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

[EXTspotter]

The age issue for concorde really wasn't a problem. You have to realise that even though it was flying relatively long flights, they only flew 2 per day. The flight itself was on average 3 hours in length. This gives a total utilization of 6 hours per day. This is a TINY number. On top of this BA had 7 concordes however only 2 were needed for everyday operations (1 for BAW1/002 and 1 for BAW3/004) so in reality the aircraft utilisation was less than 3 hours per day and 1 cycle (a takeoff and landing). If BA had its aircraft from 1977 (the median age) until 2003 when they were phased out, this would equal rought 25000 flight hours and roughly 10000 cycles. Of a "high cycle low hours" airplane like Concorde which is usual with short haul aircraft these kind of stats would be normal on a 4 year old Easyjet A319 or Ryanair 737-800, due to the very high utilisation of these aircraft (around 18 hours per day), but even with a BA A320, a 6 year old aircraft would have that kind of stats.

The real reason for Concorde being pulled was the fleet was approaching a heavy maintainance check called a D Check. In order to do this, replacement parts would have been needed, which EADS (Airbus parent company who inherited all of the concorde "stuff") would no longer make/supply or certify themselves, hence BA (as Air France had already stopped using theirs) would have to firstly find a supplier for very high specificity parts of extremely high quality, after which they would have to pay to certify for airworthyness themselves which in the end was just not worth it.

BTW Aerospatiale was one of the first of the companies which grouped into Airbus (though EADS) BAe did become part of the conglomerate but not until much much later, hence the plants at Bristol Filton and the one in north Wales building bits for Airbus planes, including the A380.

[PikkaBird]

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.

Exactly, and thus it was never viable as mass transport; there were only so many people willing to spend $10000 for 3 hours in a 30-year-old cramped metal tube, as opposed to $1000 for 7 hours in a modern first or business class cabin. The reason why, as EXT says, they flew so few cycles is because there was no demand for more Concorde flights at a price point that didn't lose money.

[John]

25000 flight hours and roughly 10000 cycles. Of a "high cycle low hours" airplane like Concorde which is usual with short haul aircraft these kind of stats would be normal on a 4 year old Easyjet A319 or Ryanair 737-800,

Except that you cannot compare a supersonic aircraft cycle with a purely subsonic one. The additional factors through supersonic make it age much faster. However, I wasn't referring to the fuselage age, more the flight systems age and the fact that Concorde had received no mid-life updates to its systems.

BTW Aerospatiale was one of the first of the companies which grouped into Airbus (though EADS) BAe did become part of the conglomerate but not until much much later, hence the plants at Bristol Filton and the one in north Wales building bits for Airbus planes, including the A380.

The groundwork laid by Concorde enabled several companies to work together on a project called the Airbus A300, initially this was to be a one off consortium. They then realised that hey, this is a good idea. In 2001 they realised that a consortium was somewhat inefficient and decided to make it a proper company, however BAe never merged with/to EADS, but stayed separate with a 20% share of Airbus which it sold recently. Aerospatiale (or parts thereof) started merging in the 1990s, and Aerospatiale Matra with DASA and CASA merged in 2000 to form EADS.

The whole thing is somewhat confusing - and the politics continues to decide who gets to build what rather then sensible engineering decisions

As for the early life of the consortium, I remember reading somewhere that DASA (or similiar) wanted BAe and the brits to have a much bigger work-share, but the UK government said no. So now we only make the wings. EXTSpotter do you know more about the early life of Airbus and possible funding agreements?

For anyone planning on reading up on the current Airbus structure, I suggest you don't. Its silly. Stop when you get to Airbus S.A.S.

[JamieLei]

It also didn't help that Concorde was hit by a range of technical problems in the early 2000s, such that people began to change their tickets in droves from Concorde to Jets in the immediate aftermath, and this really cut into demand. It would take A LOT to alter the public perception of a product, such as trains (many people still think driving is safer than taking public transport due to the prospect of "being a target for a Terrorist attack").

[ostlandr]

The problem with the Concorde was total operating cost per seat/mile. Another issue was the environmentalist hysteria leading to the ban on supersonic flight over the CONUS, and in some cases specific bans of the Concorde by name. Sonic Booms causing brain injuries and miscarriages?

Sadly, the future of commercial aviation will be subsonic, and will probably look something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blended_wing_body

[JamieLei]

To be fair, it's not just environmental hysteria, else all planes would be banned. Sonicbooming is bloody loud, and if they were passing over my house every day, I'd do all I could to try and get them banned flying supersonically - it was bad enough staying with my uncle under the flight path of Heathrow airport. There's a reason why many governments, including Florida, Malaysia, India, banned them from flying faster than the speed of sound over their airspace.

[Chris]

Another thing in Concorde's favour is that due to the high temperatures due to friction with the air at supersonic speed is that up until 2003, corrosion wasn't a problem, as the fuselage was dried out on each flight. Oh and it is a shame that it probably won't be supersonic, but can you imagine the extra costs of preserving it to fly supersonically?

It won't go supersonic? What a waste.

