Club Concorde Wants To Put a Concorde Back In the Air

The Verge (relying on The Telegraph) reports that the Concorde, grounded since just a few years after the disastrous loss of flight 4590 in 2000, may yet fly again, with the help of a private coalition of Concorde enthusiasts that's already managed to raise $160 million. ("A massive war chest," says Jalopnik.) The Verge explains that Club Concorde ("a club for all things Concorde, run by ex-Captains, ex-charterers and people passionate about Concorde") would like to buy two of the existing but idle Concordes, turning one of them into a ground-based tourist attraction for gawking and for dining on Concorde-style meals. But as for the second? The more ambitious initiative is to purchase the second plane, have it restored, and get it in the air once more. Concorde Club president Paul James is aiming to resume flights by 2019, while the tourist attraction would be opened around 2017 if all goes according to plan. British Airways and Air France have no plans to resume commercial Concorde flights, meaning it would likely cost quite a lot of money to grab a private ticket if and when the plane gets off the ground again.

Comments

Nostalgia is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

But the Concorde was conceived before the energy crisis of the 70s, and definitely before the kind of instant, cheap communications we have today. Except as a nostalgic thing for middle-aged men with too much money, it is useless.

Bring back the XB-70 while you're at it.

Billionaires should stop with these quixotic schemes, you're aging and dying like the rest of us. Invest in anti-aging, then we'll talk.

Re: Nostalgia is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because we all love flying slow

Re: Nostalgia is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, what?

Re: Nostalgia is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a bit slow.

Re: Nostalgia is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

flying slow

What?

Re:Nostalgia is nice

[istartedi]

Concorde was the future. When I was a kid, I sometimes caught glimpses of it around Dulles airport near DC, and as a young man I got to see some fantastic take-offs. I'd like to see commercial SST and humans on the Moon again in my lifetime. I was too young to have a clear memory of the latter. All I have is a vague memory of being kept up late for a change because "he should see this", and a lot of people being proud of what we were doing. We've regressed to not have these things, even if they are only for a select few. We've learned a lot since then. We can probably do it much more efficiently and safely now.

Re:Nostalgia is nice

[MrNaz]

I, too, am a Concorde enthusiast. But this is financial lunacy. The cost per seat flight is too high, and maintaining an aircraft will require them to assemble a small army of maintenance guys and engineers who do not have a ready market for Concorde related skills, meaning they will require specialist training programs as well as a small industry to keep parts supplies flowing. All for ONE AIRCRAFT.

Not going to happen. Never. I bet this is just a scam to get rich people with too much money to hand over about... oh... say $160 million?

Re: Nostalgia is nice

[VernonNemitz]

Nostalgia is nice, but "retro" can accommodate it in a modern way. Like putting more efficient engines in a lighter-weight (composite fiber construction) look-alike, of the original Concorde. Building a modern look-alike might cost less (3D manufacturing for special parts) and be safer, too (no years of age and wear-and-tear on a new plane).

Re:Nostalgia is nice

[serviscope_minor]

But the Concorde was conceived before the energy crisis of the 70s,

Spoken like someone who doesn't know the first thing about jet engines and their history.

Concorde was designed before high bypass turbofans were introduced, and used another strategy to get superior efficiency, which was to use ram compression and run the engines at a substantially higher pressure ratio than the competing planes. Turns out high bypass turbo fans were a better bet, but the concorde was never designed as a gas guzzler: quite the opposite actually.

Re:Nostalgia is nice

[mrchaotica]

Billionaires should stop with these quixotic schemes

Why, what else could they use that money for? It's not as if they're going to use it for anything useful, like reducing income inequality!

Re:Nostalgia is nice

[Hognoxious]

Bizarre. The first thing I remember is watching the moon landings, though in my case I refused to go to bed. I was nearly three.

Re:Nostalgia is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

do you know what a first class seat costs from NY to Paris ?
did not think so.

Concorde seats were cheaper and got you there in just a few hours vs 13.

Re: Nostalgia is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

The constant stream of age insults on this site, coupled with the apparent contempt against anyone who's priorities are not those of a 20 year old are very interesting.

At least you're candid enough to admit that you fear turning into what you apparently can't stand.

Re: Nostalgia is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

"whose", not "who is". By your age, you should know that.

Re: Nostalgia is nice

[FlyHelicopters]

A modern "look-a-like" sounds nice, but it wouldn't be able to go super sonic, thus what would be the point?

It should not be underestimated what it takes to make a plane the size of Concorde go Mach 2 for 3 hours at a time, reliability, day after day with paying customers on board.

At this point, you need to develop a whole new airplane, and that will be expensive beyond belief.

Re:Nostalgia is nice

[FlyHelicopters]

While that is true, it also didn't take 13 hours to fly from NY to Paris in a 747...

