French concorde investigation...

I flew in concorde cost me £3k for me and my partner one way to the states.. It was a quick flight but tbh a complete waste of money. It never felt amazing or anything other than a small passenger plane. The most immpressive bit was the initial kick as it accelerated... Its much more impressive to see from the outside than the inside..
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see Concorde back in the air again, it's an inspiring piece of engineering that reminds you just how smart we are.
 
Heritage wise having one concorde flying would be great, yea of course support for it as part of airlines has gone but this is not the focus of the article and I personally think their would be great support for concorde as a heritage plane.

I think some of you need to stop being old farts :p
 
AcidHell2 said:
I swear some people want to live in cheap concrete boxes.
There is nothing wrong with spending money on iconic things, statues and other "pointless" things. These things are important.
Click to expand...

Muhrr. I don't want to live in cheap concrete boxes. There just isn't a hope in hell that Concorde will fly again, especially not with just £15 million.

Concorde, during it's lifetime, cost BA and AF £billions. The main reason BA and AF retired them was due to running costs.

The group trying to get this to fly again don't have the financial means to keep just one running, even just for flyovers (and it would just be flyovers - no passenger will fly on it again. These aircraft haven't been touched by an official maintenance schedule for 6-7 years now (that would be a lifetime for a new plane, let alone a 40 year old one!)).

Does it even have it's safety rating and airworthyness certification still? Who knows.

Superewza, you do realise that the '747' actually refers to the 747-100, -200, -300, -400, -8? Models that have been updated, completely changed and manufactured using newer and safer materials and methods over the past 40 years? Concorde and the many different 747 models are not comparable. All of the Concordes are 40 years old. Most 747s are less than 15 years old. Most of the original -100 models stll flying (and it is only a handful) are used by unknown, small airlines in developing countries or as testbeds for engines and such.
 
Last edited:
I don't expect passengers to fly In it, it'll be for air displays. Also agree they haven't got the finacial backing. I reckon it'll be like the volcan, give it a couple of decades and some group will get it up for limited air shows.
 
Nlikely bt it could. All it would take is a couple of billionaires. It's an iconic plane. All though the parts don't exist. The plans are usually kept and never throwen away.
 
Aircraft spare parts aren't the sort of things a professional restorer can make in his spare time using donated money.

It would take a major manufacturer (in this case, BAE/RR) to completely retool, completely replan (new parts would have to comply with the many regulations now in place), using different materials to the originals. They'd have to make prototypes, test test and test again, adjust, retool, test test and test again again, and so on so forth.

It's not going to happen.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Slick said:
Aircraft spare parts aren't the sort of things a professional restorer can make in his spare time using donated money.

It would take a major manufacturer (in this case, BAE/RR) to completely retool, completely replan (new parts would have to comply with the many regulations now in place), using different materials to the originals. They'd have to make prototypes, test test and test again, adjust, retool, test test and test again again, and so on so forth.

It's not going to happen.
Click to expand...


The engines are being inspected to see if they are serviceable. I would hazard a guess and say they are most likely very low houred engines which is why they are hoping the boroscopes are not going to show any problems in which case they would have a lot of hours flying time before any major servicing would be needed.

I doubt it will ever fly, mainly because of paperwork and regulations though rather than spare parts availability.
 
Most of the Concordes racked up 20,000~ hours, as so far as I know, none of the engines were replaced entirely.

They would be due a D check (basically taking apart the entire aircraft - takes months and costs millions).

I doubt RR would give them any sort of support, and Airbus have already said that they won't. It's not an aircraft you can take to a third party for servicing.

I do remember that the restored, flying Vulcan needed brand new zero timed engines. So this is definitely not going to happen.
 
Last edited:
Yup, considering how much money and man hours it took to get some of the old steam engines going again just to travel on a track, now compare that with a machine that flies and need to be 100% safe and performing on the limit, we will never see it fly unless someone with some serious money wants it to be flown again.
 
Clarkson sums it up best

He cited the Concorde crash as his inspiration, feeling a sadness for the demise of the machine as well as the passengers. Clarkson was a passenger on the last BA Concorde flight on 24 October 2003. Paraphrasing Neil Armstrong he described the retirement of the fleet as "This is one small step for a man, but one huge leap backwards for mankind", and that the challenge of building Concorde had been a greater human feat than landing a man on the Moon
Click to expand...

We will never ever see transport like it, 50 years time I doubt we will be going supersonic in passenger transport, infact we will be going slower like on a ship :D
 
When I'm mega-rich (note the when, not if! :p) I will get Concorde back in the air!

Was in Bristol for the last flight, the beautiful lady flew right over me! :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom