Concorde to fly again?

[newbryford]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34301689

 

After the end of the Vukcan flying this year, this may be some consolation.....

 

Cheers,

Mick

[alfsboy]

I thought the French said Non and meant it .Its great idea if I am sure a bit impractical in the end but then so is the Vulcan in reality so what do I know .They could repaint  it into Bomber command colours like that Tornado that was painted in BoB colours ,Corgi could market it and a few more bob for a bolt or two will be made.I would have thought insurance would be a killer .

[phil-b259]

I thought the French said Non and meant it .Its great idea if I am sure a bit impractical in the end but then so is the Vulcan in reality so what do I know .They could repaint  it into Bomber command colours like that Tornado that was painted in BoB colours ,Corgi could market it and a few more bob for a bolt or two will be made.I would have thought insurance would be a killer .

 

Things like insurance an engineering support are critical for jet engined planes - the main reason for the Vulcan being grounded is the ceasation of support from the likes of BAE systems, without which the CAA WILL NOT let it fly. Concorde will be the same, you can raise all the money you want but unless a large enginnering firm is prepared to devolve large ammounts of time and money certifying the aircraft as fit to fly the CAA will not let its wheels leave the ground.

 

As the Shoreham airshow demonstrated, the CAA cannot aford to let standards slip with regard to "complex aircraft"

 

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1799&pagetype=90&pageid=10741

[rockershovel]

Concorde was a very small fleet of hard-worked commercial aircraft. Service aircraft spend almost no time in the air, by comparison so their airframes have much longer lives, measured in years.

 

I can't believe that any surviving Concorde is remotely airworthy or could ever be made so.

 

I'm afraid this is just another lie from a government which appears to regard "lies as distractions" as the habitual accompaniment to any remotely controversial or unpopular situation; William Hague's recent comments about "levels of truth" with reference to the value of anything said at election time sums this up.

[Londontram]

Well I've heard that there's a zero hours air frame Concord that was put in a hanger along with some strategic steam reserve steam locos in the late 1960. The idea being in the event of a crises it would be there ready to fly the Queen and her family to safety very quickly. It must be true as a chap was telling me about it in the pub last night.

[jjb1970]

I think this is possible but unlikely and probably not a good way to spend a lot of money. As with most technical things of this nature, if the money is there then it could happen, the questions are whether the money is there and whether if the money is there then would this be a good way of spending it. I get very irritated at the way a certain section of the media commentariat reduces everything in life to "how many hospitals/low cost houses/teachers could this pay for" (the answer being none, as the money wouldn't be spent on those things anyway) but even I think this would be an awful lot of money.

[Guest]

Stuff it, mount it, look at it. Any attempt to get one back in the air will surely be an astronomically costly folly.

[pete_mcfarlane]

I'm afraid this is just another lie from a government which appears to regard "lies as distractions" as the habitual accompaniment to any remotely controversial or unpopular situation; William Hague's recent comments about "levels of truth" with reference to the value of anything said at election time sums this up.

What has a bunch of enthusiasts with a pipedream got to do with the Government?

[Bon Accord]

Rather than spending a fortune restoring an aircraft with a very limited flying life, why not get some of the major airlines involved and devote a wedge of cash to a modern super sonic aircraft.

That way we can reduce transatlantic flight times back to what they were in the late 70s. Seems incredible to think that 40 years on, it now takes longer to get across the Atlantic than it did in 1976.

[Kenton]

What a load of nonsense. Anyone who has been on the flight deck of one will understand that they were not designed or built for the digital age. Getting one to fly again would be as difficult as designing and building an entirely new supersonic jet. For a start the environmentalist lobby simply would shoot it down, not to mention the accountants. Just look at the issues that Branson is having and it is no different. Concorde had serious flaws in design and the fuselage was rotting every moment it was on the ground. It was created as a spot of entente cordial with a large amount of hooh hah for British engineering. It was a not particularly pleasant experience to fly and its only saving grace was that it was quicker (only for a short duration of the flight) Best to leave it in a museum where it belongs with all other great white elephants and woolly mammoths of the past.

[30801]

Rather than spending a fortune restoring an aircraft with a very limited flying life, why not get some of the major airlines involved and devote a wedge of cash to a modern super sonic aircraft.

That way we can reduce transatlantic flight times back to what they were in the late 70s. Seems incredible to think that 40 years on, it now takes longer to get across the Atlantic than it did in 1976.

Is there any appetite for supersonic travel these days?

Now we have teleconferencing and expect flights to cost less than it does to park your car at the airport.