Concorde was about the cost of first class on a 747, but not nearly as comfortable...

In the end, it simply didn't make sense keeping a dozen airplanes of a very old type flying. Airbus made the decision to stop supporting it, and that was that.

Re: Nostalgia is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

I would rather fly in a retrofitted C-130 cargo jet, standing for 10 hours with 500 other people on board, if the ticket was 25% of the price of a normal airline.

Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most beautiful plane ever built.

Wasn't the noise an issue?

[drinkypoo]

British Airways and Air France have no plans to resume commercial Concorde flights, meaning it would likely cost quite a lot of money to grab a private ticket if and when the plane gets off the ground again.

More interesting than that is whether any airports have plans to permit anyone to resume commercial Concorde flights.

Re:Wasn't the noise an issue?

[Xest]

I'd be surprised it's an issue given that the UK has seen many such projects over the years, one which has had a succesful view years and is now at it's end is the Vulcan to the Sky project.

I imagine if they can get permission to dick around in a cold war era nuclear V-bomber that first flew in 1952, then the slightly more modern Concorde wouldn't exactly be too big a deal.

The Civil Aviation Authority in the UK is fairly pragmatic about this sort of thing, and if there are concerns usually deals with it with restrictions rather than a blanket ban. For example, the Vulcan was allowed to fly with the stipulation that it could only be flown by RAF/ex-RAF personnel who had flown it as part of their service in the RAF - i.e. no one previously untrained in handling it was allowed to fly it. If there is a concern about it going supersonic for example, they'll just stipulate that it can fly, but not break the sound barrier.

Re:Wasn't the noise an issue?

[Zocalo]

Who said anything about commercial flights? As stated in the article, this is more about airshow appearances and potentially private charters, most likely for things like prolonged viewing of eclipses or short jaunts for special occassions and the like, so the noise of take off and supersonic flights over populated areas are probably not going to be all that much of an issue. They just need to make it clear that if you want to go from the UK to mainland Europe and back for the day, then you can't realistically expect to go supersonic, but if you just want to loop out over the Atlantic and back then that could well be an option.

They've certainly timed the announcement well, anyway. The UK's current publically funded historic display aircraft is doing its farewell flights over the next few weeks, so there's every liklihood that they'll be able to pick up a lot of the donors who supported the Vulcan over the last decade or so for another historic example of UK aviation engineering.

Re:Wasn't the noise an issue?

[tompaulco]

The airports had almost nothing to do with the anti-concorde rules. It was all government restrictions. They can still restrict the plane from supersonic speeds and such, and I am not sure of the status of the Concorde's type certificate, but airports would probably be fine with having it. People who live near an airport, who undoubtedly moved in after the airport was already there, may raise a cry about the increased noise. However, if I live near such an airport, I would just be happy to be able to see one in flight.

Re:Wasn't the noise an issue?

[MichaelSmith]

Given that one of these aircraft demolished a hotel in France (more or less) recently one might expect the regulatory environment to be a bit different now,

Re:Wasn't the noise an issue?

[dayton967]

That is why the Concorde was only supersonic over open water therefore there were limited airports that supported it. Also from what I recall the major issue was cost of operating the planes and the reduction of passengers caused the cancellation in 2003. And the problem they would have now is the maintenance as Airbus will not provide support to maintain the planes.

The plane would also require massive amounts of repairs and updating as the plane is almost 40 years old, and would require a complete update of the flight deck, an update of the engines, much of the outer shell would most likely also have to be checks and possibly repaired of micro-cracks. In reality it may be safer and cost effective to find someone to build new ones, with massive improvements to technology, designs, and safety.

Re:Wasn't the noise an issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

The noise is an issue for daily scheduled flights.

For an amateour project performing a flight every now and then noise regulations can be relaxed and they regularly are for other historical flight and exibitions.

Military fighter jets are also definitely outside noise limits and the same goes for any big plane built before the '90s. They are anyway allowed to go around every now and then.

Re:Wasn't the noise an issue?

[RockDoctor]

Given that one of these aircraft demolished a hotel in France (more or less) recently one might expect the regulatory environment to be a bit different now,

That incident killed about 7 (or 9?) people on the ground - I was attending a meeting there recently, so thought about it a bit - but fundamentally it wasn't the Concorde's fault. It was the previous plane on the runway which had shed a large lump of debris. Sure, having better self-sealing on the Concorde wing fuel tanks might have helped it to survive long enough to hard-land at the diversion airport they attempted at Le Bourget.

Re:Wasn't the noise an issue?

[MichaelSmith]

Given that one of these aircraft demolished a hotel in France (more or less) recently one might expect the regulatory environment to be a bit different now,

That incident killed about 7 (or 9?) people on the ground - I was attending a meeting there recently, so thought about it a bit - but fundamentally it wasn't the Concorde's fault. It was the previous plane on the runway which had shed a large lump of debris. Sure, having better self-sealing on the Concorde wing fuel tanks might have helped it to survive long enough to hard-land at the diversion airport they attempted at Le Bourget.

