mario

Oh please. This discussion again? Concorde is never going to fly again. People were scared enough to not get on it after it returned to service post-AF crash.

Let alone, after being left to its own devices in an airfield and then "repaired" by a Sheikh from Saudi Arabia. Not even all the money in the world would make it regain the public's confidence.

Globaliser

Again, you keep resorting to the mantra of "no technical reason" to hide the unreality of what you're suggesting.

Of course there's no technical reason this can't be done. All it "technically" takes is a piece of A4 paper, a laser printer connected to a computer that already has the electronic template, and someone who knows how to fill in the blanks.

It's about as useful as your suggestion that anyone with a milling machine in their back yard can make spare Concorde parts. "Technically" possible, yes, just like a chocolate teapot.

RedcardPingle

I could be wrong but I don't think the argument is over a successful commercial return.

What I don't understand is what exactly is the competing interest between heritage concorde and the RTF people?

LondonAndy

This I agree with....

This I don't agree with - I got on it after the AF crash and, if it was still flying today, would get on it again.

mario

I would too as I did (on BA) after the crash. But I also only got on it because the fare was astonishingly low and I think that was a reflection of people's nervousness to fly Concorde.

I jokingly say that in a way I'm happy that Concorde has retired, otherwise I probably would spend all of my disposable income to fly it whenever possible.

But wasn't one of the reasons for early retirement the poor demand after the return to service?

Calchas

I think Heritage Concorde want to get a few bits working, get the nose to nod up and down, perhaps even allow it to taxi under its own power; largely for exhibition purposes.

RTF think they can actually get the thing to do a few charter flights.

mario

Maybe this is just me, but I would never set foot on a refurbished Concorde for a charter flight.

Calchas

On this forum I daresay you are in a minority. Assuming the aircraft was certified by some competent authority of course.

RedcardPingle

Sure, but where does the bad blood come from? Why does doing what heritage want to do stop RTF doing what they want, or vice versa?

cynicalmoose

But isn't that the whole difficulty? Yes, technically, one could try cleaning out the hydraulic lines, milling a few new parts, topping off the tanks and taking her for a spin, but good luck certifying that. Vulcan XH558 had the advantage that they could show the airframe was in a production standard condition, and they still had to certify all the new elements to CS-25. Because of how the Concorde airframes have been stored it won't have that advantage so realistically I think you're looking at recertifying most if not all of the aircraft. And you'll have to certify it to today's CS-25, not the 1960s cert standards it was built to. All this is technically feasible for some value of 'technically' but if you have to recertify the aircraft you'll be spending so much money that (i) you're in fantasy land and (ii) you might as well do the thing properly and build a modern SST.

Nor am I convinced it is in fact possible to manufacture new parts for everything. The Vulcan folk lost some engines to FOD ingestion and concluded they couldn't rehabilitate them because the parts were unobtainable. That doesn't surprise me: nobody can mill a turbine blade in their back yard.

SukiB

At last, a cynical post I can agree with. The money required would be so absurd that the only reasons to attempt it would be non-commercial.

BTW, turbine blades are cast, and then part-machined. The machining element is relatively simple. Not for the back yard, but I have never suggested a location

Paralytic

Me neither, especially if BA did the refurbishment. We'd likely have a 29" seat pitch

AdamUK

For AF yes, but then remember France didn't support the war on Iraq, so I think US politics entered the fray too.

I have read many times that Concorde was more than profitable for BA until Airbus hiked the costs of support for the aircraft and with AF wanting out, this is where the "secret deals" theory between BA and Airbus have come from with a condition that BA never allow another airframe to fly again, hence the theory they were sabotaged as soon as they were grounded.

I certainly understand Branson having zero chance in getting his hands on one back in 2003, but even now for BA to still not allow even one airframe to be worked on and the pretty poor way they are still being treated is more than a little fishy in my view.

Technically she could fly again, I agree with SukiB that nothing is technologically impossible, but put me in the corner that (with a heavy heart) knows she will never take to the skies again.

I certainly don't understand the hostility towards SGC, and such conflict on a basic level must be music to the ears to those who were determined to never see her fly again.

Globaliser

It's been a long time since I last read anything in detail about this, and I may have all the groups wrong.

But I seem to recall that the perceived problem is that if the one group has unreasonable and irrational demands/promises/goals, it damages the credibility of other groups whose (much more modest and limited) aims might actually be practicable.