I saw on the news this morning that they have made modifications to the Concord and are taking it on a test run.

For those of you who missed this, the modifications they said they made were:

1) The fuel tanks in each wing is now lined with a material that will help prevent fuel leaks.

2) Puncture tolerant tires. The tires will not explode/fall apart when puntured while the plane is moving.

3) "Other modifications" not specified.

More info: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...rde010717.html

As I watched this news spot, I thought how comforting it would be for me to know that ANY plane I was on had these modifications!

Perhaps if they prove successful on the Concord, then it would become STANDARD equip. for all other planes?

Seems like a good idea to me - anyone else?

P.S. If you were offered a "free ride" on the first TEST RUN of the newly modified Concord - would you take it?

[This message has been edited by PlatinumFlyer (edited 07-17-2001).]

A free test ride? Absolutely. I also would have happily flown on a non-modified Concord post-crash; the mortality risk from air travel remains extremely low (despite occassional design flaws).

Please also see:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum15/HTML/000481.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum...ML/002429.html

[This message has been edited by doc (edited 07-17-2001).]

I'm so glad they made those changes - I can resume my weekly flights to London now! Has anyone here actually flown on the Concorde and paid for the ticket?

Concorde needs the anti-burst tires and anti-puncture tanks because its wheels and tires rotate at much higher speed than (most/all) subsonic aircraft (due to higher takeoff speed). A burst tire flings tire parts at much higher speeds (hence more energy) than subsonic aircraft. What's worse about the incident last year was that it wasn't the first, and punctured fuel tanks as a result of burst tires had happened at least 10 times before. The operators were lucky that no serious incidences occurred as a result.

What I want to know is if any destructive testing on the modifications. The tanks are lined with Kevlar. Kevlar (stuff used for armour due to its strength) alone won't stop a leak (it is a woven fabric). It'll just (hopefully) stop tire parts and debris from penetrating the fuel tanks.

I understand that the tire speed on take off of the Concord is much higher than other planes, but I still would think that a burst tire at take off or landing would be a bad thing.

While on sub-sonic planes it may not be fast enough to puncture the wing, but would it not have a negative effect on overal control of the aircraft - even at the slower speed?

If you think about the planes like the F100, S80, etc. where it's a single wheel under each wing, a blowout on takeoff and landing seems like it would present a loss of control and become quite dangerous.

HECK, YES!!! If a test pilot was willing to take the yoke, I'd be in the back in less than a NY second!

RAD

It happens but there is rarely any loss of control or damage to the aircraft, let alone injuries or deaths caused to passengers. The dual (or more) wheels per strut act as redundant safety features for these emergencies.

I am not sure about the F-100 (or othe Fokker jets) but I am pretty sure the DC-9 series (including M-80s. M-90s and MD-95s/717s) have dual wheels & tires for each strut. No professional pilots to ask here but I don't think it is an issue.

I think the new Concorde tires are not "run flat" but more likely have some belting to make them not fragment (such as belted radials in cars [i]vs.[i] bias-ply tires that trucks use (which seem to fragment more).

Yes. BA and Cunard have a package that I assume will return with Concorde; QE2 one-way, Concorde the other. Your choice which order. Anyway, in 1998 this was around $4200 per person. My wife and I did the trip and loved Concorde; 3 hours 15 minutes takeoff to landing. Great food/booze, special arrival area at LHR. I look forward to doing it again.