But also the long cord of concorde wings makes it more likely that a disintegrating tire will puncture a tank.

Fly where?

[rossdee]

One of the main problems with Concorde was It didnt have the range to do transpacific routes, and its not permitted to go supersonic over most countries.

Re:Fly where?

[rmdingler]

One of the main problems with Concorde was It didnt have the range to do transpacific routes, and its not permitted to go supersonic over most countries.

Only 20 were ever built, which made even simple upgrades very expensive.

For example, the cost of the reinforced cockpit regulation brought about by 9/11 was relatively easy to absorb across thousands of Boeings.

Re:Fly where?

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Concordes crashing into the Freedom Tower at supersonic speed...

Re:Fly where?

[Anonymous Coward]

While loaded with Natalie Portman slathered in hot grits!

This meme is dead - Netcraft confirms it.

Nope

[koan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the first and only deadly accident of this type of plane, in 27 years. Do you think your DC-10s and 747s match that? Do you think your Dreamliner will match it? Nope. The Concorde was one of the safest planes in operation ever, period.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

The Concorde was one of the safest planes in operation ever, period.

No, it simply cannot be compared with other aircraft. There were too few in operation and furthermore they were operated only a fraction of the time compared with other aircraft that are in the air as much as possible so in terms of flying hours the fleet was young even though it in terms of years was old. Besides, safety statistics for specific aircraft say relatively little about the design itself when the airline affects the safety of any given flight orders of magnitude more than the aircraft type. Training, cost cutting, safety culture (are pilots or mechanics reprimanded or praised if they force a flight cancellation due to a technical issue and so on).

Re:Nope

[thrich81]

It's too hard for me to dig up the statistics, but with its one deadly accident I would guess that the death rate per passenger mile flown by the Concorde is higher than the B747 and probably every other airliner in wide service now (B737, A320, etc). Not that the Concorde was dangerous, but you have to watch how you state, "safest planes in operation".

Re:Nope

[rossdee]

Yes and that one accident was a direct failure of the aircraft itself, and not terrorism, or being shot down, or really bad weather or pilot error

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

The Concorde was one of the safest planes in operation ever, period.

No he wasn't. According to Airsafe the 747 was waaaaayyy much safer. You can't say a plane is safer because it spend 27 years with only 1 fatal accident. The Concord fleet spend most of his time sleeping in the hangar). And during a couple of decades there was always a 747 in the air.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

From: http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/concorde.htm

25 July 2000; Air France Concorde near Paris, France: The aircraft was on a charter flight from Charles de Gaulle airport near Paris to JFK airport in New York. Shortly before rotation, the front right tire of the left landing gear ran over a strip of metal which had fallen off of another aircraft. Pieces of the damaged tire were thrown against the aircraft structure. There was a subsequent fuel leak and major fire under the left wing...

Re:Nope

[tompaulco]

Yes and that one accident was a direct failure of the aircraft itself, and not terrorism, or being shot down, or really bad weather or pilot error

Yes, a direct failure of the aircraft to be impervious to debris that fell off another airplane and should have been cleaned off the runway as it was a hazard to other aircraft. If another plane had hit the debris, we wouldn't be having this conversation about the Concorde.

Re:Nope

[FranTaylor]

Yes, a direct failure of the aircraft to be impervious to debris that fell off another airplane and should have been cleaned off the runway as it was a hazard to other aircraft. If another plane had hit the debris, we wouldn't be having this conversation about the Concorde.

Maybe you are unaware of the fact that modern airplanes are designed so that materials thrown from the wheels are not directed into the sensitive areas of the aircraft? There are plenty of youtube videos out there of Boeing planes undergoing these sorts of tests.

"It would likely cost quite a lot of money ..."

[cardpuncher]

It used to be around 5K USD for a one-way trip across the atlantic, so it was already a lot of money then, and the only reason the cost wasn't higher was that the planes were gifted to the airlines.

And despite the trappings of luxury, that money bought you speed but no real comfort. The seats were narrow, the aisle was narrow, you were relieved of coats and other encumberances because there was no room in the cabin for them. There were fewer catering options than 1st class owing to space limitations. The extinguishing and relighting of the afterburners as part of noise control procedures was rather disconcerting for infrequent travellers, as was the temperature of the inner skin of the aircraft. And you had to sit next to the incurably self-important.

I've only flown Concord by accident (when the 747 service was cancelled) and while it was a novel experience, the plane was a technical curiosity rather than a practical form of transport - and well past its sell-by date by the time it was taken out of service.

Re:"It would likely cost quite a lot of money ..."

[Anonymous Coward]

The seats were narrow, the aisle was narrow, you were relieved of coats and other encumberances because there was no room in the cabin for them.

