• Concorde will fly again, says group with massive war chest
    42 replies, posted
[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] I heard they start the engines once every year to make sure its in operational condition. Would be a sight to see that, even just a simple startup. The biggest problem for the Concorde and what ultimately actually killed it is the operating costs though, BA charged about 6000GBP (inflation adjusted) per passenger and IIRC (dont quote me on this) they made only about 50GBP per passenger.
-snip- nevermind, spoke faster than my brain.
[video=youtube;lsqPsX8k5FE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsqPsX8k5FE[/video]
[URL="https://youtu.be/qT-1lXdJkGA"]https://youtu.be/qT-1lXdJkGA[/URL]
I wonder if the Concord, or any similar aircraft will ever be manufactured again. A dreamer can dream.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48718376]I know that. Doesn't answer my question.[/QUOTE] If you read the rest of my post, your question would have been answered. None are airworthy. None are certified. None have been even turned on for over a decade. It costs a pretty significant sum of money to restore just one.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;48718942]If you read the rest of my post, your question would have been answered. None are airworthy. None are certified. None have been even turned on for over a decade. It costs a pretty significant sum of money to restore just one.[/QUOTE] I just read earlier that someone said they fire up the engines annually.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48719086]I just read earlier that someone said they fire up the engines annually.[/QUOTE] The engines might not be installed in the jet. They test engines on stands all the time. Look up a youtuber named "AgentJayZ" he works for a company that repairs industrial jet engines, including older variants of the Olympus.
At this point, everyone knows the bird was expensive to maintain, but the same argument can be said about Rolls-Royce cars, if they were a defunct company and a millionaire tried to bring back the brand. "-Dude, those cars were too damn expensive, no one buys them unless you're a Sheikh with oil money" "-Cars aren't even that fast, that's where the Mercedes S-Class comes in, just as luxurious and comfortable, and half the price" "-It'll never work" I want to believe... :'/ [editline]19th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=hogofwar;48717856]Isn't that the one they want to buy and restore?[/QUOTE] That's correct, Sierra Delta is the one they want to "resto mod", so to speak. After doing a bit of reading, looks like Sierra Delta is intact, except for the engines. They were removed so it could be logged around easily, and each engine could be displayed individually on museums. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce/Snecma_Olympus_593#Specifications_.28Olympus_593_Mk_610.29]Each engine weighs 7000 Lb (3175 kg)[/url].
[QUOTE=Incoming.;48718529]I wonder if the Concord, or any similar aircraft will ever be manufactured again. A dreamer can dream.[/QUOTE] Even if you could, most people will take a cheaper airfare on a slower plane than a expensive one to get there fast, its why supersonic air travel never caught on.
[QUOTE=Incoming.;48718529]I wonder if the Concord, or any similar aircraft will ever be manufactured again. A dreamer can dream.[/QUOTE] Well, Airbus has the schematics and blueprints. They could just go ahead and rebuild a brand new one, with better avionics and better materials. There was one aircraft that featured titanium rivets, which saved somewhere over 2000 lb in weight. Now, certifying each piece, and the engines... that's a whole 'nother issue altogether. Let's dream together... :/ [editline]19th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Saxon;48719787]Even if you could, most people will take a cheaper airfare on a slower plane than a expensive one to get there fast, its why supersonic air travel never caught on.[/QUOTE] Hence, the reason Airbus built the A380. It's a flying whale, but you ask *anyone*, they'll all tell you that they hate staying in a flying tin can for more than a couple hours - specially flying coach, since a handful of people can afford first class. Can't imagine how it must be a 12 hour flight to Australia. The Concorde drastically reduced that time, so you really didn't have time to sleep on the plane or anything like that. People still need to get to places. You could argue that videoconferencing can reduce the need for travel, and for planes like these, but it wouldn't eliminate it altogether. I' really hope we see supersonic flights in my lifetime.