[PaternosterRow]

Whilst I agree with a lot of your posts on this site Kenton, I wholeheartidly disagree with your view on this.  Putting the future into a museum, putting the past on trial and a return to 1970 political viewpoints is the rot of post modernism.  Concorde was years and years ahead of its time - just think 40 years ago people sipped champaigne whilst travelling at twice the speed of sound!  What are the great technical achievements of the last 30 years - zilch.  In fact, what do we make in GB anymore apart from jet engines.  Oh yeah, I forgot, we've got the digital age now - computers taking over from human creativity and invention. I certainly don't fancy a future based on just that.  The Human race progresses through its tools - things which ultimately allow us to adapt to our environment.  Without practising our engineering ability there is no future.   

 

Whilst Concorde would probably be a no goer given the stated problems it's time for a new supersonic/sub orbital passenger aircraft.  Now that would be something.

[2mmMark]

Corrosion and fatigue were not a problem when Concorde was flying. Its flight regime was quite benign in these respects.

 

In what's become an accountant driven industry, the economics would have stacked up against it. 13 hours of hangar time for every hour of flight, for example.

 

Concorde was very much of its time. It's a design that straddles the 1950s/60s era of aircraft design.  I've been fortunate to have a very detailed conducted tour of the aircraft and a lot of components would have been recognisable to people who worked on the 1st generation of jets.  What was evident whas the sheer pride of the people that operated and maintained it and rightly so.

 

I do agree that on 26th November 2003, the aviation world took a step backwards.  It's a step that would have come sooner or later.

 

Here's the departure from LHR on the very last Concorde flight

 

The last time anyone would ever hear and feel that sound. Having spent nearly 40 years of my working life at Heathrow, civil aviation is very bland nowadays. Efficient yes, romantic no.

 

Mark

[jjb1970]

The problem with high speed flight is the same as it has always been really, fuel costs (more speed = more power = more fuel burn) only now it is even more difficult as emissions are also an issue and aviation is already fighting against efforts to impose emissions limits or charges. I won't get into the politics of environmentalism (for what its worth I'm a bit of a tree hugger with major concerns at some of the stuff promoted and spouted by the eco lobby) but it is a fact that society and governments are now quite sensitive to environmental impact. And these days the ground handling experience before and after boarding is so dire that saving a few hours in the air is small comfort. If there is another supersonic passenger transport I suspect that unless there is a fundamental breakthrough in aerodynamics and/or propulsion technology then the only market I can see viable might be a supersonic business jet for the mega rich. Oil may be cheap-ish now but if the conditions necessary to facilitate the investment in a new supersonic transport and sell it are fulfilled then it is highly likely that oil prices would also have recovered.

[Kenton]

 

Whilst I agree with a lot of your posts on this site Kenton, I wholeheartidly disagree with your view on this.  Putting the future into a museum, putting the past on trial and a return to 1970 political viewpoints is the rot of post modernism.  Concorde was years and years ahead of its time - just think 40 years ago people sipped champaigne whilst travelling at twice the speed of sound!  What are the great technical achievements of the last 30 years - zilch.  In fact, what do we make in GB anymore apart from jet engines.  Oh yeah, I forgot, we've got the digital age now - computers taking over from human creativity and invention. I certainly don't fancy a future based on just that.  The Human race progresses through its tools - things which ultimately allow us to adapt to our environment.  Without practising our engineering ability there is no future.   

 

Whilst Concorde would probably be a no goer given the stated problems it's time for a new supersonic/sub orbital passenger aircraft.  Now that would be something.

I have had the good fortune (or otherwise) to have flown on Concorde, it is not all it was cracked up to be. I also have been on the flight deck (invited), one of my close neighbours was a flight engineer on Concorde for many years right up to and after the crash. Concorde required a very hands on flight engineer and that was due to the fact that many of its in-flight systems were manual and engineers panel was an array of dials and levers.

 

I am not saying that Concorde was not advanced for its day. But we have moved on. Today's aircraft are computer controlled and have fully electronic systems. The engines are incredibly fuel efficient by comparison and the aircraft themselves have more capacity and much less noise. Concorde was incredibly restricted in where it could fly, and at sonic speed limited to across water routes.

 

Keeping the plane in flight was an important part of the anti corrosion policy.

 

It should remain a treasured item in a museum to act s inspiration to future generations just like the bi-plane and, yes, Vulcan.

[45156]

Interesting debate here with quite a few informed and well argued viewpoints. 