So in other words, everything that commercial airlines dream of.

Pack those cows in! YOU ARE ALL COWS! MOOO!

Re:"It would likely cost quite a lot of money ..."

[Opportunist]

Hey, it allowed the super rich to finally feel like one of the common lowlifes when flying.

Re:"It would likely cost quite a lot of money ..."

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

Other problems you haven't mentioned are:

* Crazy fuel consumption per person*miles flown
* Concordes significantly reduced the amount of ozone in the atmosphere
* Noise issues

Quite possibly they just won't get a permit to fly even if they restore the aircraft.

Re:"It would likely cost quite a lot of money ..."

[kimvette]

They can probably just register them as experimental aircraft, just as any joe with enough money can do with an F-5, T-38, Harrier, various SAAB and MiG warbirds and other non-certified aircraft... but then they will be limited in flying for hire. They can work around it through legal gymnastics, such as maybe creating a small museum with a very hefty admission price, but which includes a "free" flight on the airworthy Concorde.

Re:"It would likely cost quite a lot of money ..."

[Type44Q]

were gifted

I realize that in 2015 we're on the front lines of the Decline of Western Civilization - and as such I'm quite used to atrocious examples of improper grammar - but it still galls me: "gift" is a noun; the word you were looking for is "given".

Re:"It would likely cost quite a lot of money ..."

[Livius]

No, gifted, meaning given as gifts. It says more than just given.

Re:"It would likely cost quite a lot of money ..."

[Dutch Gun]

Feel free to argue with the Oxford Dictionary about what's proper English and what's not. Moreover, this use of 'gift' as a verb, while not always in vogue, has historic roots from at least the 17th century .

Re:"It would likely cost quite a lot of money ..."

[istartedi]

You got bumped from 747 to Concorde? That's the real story here.

Re:"It would likely cost quite a lot of money ..."

[Type44Q]

Having read literally tens of thousands of books throughout the past ~4 decades (books written in the 1800's and 1900's), I can say that while it may have been in use in the 1600's, it wasn't inserted into Standard American English until very recently... and I have to wonder if we have a fucking cretin of a Millennial to thank for that...

Re:"It would likely cost quite a lot of money ..."

[lister king of smeg]

The seats were narrow, the aisle was narrow, you were relieved of coats and other encumberances because there was no room in the cabin for them.

So in other words, everything that commercial airlines dream of.

Pack those cows in! YOU ARE ALL COWS! MOOO!

Probably the only time that moo mime is appropriate on thus site.

Re:"It would likely cost quite a lot of money ..."

[Your.Master]

Anybody who has moved property between family members (without incurring income tax, or, in the US, gift tax) has been aware of "gifting" as a verb for a very long time.

This source cites Seinfeld as the cause of it becoming more common in non-tax conversations: http://www.quickanddirtytips.c...

Seinfeld is not exactly a millenial.

Re:"It would likely cost quite a lot of money ..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Blame yourself you massively self-entitled spoiled baby boomer cocksucker. You pieces of shit were handed everything and that still wasn't enough.

Re:"It would likely cost quite a lot of money ..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Literally tens of thousands of people don't care.

Also, there's no way it was a Millennial. I hate those fucks as much as any Gen X-er, but I heard the term before they were out of their diapers. It's a fifty cent douche word, no doubt brought into use by some pompous marketing lackey, most likely Gen X or older.

Re:"It would likely cost quite a lot of money ..."

[cowdung]

Yeah... usually when I get bumped.. they just put me on a bench in the airport for a couple of days..

how did he get the Concord?

Re:"It would likely cost quite a lot of money ..."

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Specifically, it was 5K for going east. For going west you could get a ticket for £800 or so.

The main reason it existed was to avoid the red eye; landing in the early morning at Heathrow is unbelievably horrible. Concorde avoided that.

The Concorde will fly again ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats Plane awesome.

Thin the Herd

[PopeRatzo]

I'm OK with a bunch of wealthy "enthusiasts" going up in a death trap on their own dime. Just don't let them fly over populated areas.

Re:Thin the Herd

[MightyYar]

Trolling aside, it is unlikely that they will pay to go over land where supersonic travel would be prohibited.

Re:Thin the Herd

[Opportunist]

Perfect.

Re:Thin the Herd

[PopeRatzo]

Trolling aside, it is unlikely that they will pay to go over land where supersonic travel would be prohibited.

So, they take off and land on water? I didn't realize the Concorde was amphibious.

Re:Thin the Herd

[FranTaylor]

Trolling aside, it is unlikely that they will pay to go over land where supersonic travel would be prohibited.

So, they take off and land on water? I didn't realize the Concorde was amphibious.

there are plenty of coastal cities with airports right on the water, as soon as you clear the runway you are over water.

