• Concorde will fly again, says group with massive war chest
    42 replies, posted
[b]Concorde Will Fly Again, Says Group With Massive War Chest[/b] Via [url=http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/concorde-will-fly-again-says-group-with-massive-war-ch-1731681175]Flight Club (Gawker)[/url] ____________________ [quote][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/rV7KA9k.jpg[/IMG] [url=http://www.clubconcorde.co.uk/]Club Concorde[/url], a group of ex-pilots, maintainers, engineers, airline execs and Concorde enthusiasts has unveiled a plan that aims to put a Concorde back in the air by 2019, and supposedly they have a pile of cash to see their plans through to fruition. It has been more than a decade since Concorde took its last flight, ending its career on October 24th, 2003. Examples are now strewn across the globe in the aviation museums and science centers where they were sent with no intention of ever flying again. As such, it is not as if you can just go out and buy a surplus Concorde.... Or can you? Club Concorde plans on doing just that, with an example stored at Le Bourget airport in Paris at the top of their shopping list. They want to acquire and restore the aircraft, potentially for a sum around $180 million dollars, and return it to flight, with a target date of 2019 for the iconic jet to rise again. Once flying, Club Concorde wants to use the aircraft for flypasts, air shows, corporate event and even private charters. Yes, we have heard of attempts to get the Concorde back in the sky before. Even [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-185686/Branson-ups-Concorde-bid-5m.html]Sir Richard Branson wanted to continue operating the Concordes once Air France and British Airways had announced their retirement[/url]. What makes this time different is the fact that many years have past since the jet’s controversial retirement, and that Club Concorde apparently has an investor with very, very deep pockets.[/quote] FUCK YEA. Next to the SR-71 Blackbird, the Concorde is one of my all-time favorite airplanes. It'd be glorious to see this old girl fly again :D [editline]19th September 2015[/editline] I remember reading comments of how mind-blowingly loud it was, haha. I'd love to see and *hear* one of these big birds! [hd]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1ShTUVIzCI[/hd]
yes, YES, [B]YES[/B]! I'M A HAPPY GUY... This too is one of my favorite airplanes, I used to think I'd never see one in action. Not sure if everyone is gonna welcome back the noise level though!
Ever since seeing it on the cover of Flight Simulator 2000, I've really wanted to fly in a Concorde. Might actually get a chance now. [IMG]http://www.mobygames.com/images/covers/large/1197260736-00.jpg[/IMG]
I wouldn't be surprised if the investor that they talked about is Branson himself.
[QUOTE=Callinstead;48716073]yes, YES, [B]YES[/B]! I'M A HAPPY GUY... This too is one of my favorite airplanes, I used to think I'd never see one in action. Not sure if everyone is gonna welcome back the noise level though![/QUOTE] It's got 27 years of flawless, uninterrupted service, and the root cause of the only 1 accident it had (caused mainly by debris left by another aircraft) was subsequently fixed on all other Concordes, by applying kevlar protection to its fuel tanks. A somewhat flawed design to give precedence to speed more than safety and capacity. If this is [U]really[/U] happening and it's not just a pipe dream, then it's the best news of the year, for sure! :excited: [editline]19th September 2015[/editline] Also, it's been a bit over a decade since its last flight... there are better tech, better materials, so it could be stronger, lighter and perhaps even "quieter" (since that was one of the main excuses politics used to keep it grounded). FUCK YEA, CONCORDE!!!! [editline]19th September 2015[/editline] [hd]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouryCrw1AYk[/hd] Circa '96, a fly-by with RAF's Red Arrows. GLORIOUS! :D
[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;48716089]I wouldn't be surprised if the investor that they talked about is Branson himself.[/QUOTE] Could be Musk as well, though he seems more the type to develop a new supersonic aircraft of his own. He's mentioned the Concorde a few times. “I get a little sad when things are not getting better in the future. An example would be like the Concorde being retired and the fact there is no supersonic passenger transport," Musk said.