 

Yes, Concorde is of a different aviation era, and as such is part of our (and France's) aviation heritage.  Older aircraft can be made to fly again, but not with a degree of efficiency in comparison to today's more modern offerings with their computer based avionics and fuel efficient engines.  I have seen a Concorde flight deck, and it is, by today's standards, closer to the 707/DC8 era than the 787/A340 era.  That is not to say that a Concorde SHOULD not fly again, one can fly a Tiger Moth today, and have a similar heritage experience, and nobody is saying that you shouldn't fly one because a Piper is a more modern, efficient, or effective plane to fly.  I flew gliders, and enjoyed flying a T21, but for efficient flight, I went back to a glass ship or a Blanik.  Yes, this COULD be done, provided the aircraft can be acquired, maintained, fueled at resaonable cost, and flown by properly certified pilots (I'm guessing that the training material for flight crews can still be obtained).  Whether it will is another matter.

 

I think it is a pipe dream of a few nostalgic Concondeites, which sounds like a great idea, but which is a practical, financial, and commercial non-starter.

 

Now, what was it that they said about the impossibility of building an A1 from scratch?

[PaternosterRow]

Thank God we haven't shared this attitude with the Spitfire!  Long may they continue to fly and wouldn't it be nice to see Concorde doing one more fly past over Buck House? -  A reminder of the technological superiority that once made this country the envy of the world.  I'm not being patriotic here (I'm Irish) but GB invented the modern world and it's important to celebrate and perhaps reinvigorate an engineering interest lest it become lost forever in a society that now seems to be increasingly preoccupied with a fame culture. 

[Guest]

It should remain a treasured item in a museum to act as inspiration to future generations just like the bi-plane and, yes, Vulcan.

It would be more inspiring to future generations to see it do what it was built for, and fly. Rather than be shoved in a museum. And what a great inspiration it would be for young aspiring engineers, to see a Concorde overhauled and flying again, when it is such a monumentous task.

 

It's better to at least have a go, than just give up at the first hurdle. Even if they, in the end, can't get one flying again then at least they'll have gone some way to try. In regards to the design flaws, would it be possible to take the 'P2' approach? Acknowledge and improve. Alter the design slightly so it works better in the more modern environment and is more durable to overcome the original flaws.

 

At the very least, I hope they are able to acheive (Semi-fast) taxi-runs in the future like Vulcan XM655, should flying become out of reach.

 

Regards,

Matt

[phil-b259]

Thank God we haven't shared this attitude with the Spitfire!  Long may they continue to fly and wouldn't it be nice to see Concorde doing one more fly past over Buck House? -  A reminder of the technological superiority that once made this country the envy of the world.  I'm not being patriotic here (I'm Irish) but GB invented the modern world and it's important to celebrate and perhaps reinvigorate an engineering interest lest it become lost forever in a society that now seems to be increasingly preoccupied with a fame culture. 

 

There is A BIG DIFFERENCE between a turbo prop plane with simple controls and a complex multi jet supersonic aircraft. Repairs to a spitfire - or even a restoration from scrap condition only requires relatively basic mechanical skills - i.e. anyone with suitable access to metal bashing gear and a decent car workshop could undertake the task.

 

Age is relatively irrelevant in all this its technical complexity that matters.

 

This is why the CAA treat the Vulcan and the Spitfire differently under their regs and is also why, after the Shoreham crash, turbo-prop planes were still permitted to undertake acrobatics over land while jet planes were not.

 

You can raise all the money you like but as has been made VERY CLEAR, the CAA will NOT allow a plane to return to the sky UNLESS its restoration and maintenance has the active participation of those who designed and maintained it in commercial service (i.e. BAE systems, Rolls Royce, etc)

[Coppercap]

There is A BIG DIFFERENCE between a turbo prop plane with simple controls and a complex multi jet supersonic aircraft. Repairs to a spitfire - or even a restoration from scrap condition only requires relatively basic mechanical skills - i.e. anyone with suitable access to metal bashing gear and a decent car workshop could undertake the task.

 

Age is relatively irrelevant in all this its technical complexity that matters.

 

This is why the CAA treat the Vulcan and the Spitfire differently under their regs and is also why, after the Shoreham crash, turbo-prop planes were still permitted to undertake acrobatics over land while jet planes were not.

 

You can raise all the money you like but as has been made VERY CLEAR, the CAA will NOT allow a plane to return to the sky UNLESS its restoration and maintenance has the active participation of those who designed and maintained it in commercial service (i.e. BAE systems, Rolls Royce, etc)

There's also a big difference between a Spitfire and a turbo prop plane.