Re:Thin the Herd

[MightyYar]

You really are determined. But you can't troll me on this because I really don't care whether the Concorde flies or not - I have much higher priorities for the money that it would take to ride on the thing.

Re:Thin the Herd

[FranTaylor]

I have much higher priorities for the money that it would take to ride on the thing.

You realize that airplanes don't use money for fuel, right? The money spent goes right back into the economy and gets used for other things.

Re:Thin the Herd

[MightyYar]

Yeah, but I want my money to go to things like "my kids' college fund" and "a new car" rather than a short thrill ride. I'm not their demographic :)

Re:Thin the Herd

[PopeRatzo]

You really are determined.

You have no idea.

How do they plan to maintain it?

[damn_registrars]

When Air France and British Airways mothballed the Concorde, they claimed that one justification was that there was essentially no way to get parts to maintain them. How will this group get around that? You can't exactly get those parts pressed at your local machine shop if you need replacements.

As for static displays of the Concorde, there is already one on display at the Intrepid in NYC. I expect there are others on display for visitors as well.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[Overzeetop]

Anything within the limits of physics is possible if you have enough money.

When BA/AF said there was essentially no way to get parts to maintain the aircraft, what they meant was that there was no *economical* way to get those parts. Anything can be fabricated as a one-off part, it will just cost several hundred or thousands of dollars more than a mass-produced part. Send a drawing with the proper specifications and GDT to a well operated machine shop and they'll turn out nearly any part you need. Something more complicated simply takes more time and setup. It is possible you could have to pay to construct an entire facility to make a custom set of turbine blades, make ten, test 8, and have only two for spares? Sure. Again - it's only money.

Whether they will be able to make such a venture possible given schedules and maintenance requirements of modern aircraft is simply an exercise in capital funding and cash flow. If Virgin can take you to space for $200k, you can probably rehabilitate the Concord and offer seats on a flight for no more than half that.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

You can't exactly get those parts pressed at your local machine shop if you need replacements.

Why not? I mean where do you think prototypes come from. So yea you really can just order the parts, with the design from the local certified machine shop. It is however expensive and you get long lead times.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[Opportunist]

The solution to this problem is money. Just 'cause AF and BA can't afford it (or rather, don't think it's remotely feasible to afford it) doesn't mean that someone with more money than brains can't do it.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[phayes]

There are three Concordes around Paris that I know of:
- The air & Space museum at Le Bourget has one in a hanger that you can walk through. It was of the first 2 built & was used to prove Concorde's air worthiness. It's in the state it was left in in the mid 70s -- no seats or cabin furnishings, just late 60s recorder instrumentation.
- They have one up on a canted stand to make it look like it's taking off and banking left as you leave Charles de Gaulle Airport towards Paris. I assume it was stripped and strengthened to make it secure on it's stand.
      https://www.google.fr/maps/pla...
- There is one parked behind Orly Airport at the Musee Delta. This one looks fairly operational but abandoned.
      https://www.google.fr/maps/pla...

About 2 months ago was driving by the one behind Orly and noticed that they had pulled access ramps up to it, opened the doors & people were walking in & out. It was back to it's abandoned state on the next day. I wonder if this project has anything to do with the people examining the Concorde?

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[caseih]

There's a Concorde in Seattle at the museum of flight. It belongs to Air France I think and it's on extended loan. As part of the conditions of the loan, the museum has to keep the airplane in near-flying condition at all times should they ever want it back. This does not mean it could fly without serious work, but it does mean they keep the plane clean and free from corrosion, inside and out. This means that on certain days they cannot open the airplane for tourists when the humidity is too high. The engines are intact and sealed off.

I imagine the Concorde at Orly is operating under similar protocols. That's possibly why the second day you saw it and it was all closed up. I don't know for sure though.

Was a pretty amazing aircraft for it's time. Like others have said it is dated now. And it's really not that comfortable inside as the cabin is really tiny.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[PPH]

Boeing's Museum of Flight has one on display in Seattle.

Interesting note: On it's last flight in 2003, it flew supersonic over Canada. So there are still some places one can do this without a bunch of whiners getting their panties in a bunch.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[kimvette]

> When Air France and British Airways mothballed the Concorde, they claimed that one justification was that there was essentially no way to get parts to maintain them. How will this group get around that? You can't exactly get those parts pressed at your local machine shop if you need replacements.

Well, they may be able to if they completely dismantle the aircraft, then rebuild it as an experimental. Then, as the manufacturer (assuming they manage to achieve manufacturing of >51% parts in the rebuild) they would be able to legally produce and install their own parts for maintenance. It would require more expertise and finder environmental controls than your typical machine shop could provide.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[JumboMessiah]

This and the fact that you also need to get a valid airworthiness certificate from the local authorities for it to fly. Getting that without OEM support is not impossible, it's just improbable for this aircraft. We keep WWII aircraft flying with one off machined parts all the time, but those parts are not difficult to machine by a modern shop. The materials used are common and the older manufacturing techniques aren't cutting edge anymore. Those older aircraft also tend to have much more simple control mechanisms (Concorde was a primitive partial fly by wire system). You would end up scouring collectors and museums for spares, not to mention corralling certified maintenance techs to work it.

