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

[JamieLei]

I'm just going to leave this argument here. I don't see there being any point in continuing when people keep introducing concepts on timescales that are completely irrelevant. Yes there was once a snowball earth, and we are overdue for a cooling period on Milankovitch scales of 100,000 years. But we're talking on the scale of about 100 years here.

It's an argument that it just impossible to present a detailed view in, because someone will always keep reintroducing irrelevant concepts.

[Geo Ghost]

I've just located this. Few weeks old, but still relevant.
So far, Concorde appears in good condition and the engines are in "great shape" as quoted from the article below.

Looking good so far. There is an idea or plan to have a Concorde fly-over for the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony.
I doubt that will be the Air France one for obvious reasons. Let's see how it all goes

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... s?page=all

Saturday’s preliminary inspection of the Rolls Royce engines of a Concorde at the Air Museum in Le Bourget, Paris went as well as could be hoped. An engineer used a borescope camera that is commonly used to peak deep inside of engines for inspections. After a thorough seven hours, the engineer said the engines are in great shape.

Much like the aeroplane itself, the effort to get a Concorde flying again is a joint effort between two organisations, one from Britain and one from France. The groups next hope to get the engines running and follow up with taxi testing. The end goal is to get a Concorde flying again in time for a fly over at the 2012 London Olympics. More photos and videos of the inspection can be seen here. - http://heritageconcorde.com/?page_id=2663

[EXTspotter]

Geo it is unlike;y that more than 1 concorde will be brought back to airworthyness, also unlike Air France who sold them on, BA still owns their concordes and has lent them to museums, e.g. the Manchester Aviation Viewing Park, Bermuda and the American Aircraft carrier aviation museum in New York, so it is unlikely that unless BA did it themselves, that any of those will ever fly again. I would guess that it will be the Air France one brought back, but even if it is in AF livery, surely the fact that together we designed and built it is enoughh in itself...

[openttd_rulez]

I've just located this. Few weeks old, but still relevant.
So far, Concorde appears in good condition and the engines are in "great shape" as quoted from the article below.

Looking good so far. There is an idea or plan to have a Concorde fly-over for the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony.
I doubt that will be the Air France one for obvious reasons. Let's see how it all goes

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... s?page=all

Saturday’s preliminary inspection of the Rolls Royce engines of a Concorde at the Air Museum in Le Bourget, Paris went as well as could be hoped. An engineer used a borescope camera that is commonly used to peak deep inside of engines for inspections. After a thorough seven hours, the engineer said the engines are in great shape.

Much like the aeroplane itself, the effort to get a Concorde flying again is a joint effort between two organisations, one from Britain and one from France. The groups next hope to get the engines running and follow up with taxi testing. The end goal is to get a Concorde flying again in time for a fly over at the 2012 London Olympics. More photos and videos of the inspection can be seen here. - http://heritageconcorde.com/?page_id=2663

London has already reached the global CO2 emission limit so wouldn't a Concorde flying aloft suffocate all them spectators?
The noise emitted will even possibly ruin the opening ceremony... one concorde is definitely one concorde too many.

PS the news is fake.

[John]

Contrails are mainly produced by large jet aircraft as to form the difference between the air moisture and the waste gas moisture has to be great enough for a cloud to form a cloud, which means they only form readily at higher altitude, e.g. over 12000ft. Also the global commercial jet aircraft fleet is nowhere near 150000, 20000 would probably be pushing it.

Contrails are formed when the hot exhaust jet that is saturated with water vapour cools down below the saturation point. The excess water then condenses and freezes.

As such, most jet engines are capable of producing them, not just larger ones. And given that jet engines are most efficient way above 12000ft, that's also where they all fly .

Admittedly I was using exaggeration to illustrate the point, and thinking more of the number of daily flights rather then the number of jet engines - which stands at almost 30000 per day in Europe alone.

The reason research is going into preventing them is because they are actually quite easy to prevent - you just need to route your aircraft slightly differently to avoid the 'contrail hotspots'. The only problem is the slight congestion of airspace in some places.

But given that one of the bigger jumps in efficiency for new aircraft is in the form of a new ATC system, that might yet be a reality.

the proton transporter membrane in its core would split irrepairably after every landing.

To be honest turbulence would cause far more problems then rough landings - at least after a rough landing you have actually landed



Back on the subject of aircraft restorations, given that Airbus is helping restore a FW 200 "Condor" to taxiing condition after it lay at a depth of 60m on the sea bed for the past 57 years (and by reconstructing it largely from new without any original blueprints) - i would say that getting Concorde flying certainly is possible. And who cares if its in Air France livery, they'll surrender and paint it in BA colours if you just ask

However, flying for the Olympics is probably more to attract sponsors then a realistic target.



PS Jamie - I studied Geography back at school and read an article in the Daily Mail, therefor I is expert on Climate Change. Okaz?

