousand dollars, about 10 times the cost of a flight on a regular aircraft) and still get enough customers. With a ticket price affordable to the general public they could never have made money.

[John]

Yeah the spares would be the major problem, as BAC/Aerospatiale who jointly designed concorde basically eventually got absorbed into EADS (Airbus)

Concorde lay the groundwork for Airbus to be possible. BAC became BAe and Aerospatiale merged into EADS.

So I don't know how anybody is going to get around that major problem

They managed it with a Vulcan - and there is a lot more interest across 2 nations with the Concorde.

Remember, if the aircraft is returned to flight in a heritage capacity it doesn't need to be capable of flying above Mach 0.9 - which makes things a) somewhat cheaper, and b) somewhat easier.

- interestingly though their fuel consumption at cruising speed was quite efficient although they are still very expensive to operate.

Yep - was the most efficient engine/aircraft when at cruising speed. Possibly been overtaken by the Eurofighter engine now. The problem was however in getting to cruising speed.

This all changed with the cancellation of the 2707 project, and Pan-Am cancelling its orders on Concorde. So originally it was a viable transport alternative.

It was actually the 1973 Oil Crisis which really hurt Concorde and killed off the 2707.

Concorde was NEVER a viable transport alternative really though, was it?

Yes, Concorde was so non-viable that it made a profit for British Airways between 1983 and about 2002. Hell, in 2003 it was still covering its costs - it just couldn't cover the amount of investment needed to keep it flying into the future.

I beg to differ. Concorde was designed as a viable transport - everybody believed the future of air transport was still in increasing speed.

No, not "everybody" believed, and those who did were wrong. It doesn't matter that it was intended to be viable mass transport - it simply wasn't.

So wrong that there is active research going into supersonic aircraft and increasing aircraft speeds. With supercritical wings we have increased efficient flight to around 0.89 without the drag increase caused by the sound barrier.
You will also see a supersonic business jet flying within 15 years, and quite possibly a commercial version too.

We don't know how much the governments spend on the R&D, but for British Airways at least (and for Air France to a much smaller extent) Concorde was a viable, money making aircraft right up to its retirement. It had survived and paid for the development & safety costs caused by the Paris crash. But the loss of premium business due to 9/11 along with the age of the aircraft, investment needed to keep it flying and Airbus' and Air France's decision to no longer support it spelt the end.

[audigex]

In fact, aren't BA meant to have made a profit?

Supposedly BA started making a modest profit after market research showed they could jack the ticket price right up (to several thousand dollars, about 10 times the cost of a flight on a regular aircraft) and still get enough customers. With a ticket price affordable to the general public they could never have made money.

But it was between 2+3 times faster, it wasn't really aimed at the general public: it was aimed at business users where the company was happy to pay the difference because their executive's time was more valuable anyway.

[Chris]

I agree with John, although I did say I wasn't sure whether BAC merged into EADS.

as BAC/Aerospatiale who jointly designed concorde basically eventually got absorbed into EADS (Airbus), I think,

I went to see the vulcan at Biggin Hill air show last year, but it was broken down , such a shame. Lets hope that concorde will be easier to maintain due to it only retiring 7 years ago, and also coincedently the vulcan and concorde have very similar engines - the vulcan with Rolls-Royce Olympus 593 turbojets, and concorde with modified Rolls-Royce/SNECMA Olympus 593 Mk.610 turbojets, so maybe some knowledge can be pooled between the two preservations with regards to the engines, especially if reheat won't be used on concorde as it will be flying subsonically.

[audigex]

It won't go supersonic? What a waste.

That's like having Susan Coffey for the evening, and taking her to the zoo.

[CommanderZ]

This one is nicely sounding project.