Then we get to the engines, they'll need to be rebuilt and eventually be rebladed. There are enough surplus parts to keep the J79s from the 60's going, but there were thousands of those built. The Olympus 593s were a one off just for the Concord, not a lot of surplus parts floating around. Manufacturing new blades would be incredibly cost prohibitive.

My personal belief, if they want to throw billions into it, the best they'll be able to do is static runs and taxi displays. I don't think they'll get it into the air again and certainly not carrying passengers. I just don't think they have the muster to get a full D check completed and any local authorities to authorize it.

A good write up on what it would take. Impossible, no, improbable, yes.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[phayes]

The interdiction is on flying supersonic is over inhabited areas so flying over most of Canada doesn't count...

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[FranTaylor]

So yea you really can just order the parts, with the design from the local certified machine shop.

you really don't know what goes into the process of manufacturing turbine blades, do you?

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[phayes]

I've driven by the Orly Concorde a few hundred times (It's on the way to a client's offices) but that's the only time I've ever seen it opened or even anyone waling around it. Most of the time it just looks abandoned. If you follow the map link I gave you can see a picture or two.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[FranTaylor]

Then, as the manufacturer (assuming they manage to achieve manufacturing of >51% parts in the rebuild) they would be able to legally produce and install their own parts for maintenance.

Again someone with no idea of the complex manufacturing processes required to manufacture turbine blades. There are only a very few places in the whole world where it's done.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[Anonymous Coward]

How feasible would it be to retrofit it with modern production engines?

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[FranTaylor]

Considering the fact that engines and planes are designed together, you'd be buying an engine designed to work in a different plane. there is no hope.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[JumboMessiah]

If you've got another spare 500 million laying around, sure. Like the OP stated, with enough money anything is possible (even designing an entirely new SST). But, in the case with the 593s, they were designed to work specifically with the air frame, intakes and nozzles. At mach 2 supersonic flight, thrust generation breaks down to roughly 8% from the engine compressor core, 29% from the nozzle, and 63% from the intake. It really is a magnificent system. More complex systems exist (aka SR-71, etc), but they are to be considered fully unified from a design standpoint.

So a new engine would mean a new intake design and nozzle, which further translates into structural modification to the wings, which translates into the aircraft no longer being allowed to operate under it's current type certificate by the authorities. This means the aircraft would end up needing to be re-certified through an approved flight test program to operated under an amended/derived type certificate. Aka, you might as well just build a new aircraft (you're going to burn through the $$ anyway).

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for spelling it out for us untutored.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[kimvette]

> Again someone with no idea of the complex manufacturing processes required to manufacture turbine blades

I understand that - refer to another post I made in this thread where I stated that very few machine shops have the expertise or equipment on hand to produce such parts. :-p

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[kimvette]

Actually I stated that very point in the post to which you responded with your basis ad hominem attack. Let me copy & paste for your convenience:

"Then, as the manufacturer (assuming they manage to achieve manufacturing of >51% parts in the rebuild) they would be able to legally produce and install their own parts for maintenance. It would require more expertise and finder environmental controls than your typical machine shop could provide."

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[Chris Mattern]

Considering the fact that engines and planes are designed together

Actually, no, they are often not. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner, for example, is offered with a choice of two different engine models, one of which is also used on the 747. The Concorde's engines are probably unique to it, though, due to the plane's unusual requirements.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[nitehawk214]

It might be cheaper to build an entirely new plane.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[sconeu]

There's one in NYC on the Intrepid as well..

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is not just money. The regulatory hurdles can't necessarily be bypassed with money. Money can make the aircraft flyable, but it can't make them approved for flight.

This just won't happen. No manufacturer support, no type certification, no CAA approval.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[MichaelSmith]

If Virgin can take you to space for $200k,

Yeah, if.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[MichaelSmith]

So yea you really can just order the parts, with the design from the local certified machine shop.

you really don't know what goes into the process of manufacturing turbine blades, do you?

The aircraft industry has moved on from the 1960s and I would argue that is is next to impossible for a small, bespoke operation to deliver components with the same level of quality as a large scale production process. Aircraft parts are made for fleets of around a thousand aircraft. Large scale means that your production and testing processes can be highly repeatable.

Its like asking how expensive it would be to make ten modern CPUs from scratch, and get them working as well as one from the shop. Impossible? Or merely difficult?