[APOLLO]

What's the connection between Concord and the Somerset & Dorset railway ?

 

In the book entitled "The Somerset & Dorset Railway, Then and Now" by Mac Hawkins. An interesting comment is made regarding Winsor Hill Tunnel (Near Shepton Mallet), which was used, in 1968, after the line was closed and lines lifted, by Rolls Royce for destructive tests on the Olympus engine destined for Concorde.

To quote the book, "Up to the late 1980's the tunnel's portals were obscured by massive steel doors, built a little in front of the stonework and supported by a frame. These where constructed as an anti-blast measure by Rolls Royce in 1968, who used the tunnel for destructive tests on the Olympus engine for Concorde. They ran an engine without oil, expecting it to blow up within 20 minutes or so, but in the event it lasted for well over two hours !. The tunnel's use for this purpose was only over a few days, planning permission having been sought from Shepton Mallet RDC as a matter of course, in case an explosion caused a change in the local topography"

 

Also this

 

http://www.forgottenrelics.co.uk/tunnels/gallery/windsorhill.html

 

Sadly no - I doubt she will ever fly again.

 

Brit15

[phil-b259]

There's also a big difference between a Spitfire and a turbo prop plane.

 

Not according to the CAA (if I understand their latest guidance correctly) - and they are the ones who make the rules with regard to what is allowed to fly where.

 

taken from http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1799&pagetype=90&pageid=10741

 

Complex motor-powered aircraft’ shall mean:

(i) an aeroplane:

- with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5700 kg, or

- certificated for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nineteen, or

- certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or

- equipped with (a) turbojet engine(s) or more than one turboprop engine

A spitfire has a single turboprop engine and is thus a 'simple aircraft' and in the CAAs eyes. A Lancaster or a Blenheim on the other hand has more than one turboprop engine so thus becomes a "Complex aircraft"

 

As for those advocating Concords return to the skies the following is worth digesting (I have underlined the most relevant bits parts) (taken from http://www.vulcantothesky.org/history/eof-q-a.html)

 

Trust Chief Executive, Robert Pleming, answers the most commonly asked questions on the end of flying for XH558.

 

Q 1 - Which are the three expert companies who are ceasing support?

A - The decision to cease support, and consequently cause XH558 to cease flying, was made collectively by BAE Systems, Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group, and Rolls-Royce.

 

Q 2 - Why is their support essential?

A - Since XH558 has been designated by the CAA as a complex-category ex-military aircraft, the CAA requires continued airworthiness design support to be in place from the manufacturer, or an equivalent organisation suitably approved for this purpose. To maintain XH558’s Permit to Fly, this must cover each aspect of the design and must be the subject of a formal agreement.

 

Q 3 - Aren’t there any other companies that could provide the required support?

A – Yes; there are companies that have the required skills who would be happy to support the Vulcan, however they would need access to information only available from the original manufacturer, and would be required by the CAA to have continued airworthiness design support agreements with those manufacturers. The three companies mentioned above have stated that they would not be prepared to establish such agreements.

 

Q 4 - How long have you known that the three companies are withdrawing their support at the end of 2015?

A – Marshall Aerospace wrote to the Trust in April 2013 proposing cessation of flying at the end of 2015, a date that was communicated to XH558’s supporters. We believed that we might be able to extend this date and worked with the support of Rolls-Royce to understand how what we understood to be the the key limiting factor, engine life, could be extended. In January 2015, Marshall Aerospace again wrote to the Trust, this time asserting that their support, and that of BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, would cease at the end of 2015. Extensive negotiations have not been able to change this position.

 

Q 5 - Is XH558 safe to fly?

A - Yes, the aircraft is as airworthy today as she was when she first flew in 1960. Indeed, because of the enhancements made by the Trust, it is possible to assert that she is safer now than when original delivered. XH558’s safety for the 2015 season is not in doubt.

 

Q 6 - Does the Trust believe that XH558 could fly on beyond 2015?

A - The Trust has to accept the professional views of BAE Systems, Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group, and Rolls-Royce.

[45156]

Not wishing to seem a pedant or rivet counter, but the Spitfire and Lancaster are usually Merlin powered, and the Merlin is a piston engine, not a turbo-prop.

[laurenceb]

A Spitfire is not a tubo-prop airoplane it has a piston engine, as do the Lanc and Blenheim.

[Guest]

When I was growing up, planes either had a propeller (or multiples thereof) or they didn't, which made it a jet. Simple, I know, but it always worked for me.