Why? The Concord was a horrible design There needs to be a new wide bodied plane to replace it [editline]19th September 2015[/editline] Oh not for commercial service [editline]19th September 2015[/editline] If Boeing didn't have a 10 year backorder on 787s maybe they could spend some on designing an actual wide bodied supersonic jet, instead they have spent tons of r&d on the concept but never actually moved past mockups and scale tests
[QUOTE=laserpanda;48716471]Could be Musk as well, though he seems more the type to develop a new supersonic aircraft of his own. He's mentioned the Concorde a few times. “I get a little sad when things are not getting better in the future. An example would be like the Concorde being retired and the fact there is no supersonic passenger transport," Musk said.[/QUOTE] Seems more like a Branson thing than a Musk thing.
:snip: I posted before Sableye edited.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48716510]Why? The Concord was a horrible design There needs to be a new wide bodied plane to replace it [editline]19th September 2015[/editline] Oh not for commercial service[/QUOTE] Not really. If you were filthy rich and time was of your utmost priority (as it tends to be for some people), this is the plane you take, that can get you from California to NY in 2 hours or less. If 20% of the wealthiest people on Earth were interested in the plane, I'm sure it could make sense to bring it back. Remember that one of its major drawbacks was that it didn't pay well financially, every flight was a money sink for both British Airways and Air France, they lost money every time that thing was flying. We should be thankful they kept it around as long as they did, however. But I'd love to see it becoming a thing again.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;48716606]Not really. If you were filthy rich and time was of your utmost priority (as it tends to be for some people), this is the plane you take, that can get you from California to NY in 2 hours or less. If 20% of the wealthiest people on Earth were interested in the plane, I'm sure it could make sense to bring it back. Remember that one of its major drawbacks was that it didn't pay well financially, every flight was a money sink for both British Airways and Air France, they lost money every time that thing was flying. We should be thankful they kept it around as long as they did, however. But I'd love to see it becoming a thing again.[/QUOTE] There weren't enough people rich enough then, there sure won't be now. I think people generally wanted the super big seats in normal first class over a short flight but smaller seats in Concorde.
We could do so much better today. It's a cool vehicle but it had so many downsides to it and so many compromises we could get around today that I am not even sure if it's worth it anymore. The materials, the engines, the design and simulation methods. We are so far from where we are back then...
I believe it's being restored for historical interests, not for commercial flights.
The problem with the Concorde was that for it's job it wasn't very efficient, only catered to a very small percentage of the population that could afford the flight, and was extremely loud. [video=youtube;annkM6z1-FE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=annkM6z1-FE[/video] However, if it's coming back for air shows and the like that I'm all for it.
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;48716763]if it's coming back for air shows and the like that I'm all for it.[/QUOTE] For reasons I can't recall, the plane is legally not even allowed to fly at air shows. The remaining aircrafts sitting in museums could be reaconditioned and ready to go (it'd be pretty damn expensive, that's for sure)... but I guess the FAA really hates the Concorde. [url=http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/remember-when-a-concorde-wore-this-ridiculous-pepsi-liv-1709488664]The record holder for fastest round-the-world commercial flights, nicknamed "Sierra Delta"[/url], sits on display at The Museum of Air and Space in Le Bourget, France. [img]http://i.imgur.com/HPnym1s.jpg[/img] It must be quite the sight, but it's so sad to see it grounded there. :/
Yes the biggest issue isn't a money and man power one but a legal one, the engines require some kind of permit that's a bureaucratic nightmare to acquire.
