With a flying Concorde being out of the question, what is the prospect of a taxiable one? Surely it can't be that much to ask for, although from what I
know, bureaucracy seems to be the biggest problem.
Taxi Runs
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 destere |
Taxi Runs |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 1 (30/06/09 11:04) |
|
||
 thamesweb |
|||
|
Posts: 1293 (30/06/09 14:41) |
The difference between a taxiable aircraft and a flyable one is bureaucracy. Virtually everything must be serviceable before an engine can be 'lit' and
that is where the costs become prohibitive. Ask RR what they would charge to recondition a 593! Even if they would consider it in the first place. Then ask all
the other sub-contractors who are no longer tooled up to maintain all the different instruments, actuators, sensors, pumps and multiple other widgets on board.
With no maintenance having taken place for so long, the chances of an electrical fire, for example, are significantly increased.
So the whole concept is a non-starter as the costs, just to allow a Concorde to run up and down the runway a few times a year, would be astronomical. In addition, all the museum airframes have been 'modified' in one way or another to facilitate public display which in other words means 'weakens' them. And BA would never ever give permission - perhaps one of the French ones...! The best way to see what Concorde looked like is to check out the Flight Simulator version which I hope one day will lead to a realistic, life size version! |
||
|
Project Oxcart |
|||
|
Posts: 2947 (30/06/09 19:40) |
Roger SD is about the only one that has a Faint hope of going out and Playing on a Taxi way or Runway but They need 3 Million Euros or so I was told just to
fit one engine,It may have gone up by now as this is a couple of years old now.
Any one got a Spare 3 Million Euros or Pounds? I doubt it as the Vulcan is just about Scraping by |
||
|
wjmartin |
|||
|
Posts: 295 (01/07/09 07:41) |
SD? I am sure you are not thinking of 209 / FC, the production aircraft stored at Airbus, Toulouse. It was maintained in working order long after the rest had
been decommissioned. My understanding is that it was maintained thus because the crash enquiry had not concluded and a working aircraft was required to be
available right up until the end of the enquiry.
216 / AF, stored at Airbus, Filton is also in a similar 'revivable' condition, albeit revivable at great expense - but the clue is in the fact that these two aircraft were retained at operational Airbus factories, were never modified in any way and still have their systems and fluids in place. |
||
|
gordonroxburgh |
|||
|
Posts: 6412 (01/07/09 08:08) |
216/AF was decommissioned
209/FC has not been powered in 2004, and I must admin when I visited her 18 months ago, ther was no sign of any leaking fluids, so that looks to me like she had been made safe 213/SD is the only Concorde with ground power available and 1 of the 3 hydraulic system is serviceable. A wall was taken down to put her in her hangar. |
||
|
thamesweb |
|||
|
Posts: 1296 (01/07/09 08:08) |
Surely AF had some structural alterations made aft to facilitate air conditioning?
|
||
|
wjmartin |
|||
|
Posts: 296 (01/07/09 09:10) |
Not enough to stop the fluids dripping on your head when you walk under it :-)
|
||
|
ChristiaanJ |
|||
|
Posts: 7472 (01/07/09 17:01) |
destere,
I would say nearly everybody here has dreamt one time or another of seeing a Concorde fly or taxi again. Roger (thamesweb) already has listed most of the "why not's". But ask yourself.... would you really want to see £6M and more spent on maybe seeing a Concorde roll again along a runway a few times, with everybody keeping their fingers crossed every single time, that she won't suddenly stop and burst into flames due to an electric fire or a major fuel leak? Honestly? I wouldn't. CJ |
||
|
wjmartin |
|||
|
Posts: 297 (02/07/09 08:05) |
I totally accept that all the a/c were 'decommissioned' - that is, rendered unusable. But in the early 1960s all 14 aircraft were in a much less usable
condition. If men were able to build the aircraft from nothing, then I think it is just possible that men could take one of these decommissioned a/c and do
enough work on it to make it usable again. There are three requirement that, if met, would see a Concorde flying again;
Technical: The TU144 was resurrected by he Americans at one point long after it's total decommissioning so it as absolutely reasonable that resurrection of a Concorde is technically possible. There is, within the Airbus organisation, the technical know-how to make this aircraft operational again. They built it, restoring it would be a much smaller challenge. Financial: Already, mentioned, it made financial sense once for the Americans to fund the restoration of a TU144. That kind of situation may never occur again, enough data may be already available, but I don't believe anyone here or anywhere else can definitively say that that mankind now knows all that needs to be known about SST. Anyone who says we, mankind, now know enough to never need to fly an aircraft again must be god, or a very close friend! It is not inconceivable that the cost of restoration might balance against the value of research data. Political: Branson/Virgin knew it. BA would choke on the thought of it's timeless icon being re-badged. Right now there is no chance BA would release any of their a/c to anyone else for them to bask in the publicity. It just wont happen with the BA in its current form. But since BA has crumbled into a collapsing pension fund that incidentally has a few airplanes, we shall see. A Concorde is not going to fly again anytime soon, and probably will never do so ever, but to dogmatically say absolutely never is at best blinkered, or at worst the voice of political line-towing!
Last Edited By: wjmartin
02/07/09 08:10.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
destere |
|||
|
Posts: 2 (02/07/09 08:30) |
It doesn't look too good then, for a ground running aircraft. Never-mind.
But I have always said to myself, it is possible, even flying is. I'm sure we all know that. But of course the rather nice estimates by 'ClubConcorde' and 'Save Concorde' are now old and no longer apply. I know it would take a fortune, but there is the smallest, the tinniest smidgen of hope that a rather generous and influential billionaire will go stark raving mad one day... I'm not taking about Branson by the way, just billionaires in general...! Though, sadly, if I had to put a bet on what would happen, i'd go for nothing. :( |
||
|
Project Oxcart |
|||
|
Posts: 2951 (02/07/09 08:30) |
Early 1960s?