[John]

PS Jamie - I studied Geography back at school and read an article in the Daily Mail, therefor I is expert on Climate Change. Okaz?

Okayzzz! OMFG Did you know climate change is caused by cancer-carrying immigrants?

And if Diana were here we wouldn't have Climate Change!

[Chris]

London has already reached the global CO2 emission limit so wouldn't a Concorde flying aloft suffocate all them spectators?
The noise emitted will even possibly ruin the opening ceremony... one concorde is definitely one concorde too many.

PS the news is fake.

Yes we will all die because of Concorde flying overhead . Oh and the emission limit for CO2 must be the limit at which if there is more pollution then we all die . And the noise wouldn't be any different to a normal jet plane, Concorde's engines aren't particuarly noisy, similar to a 747, and so no the noise wouldn't ruin the opening ceremony.

one concorde is definitely one concorde too many.

We want to preserve a technological marvel luddite.

[John]

And the noise wouldn't be any different to a normal jet plane, Concorde's engines aren't particuarly noisy, similar to a 747, and so no the noise wouldn't ruin the opening ceremony.

Except the minor point that Concorde had turbojets and all 747s had turbofans.

Hell, even the A380 only produces 25% of the noise energy a 747-400 produces on landing ( QC/0.5 vs QC/2 respectively)....

Can't find the QC for Concorde on landing, but apparently during flight it is "as noisy as 35 747-400s"



However, as a fly past is rare, with everyone going out to watch the plane, excessive noise isn't really a problem....

[Chris]

And the noise wouldn't be any different to a normal jet plane, Concorde's engines aren't particuarly noisy, similar to a 747, and so no the noise wouldn't ruin the opening ceremony.

Except the minor point that Concorde had turbojets and all 747s had turbofans.

Hell, even the A380 only produces 25% of the noise energy a 747-400 produces on landing ( QC/0.5 vs QC/2 respectively)....

Can't find the QC for Concorde on landing, but apparently during flight it is "as noisy as 35 747-400s"



However, as a fly past is rare, with everyone going out to watch the plane, excessive noise isn't really a problem....

35 747-400s ! Thank God thats not true .

In spite of complaints about noise, the noise report noted that Air Force One, at the time a Boeing VC-137, was louder than Concorde at subsonic speeds and during takeoff and landing.[97] Scheduled service from Paris and London to New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport began on 22 November 1977.[98]

VC-137=707

Air France Flight 001 sliced through the morning mist. The approach and landing were loud enough to drown out the protests of 15 pickets forlornly shouting "Stop the SST!" by an expressway ramp outside the terminal, but the noise level was a comfortable 14 decibels below the limit set by the Federal Aviation Administration. Moments earlier a Boeing 707 had registered slightly louder on a routine approach.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z0qrVBZKTI

Although Concorde led directly to the introduction of a general noise abatement programme for aircraft flying out of John F Kennedy Airport, many found that Concorde was quieter than expected,[30] partly due to the pilots temporarily throttling back their engines to reduce noise during overflight of residential areas.[167] Even before the launch of revenue earning services, it had been noted that Concorde was quieter than several aircraft already commonly in service at that time.[168]

And so its quieter than the 707, and the 747 is most definitely not 35 times quieter than the 707 .

[Geo Ghost]

London has already reached the global CO2 emission limit so wouldn't a Concorde flying aloft suffocate all them spectators?
The noise emitted will even possibly ruin the opening ceremony...

Such a flyover would never ruin the Olympics. Completely the opposite. And how on earth would it suffocate anyone?
I make reference to the Queens Golden Jubilee where a Concorde/Red Arrow fly over was the most beautiful sight of the afternoon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu21rM9ahkY

one concorde is definitely one concorde too many.

I think I hate you...

Don't understand why you think the news is fake as it is confirmed on many places and the second link within the article links to the website that has been following the check of the Concorde engines and the progress.

[Chris]

London has already reached the global CO2 emission limit so wouldn't a Concorde flying aloft suffocate all them spectators?
The noise emitted will even possibly ruin the opening ceremony...

Such a flyover would never ruin the Olympics. Completely the opposite. And how on earth would it suffocate anyone?
I make reference to the Queens Golden Jubilee where a Concorde/Red Arrow fly over was the most beautiful sight of the afternoon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu21rM9ahkY

one concorde is definitely one concorde too many.

I think I hate you...

Don't understand why you think the news is fake as it is confirmed on many places and the second link within the article links to the website that has been following the check of the Concorde engines and the progress.

I like this.

I was at the Golden Jubilee flyover, shame I was only 8 .

[John]

35 747-400s ! Thank God thats not true .

And so its quieter than the 707, and the 747 is most definitely not 35 times quieter than the 707 .

Sigh...

Again, the 707 had turbojets like Concorde, not turbofans that the 747 had.