[QUOTE=Saxon;48716816]Yes the biggest issue isn't a money and man power one but a legal one, the engines require some kind of permit that's a bureaucratic nightmare to acquire.[/QUOTE] It's called the "Those Damn Supersonic Engines Are Insanely Loud" permit. :v: [editline]19th September 2015[/editline] Ok so, after doing a bit more of reading and catching up, the major selling point for supersonic flight would be that current aircrafts are just so slow, it's like using dial-up in a broadband world... and you'd be right. Most modern business and commercial jets and cruise at about Mach 0.85, whereas the Concorde could cruise at Mach 2. People would definitely receive with open arms faster aircrafts. A 12-hour flight to Japan reduced to 6 would be a dramatic improvement. However, [url=https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/noise_emissions/supersonic_aircraft_noise/media/noise_policy_on_supersonics.pdf]civilian planes aren't allowed to break the sound barrier over land (keyword: over land) in many parts of the world[/url]. The Concorde wasn't allowed to go supersonic over US soil, it had to throttle down to sub-sonic speeds once it reached 25km to the US coast. The problem with supersonic aircraft is [i]still[/i] sonic booms and flying higher to reduce the booms footprint creates issues of ozone depletion. Its going to be difficult to convince the JAA, FAA, CAA and other governmental aircraft certification authorities who are influenced by public groups, that the environmental issues have been demonstrated to have been solved. [url]http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-10-08/news/1995281022_1_ozone-sulfur-exhaust-particles[/url] I think its technically feasible to create a supersonic business aircraft, or bring back the Concorde as a brand itself, but I question the hope for build numbers and the ultimate sticker cost considering the environmental development costs and public/Governmental issues. It's definitely one huge hurdle the people behind this project will have to face, we'll see how it goes... :/
It wont ever fly unless Airbus give their approval, which will never happen. I really hope to be proven wrong though.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;48716810]For reasons I can't recall, the plane is legally not even allowed to fly at air shows. The remaining aircrafts sitting in museums could be reaconditioned and ready to go (it'd be pretty damn expensive, that's for sure)... but I guess the FAA really hates the Concorde. [url=http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/remember-when-a-concorde-wore-this-ridiculous-pepsi-liv-1709488664]The record holder for fastest round-the-world commercial flights, nicknamed "Sierra Delta"[/url], sits on display at The Museum of Air and Space in Le Bourget, France. [img]http://i.imgur.com/HPnym1s.jpg[/img] It must be quite the sight, but it's so sad to see it grounded there. :/[/QUOTE] Isn't that the one they want to buy and restore?
Concorde was always a big thing for me growing up, and in many ways I think it was the epitome of what could be achieved with European cooperation - possibly more potent as a symbol than a business. I had the good fortune to see the flagship Concorde at Manchester airport when I was there some time ago, they really are beautiful things
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;48716834]Ok so, after doing a bit more of reading and catching up, the major selling point for supersonic flight would be that current aircrafts are just so slow, it's like using dial-up in a broadband world... and you'd be right. Most modern business and commercial jets and cruise at about Mach 0.85, whereas the Concorde could cruise at Mach 2. People would definitely receive with open arms faster aircrafts. A 12-hour flight to Japan reduced to 6 would be a dramatic improvement.[/QUOTE] And this was basically why it failed. It's so expensive that it's just barely profitable, so once the 2000 crash happened, followed by 9/11, it cost so much money to operate that they just retired it. People just didn't care enough to pay. But this won't be used for commercial passenger service, so who knows?
I saw one in person at an air and space museum next to Dulles Airport. Got to touch it. Kinda cool. I think I remember hearing these over central PA as a kid in the 90s breaking the sound barrier, or maybe it was something else. I remember the sound though.
Imagine if terroritz had a concorde to use instead
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;48716834]It's called the "Those Damn Supersonic Engines Are Insanely Loud" permit. :v: [editline]19th September 2015[/editline] Ok so, after doing a bit more of reading and catching up, the major selling point for supersonic flight would be that current aircrafts are just so slow, it's like using dial-up in a broadband world... and you'd be right. Most modern business and commercial jets and cruise at about Mach 0.85, whereas the Concorde could cruise at Mach 2. People would definitely receive with open arms faster aircrafts. A 12-hour flight to Japan reduced to 6 would be a dramatic improvement. However, [url=https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/noise_emissions/supersonic_aircraft_noise/media/noise_policy_on_supersonics.pdf]civilian planes aren't allowed to break the sound barrier over land (keyword: over land) in many parts of the world[/url]. The Concorde wasn't allowed to go supersonic over US soil, it had to throttle down to sub-sonic speeds once it reached 25km to the US coast. The problem with supersonic aircraft is [i]still[/i] sonic booms and flying higher to reduce the booms footprint creates issues of ozone depletion. Its going to be difficult to convince the JAA, FAA, CAA and other governmental aircraft certification authorities who are influenced by public groups, that the environmental issues have been demonstrated to have been solved. [url]http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-10-08/news/1995281022_1_ozone-sulfur-exhaust-particles[/url] I think its technically feasible to create a supersonic business aircraft, or bring back the Concorde as a brand itself, but I question the hope for build numbers and the ultimate sticker cost considering the environmental development costs and public/Governmental issues. It's definitely one huge hurdle the people behind this project will have to face, we'll see how it goes... :/[/QUOTE] At this point I wonder if we'll have ultra-expensive (hundreds of thousands) sub-orbital commuter spacecraft like a SpaceShipTwo, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipThree]SpaceShipThree[/url], from Virgin Galactic before we have another supersonic jet liner. Would be arguably better in the speed and noise departments, but obviously worse in the price.