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[dbIII]

The ones in the Concorde do not operate at as high a temperature and were easier to make.
The monocrystalline ones came in later.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[dbIII]

I would argue that is is next to impossible for a small, bespoke operation to deliver components with the same level of quality as a large scale production process

You are getting quality and price mixed up. Less automation does not imply a reduction in quality, only lower standards of acceptance imply a reduction of quality.
There were only ever twenty Concordes, built at more than one site, so the originals were "a small, bespoke operation" in the first place anyway.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[dbIII]

I had all the stuff I needed to do that at the University I went to in the 1980s. Other places do as well. Plus, these are not the modern turbine blades and are more similar to the ones used in the sort of gas turbines used to generate electricity. There are a lot of places that are making those.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[MichaelSmith]

Sorry I don't agree. Bentley will never have the quality of Mercedes or Toyota. They don't have enough eyes on the job.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[dbIII]

Eyes on the job just costs more.
Plus, the originals were "bespoke" by your yardstick as well.

It would be very cruel to compare a one-off item like a space probe to your Toyota crack - do I really have to go there or do you get the idea that you can have quality without full automation?

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[Opportunist]

That would be the first time in a long time that money can't change laws.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[FlyHelicopters]

The Concorde's engines are probably unique to it, though, due to the plane's unusual requirements.

Not "probably", totally...

The airplane, engine, and system combintion is one unit, none of it can be split up and done as parts.

For example, in supersonic flight, more than 50% of the thrust of the engines is actually produced by the inlet box on the front of the engine. The turbine engine core is only 9% of the total in flight supersonic thrust.

That is how it flies Mach 2 without afterburners for 3 hours. It gulps fuel like a drunk sailor at subsonic flight speeds, but is amazingly fuel efficient at Mach 2.

Re:How do they plan to maintain it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not totally, no.

The Rolls-Royce Olympus is a design which the engines on the Concorde were based, and while they had some unique characteristics, the engine design itself was not entirely unique to the Concorde. Not a lot, mind you, but there were opportunities pursued for more.

There is even a marine version, which had more use.

Not that any of that matters, the question is if there is any existing production engine suitable for installation on the Concorde. That I do not know.

concorde is old tech

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the NASA research into supersonic aircraft, which have a quiet sonic boom, why bother with the Concorde? I'm sure there will be mach 2 business jets in the future.

Another rich people toy

[kheldan]

The Concorde, while amazing in it's day, is literally and antique now, and while making one into a museum is an OK idea, putting one back into regular service is irresponsible at best, criminal at worst. Terribly fuel-inefficient, highly polluting. If they want to re-design and retrofit it with cutting-edge technology, then that's different, but I'd suspect that by the time you did all that, you may as well just design an entire aircraft from scratch and have it produced. Get Elon Musk (or someone similar) involved with it.

Re:Another rich people toy

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans hate the Concorde, because it was better than anything the USA managed to build. Admit it.

Re:Another rich people toy

[FranTaylor]

Americans hate the Concorde, because it was better than anything the USA managed to build. Admit it.

yeah americans are jealous of a plane that can't break even when they charge $5000 a seat for a flight?

Re:Another rich people toy

[Anonymous Coward]

Not wanting a noisy, inefficient small plane flying into their airports does not mean Americans hate the concord. Few people want an extremely noisy environmentally unsound plane landing in their cities, add to this that one of the main perks of the plane, supersonic flight, was unavailable in most countries, it really limits the benefit of the plane. Supersonic flight isn't limited to just passenger planes, but also military aircraft, so it wasn't a rule to just prevent the concord.

The concord though an amazing plane, was simply a plane for the rich and would never have worked at scale. While you can call it faster than any passenger plane that a company in the USA built, it was certainly not better, and the concord was never a financially viable plane. The 747 could easily be considered a better plane, though much slower, but one that was far more important in history. Its also not nearly the fastest, the SR71 being a good example, but you can't really compare a passenger plane to a spy plane that was built in the '60s and which could ignore may constraints that a passenger plane would have. Looking at these two planes, its actually somewhat interesting if you consider that Airbus (Europe) targeted a plane for the elite, while Boeing (USA) more prioritized the plane for the masses.

On a safety perspective, only having one accident doesn't mean it had a great safety record as some people would like to infer. There were 20 built, of which one had a catastrophic failure on the runway. While the trash that instigated the accident wasn't from the concord, aircraft are impacted by exterior factors, meaning that this plane with limited flying had a 5% failure rate. Almost all airplane failures are a result of outside interference, or pilot error. This is much higher failure rate then a 747 which over 1500 aircraft were built, but even the 747 which has been updated numerous times is also facing its end though for different reasons as smaller far more efficient planes are taking over, and why the Airbus 380 is struggling and likely facing its end also, as those planes are even showing not to be viable in the current airline market.