The Production fleet was not Manufactured till the 1970s 
|
||
|
wjmartin |
|||
|
Posts: 298 (02/07/09 09:46) |
"Early 1960s? The Production fleet was not Manufactured till the 1970s"
Absolutely, in the early '60s Concorde was an just an idea. Now it is an actual thing. My point is that it must be easier to refit a proven aircraft than it is to build one from scratch. The much repeated opinion on this forum is that the task of restoring a Concorde is utterly insurmountable. The term 'decommissioned' is used by some esteemed members on this forum as if it means beheaded, dead, irrecoverable, destroyed. DG will certainly never fly because of the way it's wings were cut, but most of the other airframes are intact. If the DeHaviland Comet can still fly (and it does), then so too COULD a Concorde. A blanket NEVER is not correct. Given the right circumstances, it is possible.
Last Edited By: wjmartin
02/07/09 11:38.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Project Oxcart |
|||
|
Posts: 2952 (02/07/09 10:29) |
The Comet dosent Fly the Military machine the NIMROD Flies and is a diferent Type of beast.
The BA Fleet had there Hydraulics Drained and left to Dry out and Crack.. The Fuel System was Drained and Left to Dry out and Crack as No Light Oil Preserving Fluid was pumped into the Fuel System to Preserve it. Esential Power Conectors were Removed from the Aircraft and Disposed off meaning that Ground Power can not be Conected to the Aircraft. Other Modifications have happend since the Machines have become Tourist Attractions Each Museum will have done diferent things to there Machines. Most Have all there Avionics still in place but it has not been powerd up since the Machines were Retired. If you go and see SA at Orly you will get a Big Supprise inside and outside.
|
||
|
wjmartin |
|||
|
Posts: 299 (02/07/09 10:52) |
Although it is often attributed to Robert Kennedy, he was actually quoting George Bernard Shaw;
"Some men see things as they are and say why - I dream things that never were and say why not" You are obviously one of the former, not the latter! Enjoy! |
||
|
GBOAC204 |
|||
|
Posts: 287 (02/07/09 15:49) |
thamesweb wrote:Out of interest, what 'modifications' have been made? I thought part of the loan agreement with BA was that you couldn't chop the a/c up. My understanding of the AirCon installation in 216 ws that it was fitted into the aircrafts internal system. Are we talking cutting spars, external skin (which could be replaced, no?) wouldn't this have defeated the object of preserving the aircraft intact? what damage was done. Similarly 204, 214 and 212, what mods have been made? |
||
|
wjmartin |
|||
|
Posts: 300 (02/07/09 16:08) |
The political part of the equation is that BA have gone to great lengths to absolutely squash the idea of the aircraft ever flying again. Much of this was
probably in response to the Branson/Virgin posturing at the time of withdrawal. The horror of a Virgin Concorde for BA meant they had to deal the idea a death
blow in the public perception. If you say something loudly and often the general public will believe it. It does surprise me though that more learned people,
like those found on this forum, will toe that party line too. There are fifty year old Comets still flying, with massive modifications. If that can be done,
then there is no technical challenge in the world that would prevent an intact Concorde flying again. Tupolev working with NASA have already done it, different
engines and some other mods but it flew. A different aircon unit, a missing power connector, a bit of welding to affix an access ramp, these are all within the
abilities of the modern aerospace industry to resolve.
That just leaves financial! There may be many reasons why a Concorde will never fly again, but to say that the technical challenge is insurmountable is utter nonsense. |
||
|
ChristiaanJ |
|||
|
Posts: 7474 (02/07/09 16:25) |
Concorde return-to-flight may not be impossible, but it's a damn sight more difficult than the "believers" would have you believe.
Is it worth discussing some of the real hurdles seriously, once more? CJ |
||
|
ChristiaanJ |
|||
|
Posts: 7475 (02/07/09 16:47) |
wjmartin
Unless your posts are simply an effort at a 'send-up', do you think you could get some of your facts right, at least? So far, you've done little more than cite urban legends. CJ |
||
|
Peter Mugridge |
|||
|
Posts: 1798 (02/07/09 20:30) |
Well, for a start he Nimrods aren't conversions of 50 year old Comet airframes are they?
They're more recently built airframes to a design based on the Comet 4 - not the same thing at all, really. |
||
|
vortex too |
|||
|
Posts: 129 (02/07/09 20:42) |
Out of interest, what 'modifications' have been made? I thought part of the loan agreement with BA was that you couldn't chop the a/c up. My understanding of the AirCon installation in 216 ws that it was fitted into the aircrafts internal system. Are we talking cutting spars, external skin (which could be replaced, no?) wouldn't this have defeated the object of preserving the aircraft intact? what damage was done. Similarly 204, 214 and 212, what mods have been made? The aircon system which has been fitted to Alpha Foxtrot has been "plumbed in " to the original pipework with none of the spars cut. I have to
give it to the Airbus engineering team at Filton, one of the reasons it has taken so long to install, is that the team were adamant that none of the spars or
other structure of the airframe was to be cut during the installation ( in spite of what Dennis Morris said when they approached him at BA ! )
Paul |
||
|
ChristiaanJ |
|||
|
Posts: 7476 (02/07/09 20:59) |
Peter Mugridge wrote: Well..... About a year ago... very loud noise.... rushed outside, and caught this glimpse of an aircraft coming over very low.... My memory said "Comet 4", my mind said "but you are seeing a ghost... wake up... that's impossible". Then I found out it was a Nimrod, staging through Montpellier on its way to the Middle East. Peter.... they may be more recently built airframes... but the family relation is still absolutely unmistakeable. CJ |
||