The only thing wrong with the Concorde is it's too expensive, really, to fly on one. It isn't the most dangerous or anything. The one accident Concorde was involved in was kind of a freak accident and not even Concorde's fault. It ran over a piece of mangled metal debris left over from the flight that took off before it, which blew one tire and threw the rubber into a fuel tank. Even though that heavy ass piece of rubber hit the fuel tank at 300 miles per hour, it didn't puncture it. But the force of that hit did cause it to rupture elsewhere, causing the fuel leak, and then the fuel ignited causing the fire. It could have happened to any aircraft [editline]19th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Antlerp;48718118]Imagine if terroritz had a concorde to use instead[/QUOTE] They could barely fly 767's which are EASY to fly. Good luck flying THIS [img]http://www.bredow-web.de/Concorde_-_Cockpit.jpg[/img] Fucking Space shuttle is less complicated
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;48716810]For reasons I can't recall, the plane is legally not even allowed to fly at air shows. The remaining aircrafts sitting in museums could be reaconditioned and ready to go (it'd be pretty damn expensive, that's for sure)... but I guess the FAA really hates the Concorde. [url=http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/remember-when-a-concorde-wore-this-ridiculous-pepsi-liv-1709488664]The record holder for fastest round-the-world commercial flights, nicknamed "Sierra Delta"[/url], sits on display at The Museum of Air and Space in Le Bourget, France. [img]http://i.imgur.com/HPnym1s.jpg[/img] It must be quite the sight, but it's so sad to see it grounded there. :/[/QUOTE] Metallurgy and fuselage lifespan. The concorde was known to expand up to 1 foot from heat alone. Supersonic takes it's toll. The current remaining fuselages run the risk of having microfractures and other weak points that developed over their lifespan.
Apparently back in the 70's, tickets were around $2,000 one-way but rose to around $10,000 by the 90's, so about $18,000 in 2015 money. Compare that to today's prices where you can see the same flights for about $400 one-way or a few thousand bucks for first class. Wouldn't work. [QUOTE=TheTalon;48718169]They could barely fly 767's which are EASY to fly. Good luck flying THIS [t]http://www.bredow-web.de/Concorde_-_Cockpit.jpg[/t] Fucking Space shuttle is less complicated[/QUOTE] To be fair, a lot of that is the same you'd find in any jetliner built in the 70s. A moderately experienced pilot could probably manage taking over mid-flight because the basic concepts of flying it are the same as any other plane. The engineer's panel is the only thing that would be a problem, but assuming you were planning on crashing the thing, I doubt you'd really be concerned over any minor mechanical failures along the way. Keep in mind the Concorde does have autopilot, so as long as you know how to use an autopilot (really piss easy) you'd probably manage.
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;48718294]Metallurgy and fuselage lifespan. The concorde was known to expand up to 1 foot from heat alone. Supersonic takes it's toll. The current remaining fuselages run the risk of having microfractures and other weak points that developed over their lifespan.[/QUOTE] Do the remaining ones still work? Working engines and avionics and whatnot?
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48718323]Do the remaining ones still work? Working engines and avionics and whatnot?[/QUOTE] The final flight was in 2003. [QUOTE=Wikipedia]Jock Lowe, ex-chief Concorde pilot and manager of the fleet estimated in 2004 that it would cost £10–15 million to make G-BOAF airworthy again.[/QUOTE] It also costs £120 million to buy the plane outright, so not a small sum, but the guys in the OP should be able to afford it.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;48718361]The final flight was in 2003.[/QUOTE] I know that. Doesn't answer my question.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.