I have finally found a table with QC values for Concorde (CAA - ERCD Report 0205)

On approach Concorde's QC is 16, while the 747 is 2 and the A380 is 0.5. So on approach Concorde emitted 8 times more noise energy then a 747, and 32 times more then an A380.

On takeoff Concorde's QC was still 16 (which is strange) that of the 747 is 4, and A380 is 2.

Please also note that an A380 engine produces nearly twice the thrust of a Concorde engine with its after burner on. A 747 engine 1.5 times the amount. (Wikipedia)


Also from http://www.ladacan.org/html/about_noise.HTM

campaigners against Heathrow calculated that one flight of Concorde generated noise equivalent to 35 flights by Boeing 747-400s.

However no source is given.
That may or may not include a supersonic stage in the "one flight of Concorde", without seeing the source you won't know.

However, http://www.aef.org.uk/?p=120 says

An extreme case will illustrate the way Leq works. One concorde on departure had equivalent noise energy to 120 Boeing 757s – so one [Boeing 757] plane every 2 minutes for 4 hours, produced the same Leq as 2 mins of concorde followed by 3 hrs 58 mins of silence.

I leave it up to you to decide if 120 B757s = 35 747s = 1 Concorde or not

Finally, please note that noise is measured in a logarithmic scale and the QC system uses noise energy. This means that for both of these a reduction by 0.5 bears no relation to the amount you perceive the noise to have reduced by. This makes x is 35 times quieter then y headlines more misleading.


[edit] look, i've started quoting sources in an internet debate - God, i've turned into Jamie

[Chris]

35 747-400s ! Thank God thats not true .

And so its quieter than the 707, and the 747 is most definitely not 35 times quieter than the 707 .

Sigh...

Again, the 707 had turbojets like Concorde, not turbofans that the 747 had.

I have finally found a table with QC values for Concorde (CAA - ERCD Report 0205)

On approach Concorde's QC is 16, while the 747 is 2 and the A380 is 0.5. So on approach Concorde emitted 8 times more noise energy then a 747, and 32 times more then an A380.

On takeoff Concorde's QC was still 16 (which is strange) that of the 747 is 4, and A380 is 2.

Please also note that an A380 engine produces nearly twice the thrust of a Concorde engine with its after burner on. A 747 engine 1.5 times the amount. (Wikipedia)


Also from http://www.ladacan.org/html/about_noise.HTM

campaigners against Heathrow calculated that one flight of Concorde generated noise equivalent to 35 flights by Boeing 747-400s.

However no source is given.
That may or may not include a supersonic stage in the "one flight of Concorde", without seeing the source you won't know.

However, http://www.aef.org.uk/?p=120 says

An extreme case will illustrate the way Leq works. One concorde on departure had equivalent noise energy to 120 Boeing 757s – so one [Boeing 757] plane every 2 minutes for 4 hours, produced the same Leq as 2 mins of concorde followed by 3 hrs 58 mins of silence.

I leave it up to you to decide if 120 B757s = 35 747s = 1 Concorde or not

Finally, please note that noise is measured in a logarithmic scale and the QC system uses noise energy. This means that for both of these a reduction by 0.5 bears no relation to the amount you perceive the noise to have reduced by. This makes x is 35 times quieter then y headlines more misleading.


[edit] look, i've started quoting sources in an internet debate - God, i've turned into Jamie

Sigh, I know that turbofans are quieter than turbojets. And actually, the VC-137 was based on the 320B model of the 707 (see Wikipedia), so it was a low-bypass turbofan, not a turbojet. And high-bypass turbofans are according to Wikipedia only '10-20% quieter than turbojets'.

Around 10 to 20 percent quieter than the turbojet engine due to greater mass flow and lower total exhaust speed. It is also more efficient for a useful range of subsonic airspeeds for the same reason; cooler exhaust temperature. Less noisy and exhibit much better efficiency than low bypass turbofans.

Basically when flying subsonically, Concorde was not all that loud compared to other aircraft.

[John]

Sigh, I know that turbofans are quieter than turbojets. And actually, the VC-137 was based on the 320B model of the 707 (see Wikipedia), so it was a low-bypass turbofan, not a turbojet. And high-bypass turbofans are according to Wikipedia only '10-20% quieter than turbojets'.

Ah so it did - clearly should have delved a little deeper.

Around 10 to 20 percent quieter than the turbojet engine due to greater mass flow and lower total exhaust speed. It is also more efficient for a useful range of subsonic airspeeds for the same reason; cooler exhaust temperature. Less noisy and exhibit much better efficiency than low bypass turbofans.

Basically when flying subsonically, Concorde was not all that loud compared to other aircraft.

Read one I wrote above about "x is so and so quieter then y". Without knowing what unit of sound measurement they are using the statement is fairly useless - a quick scan also failed to locate where wikipedia sourced that from. I also find the statement that cooler exhaust temperatures is why the engine is more efficient at subsonic speeds somewhat amusing.