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

[John]

Sadly, the future of commercial aviation will be subsonic, and will probably look something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blended_wing_body

The research into business jets going supersonic includes measures to make the sonic boom much quieter so that supersonic flight over land becomes possible.

It is also much closer - the eurofighter engine is capable of powering a business jet into supersonic cruise (so above M1.4ish)(and where the efficiency of a turbojet rises to 70% if my memory is correct) without the use of afterburners.


But yes, cheap mass market and freight will all stay subsonic.

As for the future, the biggest problem with the blended wing design is passenger acceptance (well, that and the manufacture). You can get 800+ people in one, but with only 50 odd having a window it will be a dark depressing journey (or one filled with annoying quantities of artificial light). As a freighter however they would do very well.

The other "future aircraft" is that of the greener-by-design type of aircraft like this. With long thin wings which promote laminar flow, and huge turbofans mounted above the fuselage.
You may see versions with the open-rotor type engines - however these are on the verge of being disregarded, as while they do over the large savings in terms of fuel burn, the lack of a sound dampening engine cowling means they will simply be too noisy for most airports.

[Geo Ghost]

The research into business jets going supersonic includes measures to make the sonic boom much quieter so that supersonic flight over land becomes possible.

Surely supersonic flight is possible over land provided that transition through the sonic boom is made prior to flying over land.

[JamieLei]

The research into business jets going supersonic includes measures to make the sonic boom much quieter so that supersonic flight over land becomes possible.

Surely supersonic flight is possible over land provided that transition through the sonic boom is made prior to flying over land.

That's a common misconception, in part due to the name and the concept of the sonic boom as part of "breaking the sound barrier". The boom is generated continuously as long as the aircraft is travelling above the speed of sound.

[audigex]

How about a cowled prop engine? I assume there's some drawback?

With Concorde etc they're no use for flights accross europe to the middle/far east, africa etc - but at the same time the most profitable routes would probably be trans-atlantic/pacific anyway; the time saved as compared to a subsonic plane on short flights will make much less difference since flight time is a smaller percentage of the overall journey.

[EXTspotter]

That is partly true, audigex, however there are large markets for flights over land that aren't short though, like Europe - Eastern Asia, East Coast US to West Coast US, amongst many others. I would agree that for short flights A supersonic aircraft wouldn't be wirthwhile - look at the massive growth in regional turboprop flying with Dash 8s (esp. Q400s) at the expense of Regional Jets due to the much lower cost in fuel while adding precious little to flight times.

[Chris]

The number of long haul routes over land were looked at during Concorde's development, and it was dtermined that around 70% of long haul routes at the time were over water, so there is a large over water long haul market, and you may be able to fly supersonic over Siberia - if you're on good terms with Russia.

[ostlandr]

Or if you're flying the SR-71.

The number of long haul routes over land were looked at during Concorde's development, and it was dtermined that around 70% of long haul routes at the time were over water, so there is a large over water long haul market, and you may be able to fly supersonic over Siberia - if you're on good terms with Russia.

[Chris]

Due to the fact that the SR-71 cruised at around 85,000 feet, and is a lot smaller than Concorde, I don't think it really mattered whether it was flying over land or sea.

[openttd_rulez]

hi i live in southeast asia where concordes were virtually banned from entering during its heydays.
After PikkaBird's reply to my post in AV8 i decided that supersonics are s*** and we should focus on futuristic BWB aircraft with speeds up to 1,0XX max.
BTW if you really have to develop SSTs then force them to fly in space, hydrogen-powered-ize them and call them "hypersonic jets" e.g. SR-91 Aurora

Concorde is retired means concorde is retired. Forever. Due to terrorism, environmental... (ok i'll stop here or the moderators will kill me)

[PikkaBird]

Supersonic aircraft in space! Genius!

[Chris]

hi i live in southeast asia where concordes were virtually banned from entering during its heydays.
After PikkaBird's reply to my post in AV8 i decided that supersonics are s*** and we should focus on futuristic BWB aircraft with speeds up to 1,0XX max.
BTW if you really have to develop SSTs then force them to fly in space, hydrogen-powered-ize them and call them "hypersonic jets" e.g. SR-91 Aurora

Concorde is retired means concorde is retired. Forever. Due to terrorism, environmental... (ok i'll stop here or the moderators will kill me)

I'm sorry but this topic isn't about taking Concorde out of retirement, it is about a project to restore at least one Concorde out of the 20 built to working order, so that an object of great historical and national interest can partake in air displays, after all would you expect another iconic airliner, such as the 747 never to fly again after retirement? It would be keeping the first and currently last SST flying - Concorde is an engineering marvel, and one should be kept working.

Supersonic aircraft in space! Genius!

Indeed

[John]

Can I also point out that as wonderful as a hydrogen engine that only produces water as an exhaust is, up at 30000ft contrails (which are formed by water vapour) are currently a bit of a pollution problem...

[Chris]

Can I also point out that as wonderful as a hydrogen engine that only produces water as an exhaust is, up at 30000ft contrails (which are formed by water vapour) are currently a bit of a pollution problem...

Indeed, think of all the extra rain we would get .