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;48719759]At this point, everyone knows the bird was expensive to maintain, but the same argument can be said about Rolls-Royce cars, if they were a defunct company and a millionaire tried to bring back the brand. "-Dude, those cars were too damn expensive, no one buys them unless you're a Sheikh with oil money" "-Cars aren't even that fast, that's where the Mercedes S-Class comes in, just as luxurious and comfortable, and half the price" "-It'll never work" I want to believe... :'/ [/QUOTE] Not really. This is more like if someone tried to make a 1920 Bugatti Royale roadworthy again. It can be done and it might not even take that much effort to do so, but to use the end result for anything other than displays and fancy shows wouldn't just be stupid, it'd put both the car and everyone around it at risk. Same thing applies to the Concorde. There's nothing inherently stopping them from restoring the thing (in fact, the very aircraft they're trying to buy was planned to be restored to be able to taxi around under its own power back in 2010. That never led anywhere which is why these dudes want to buy it), but if they plan on using it for anything other than the odd airshow or celebration, then it will - very rightfully - get lobbied into the ground. Incidentally your other analogy about broadband/dial-up doesn't work either. Concorde isn't "broadband" to, say, a 777's "dial-up". Rather, Concorde is just an unusually-fast dial-up supplied at extreme price. At any and all points other than raw speed, the Concorde is [I]freakishly[/I] outdated, to the point that trying to fix them all would render the Concorde a whole new aircraft. If you really want "broadband", then what you'd need is a plane designed in the 21st century for the 21st century; ie one that doesn't have to conform to the technological and societal limits and standards of 1970. All that said, I want this thing airworthy as much as the next guy. I'm just saying that it's not all that you're making it out to be.
[QUOTE=Pilotguy97;48721019]Not really. This is more like if someone tried to make a 1920 Bugatti Royale roadworthy again. It can be done and it might not even take that much effort to do so, but to use the end result for anything other than displays and fancy shows wouldn't just be stupid, it'd put both the car and everyone around it at risk. Same thing applies to the Concorde. There's nothing inherently stopping them from restoring the thing (in fact, the very aircraft they're trying to buy was planned to be restored to be able to taxi around under its own power back in 2010. That never led anywhere which is why these dudes want to buy it), but if they plan on using it for anything other than the odd airshow or celebration, then it will - very rightfully - get lobbied into the ground. Incidentally your other analogy about broadband/dial-up doesn't work either. Concorde isn't "broadband" to, say, a 777's "dial-up". Rather, Concorde is just an unusually-fast dial-up supplied at extreme price. At any and all points other than raw speed, the Concorde is [I]freakishly[/I] outdated, to the point that trying to fix them all would render the Concorde a whole new aircraft. If you really want "broadband", then what you'd need is a plane designed in the 21st century for the 21st century; ie one that doesn't have to conform to the technological and societal limits and standards of 1970. All that said, I want this thing airworthy as much as the next guy. I'm just saying that it's not all that you're making it out to be.[/QUOTE] Frankly there's nothing truly "outdated" about it beyond it not having a glass cockpit. The underlying technology is essentially the same beyond it being extremely fuel-inefficient (but that's more a problem with its supersonic engines than its design). Most pilots today can handle a traditional "steam cockpit". The problem is that a lot of planes - like the 737 - were field-upgraded to glass cockpits while the Concorde never got similar treatment. Concordes were very safe for what they were. It could feasibly be run in commercial service from a mechanic and technical standpoint with moderate restoration. Keep in mind that several US airlines still run MD-80s introduced in the early 80s and many US cargo operators run DC-10s built in the 70s (same time as the Concorde). Several DC-9s built in the 60s were only retired last year. So it's a stretch - but not wholly impossible - to say that Concordes could be flown commercially. Of course, again, that's not from a financial standpoint. A single ticket would cost $18,000 in today's money, and that's not accounting for the rise in the cost of gas (even though it dropped in the past year). It wouldn't get lobbied into the ground - it'd just be a commercial failure. It was a massive failure to the manufacturers, who saw the vast majority of orders cancelled. It only came to be a commercial success for airlines once prices were raised, which triggered its eventual demise as subsonic travel became cheap, fast, and easy. Keep in mind that Boeing tried the concept of supersonic travel twice and both times they concluded that it wasn't financially feasible - but they recently (2012) submitted a [URL="http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120091270"]patent[/URL] for a design based on their Sonic Cruiser so there's still a chance.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.