I suspect you will find newspaper headlines comparing the A380 to 747 engine noise giving similiar figures - and thats straight turbofan with turbofan (and newspapers misunderstanding technology).

Depends what other aircraft you are comparing Concorde with - of all commercial aircraft flying into LHR today, it was the loudest by far. And I assure you Concorde approached LHR subsonically, so the comparison I quoted above are all valid with the possibly exception of the 35 747s one.

Certainly if you lived under the Heathrow flight path you knew when Concorde flew over your house.

Finally, while most aircraft noise comes from the engines, a significant proportion doesn't. Aerodynamics has advanced considerably since Concorde was designed, and its delta wing isn't a quiet thing. If you want em quite, look no further then the A380. The reason its noise energy is 4 times lower then that of a 747 on approach isn't just down to the engines.

[Chris]

I'm gonna stop digging now .

[openttd_rulez]

And the noise wouldn't be any different to a normal jet plane, Concorde's engines aren't particuarly noisy, similar to a 747, and so no the noise wouldn't ruin the opening ceremony.

Except the minor point that Concorde had turbojets and all 747s had turbofans.

Hell, even the A380 only produces 25% of the noise energy a 747-400 produces on landing ( QC/0.5 vs QC/2 respectively)....

Can't find the QC for Concorde on landing, but apparently during flight it is "as noisy as 35 747-400s"



However, as a fly past is rare, with everyone going out to watch the plane, excessive noise isn't really a problem....

35 747-400s ! Thank God thats not true .

In spite of complaints about noise, the noise report noted that Air Force One, at the time a Boeing VC-137, was louder than Concorde at subsonic speeds and during takeoff and landing.[97] Scheduled service from Paris and London to New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport began on 22 November 1977.[98]

VC-137=707

Air France Flight 001 sliced through the morning mist. The approach and landing were loud enough to drown out the protests of 15 pickets forlornly shouting "Stop the SST!" by an expressway ramp outside the terminal, but the noise level was a comfortable 14 decibels below the limit set by the Federal Aviation Administration. Moments earlier a Boeing 707 had registered slightly louder on a routine approach.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z0qrVBZKTI

Although Concorde led directly to the introduction of a general noise abatement programme for aircraft flying out of John F Kennedy Airport, many found that Concorde was quieter than expected,[30] partly due to the pilots temporarily throttling back their engines to reduce noise during overflight of residential areas.[167] Even before the launch of revenue earning services, it had been noted that Concorde was quieter than several aircraft already commonly in service at that time.[168]

And so its quieter than the 707, and the 747 is most definitely not 35 times quieter than the 707 .

i'm getting a headache here...

[audigex]

The 35x louder may refer to the sonic boom, which is indeed very loud. Environmental campaigners are not known for stringently checking their facts, either, so the fact it was people campaigning against Heathrow that said it doesn't fill me with confidence in the accurace of the number.

And if noise is the issue, and the QC scale is a logarithmic one, surely we can just fly the Concorde a bit higher and be damned to the noise.

If nothing else, we'll beat the chinese on the noise of their fireworks.

[John]

The 35x louder may refer to the sonic boom, which is indeed very loud. Environmental campaigners are not known for stringently checking their facts, either, so the fact it was people campaigning against Heathrow that said it doesn't fill me with confidence in the accurace of the number.

And if noise is the issue, and the QC scale is a logarithmic one, surely we can just fly the Concorde a bit higher and be damned to the noise.

Not just environmental campaigners. Statistics will tell you what ever you want them to tell you
However comparing noise levels is a difficult thing, as our ears are just too good in what they do.

And I don't think noise reduces that much with height, and even if it did - it couldn't fly that much higher and it would still have to come in to land.

[JamieLei]

And I don't think noise reduces that much with height, and even if it did - it couldn't fly that much higher and it would still have to come in to land.

It does reduce and Concorde does indeed fly much much higher than a conventional aircraft I believe. But it's not high enough to completely reduce the noise down to a tolerable level on the ground.

If nothing else, we'll beat the chinese on the noise of their fireworks.

Yeah but you can only let off fireworks past 10pm on certain nights of the year! Concorde on the other hand...

[orudge]

Yeah but you can only let off fireworks past 10pm on certain nights of the year! Concorde on the other hand...

... is still subject to the environmental limits set by airports, such as the banning of flights landing late/early at Heathrow. (My flight to Heathrow yesterday morning had to circle around for about 20 minutes, since we arrived a bit early and there's a 6am curfew. Nice waste of fuel there. )

And, it kind of goes without saying, but if you don't want to listen to planes landing all day, don't buy a house near an airport. (A bit harder for those who have lived there for 50 years and had the airport grow around them, it must be said, but it applies for everybody else!)