The reality is that planes are nothing more than buses in the sky, and the key drivers for passenger planes are fuel efficiency and cost per passenger, which is why you see airlines like Virgin flying low cost Airbus and Boeing planes, and where the 737 is possibly the most successful passenger plane ever made with over 8000 delivered and the Airbus 320 coming in close with over 6000 delivered. Environmental restrictions are also becoming higher, with many older passenger planes, far quieter than the concord being blocked from flying into airports.

Re:Another rich people toy

[squiggleslash]

Americans started working on building similar aircraft but gave up not because it was impossible, but because they could see that the aircraft would never be commercially viable.

They were right. Concorde just wasn't commercially viable - at least, not in the form of a mass market product. That's why Concorde didn't sell.

Nobody on the Western side of the Atlantic "hates" Concorde, it's admired as an amazing feat of engineering. But if it was simply the case that Boeing's engineers had broken their pencils in frustration, telling their bosses "It just can't be done and we just wet our diapers, wah wah! #gamergate" then you'd have expected Concorde to be a ridiculous commercial success for its manufacturers - they were the only people in town making supersonic passenger planes. They had a monopoly!

Why wasn't Concorde a success? Because:

1. Sonic booms were simply unacceptable over land. No country in the world wanted the planes to fly supersonic. This pretty much limited its routes to flying over major oceans. London to Sidney? Would never happen, that'd mean crossing Europe and Asia.
2. It guzzled fuel like no tomorrow, and once it finally started to fly, fuel prices hit the roof.

That's all. Maybe one day someone will solve those problems, but while Boeing didn't, neither did Aérospatiale and BAC. They built the best aircraft they could, and it wasn't what was needed. Boeing, without a government mandate behind it forcing it to make the thing, wisely backed away.

Re:Another rich people toy

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at these two planes, its actually somewhat interesting if you consider that Airbus (Europe) targeted a plane for the elite, while Boeing (USA) more prioritized the plane for the masses.

Aérospatiale-BAC actually thought the SST would be for the masses. Almost everybody did. It was the FUTURE!

However, Airbus, a slightly different consortium, was formed from a UK, French and German group, and their first plane was the A300.

So no, you can't quite boil it down that simply, especially when you consider that Boeing also had a SST project of its own.

Re:Another rich people toy

[kheldan]

On the contrary, I think extremely fast transport is a great idea, as my comment suggested, but resurrecting decades old technology in an era where fuel efficiency and a need to protect the environment is extremely important for the future of all mankind is just plain irresponsible, especially when there are better technologies available that would put the Concorde to shame. By all means, redesign the Concorde using current technology, as I said in my comment. I think it would be great. But since you're not actually reading my comment, or more to the point, intentionally ignoring the content of my comment, I'm afraid you're just another shitty, garden-variety troll, trying to stir shit up for no reason other than to stir shit up. My recommendation to you: Bugger off. Just ignoring what people are saying is shit-tier trolling at best; you're just embarassing yourself.

obsolete technology. But ...

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Concorde is based on very old obsolete technologies, It is probably not worth reviving it. But fossil fuel prices are set to crash in the next 20 years, It would take 20 years to create a current generation technology supersonic passenger plane. Small ones between 20 and 40 seats, to get a decent load factor for traffic, might succeed. Aerospatial was showing off such a concept design recently.

nostalgia

[Anonymous Coward]

Nostalgia should not factor into a business plan.

Re:nostalgia

[turbidostato]

"Nostalgia should not factor into a business plan."

Why not? It helps selling quite a lot of things, from straight razors to Morgan Roadsters.

You can see one now

[djbckr]

You can walk inside a Concorde at the Boeing museum in Seattle. I was surprised by how small it was - 2x2 seating, narrow isle. Not much in the way of stowage. I wouldn't want to spend much time in there.

Re:You can see one now

[FranTaylor]

I wouldn't want to spend much time in there.

The whole idea of the Concorde is that the flight is over before you notice how cramped it is.

You pay $5000 for a short ride, so they ply you with champagne and fine food to distract you from the crappy interior and the frightening price.

Re: "It would likely cost quite a lot of money ...

[adolf]

We're loosing our language.

The problem was not "Concorde in the Air"

[Kevoco]

It was "Concorde All Over the Place"

Re: "It would likely cost quite a lot of money ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's payback for destroying the environment and world economy, cunt.

Grounded not due to crash

[hackertourist]

After the 2000 crash, several Concordes were modified to prevent a recurrence, and were put back into service. They were grounded in 2003 due to reductions in passenger numbers (9/11/2001 plus a general recession) and due to a decision by Airbus to stop maintenance support.

Hydraulics

[feufeu]

I've recently listened to a nice interview with an ex-Concorde captain from British Airways and I've learned quite a few interesting things about that plane. One of the last questions was his opinion about if the existing Concordes could be put back into the air. The answer was 'rather not' because of the apparently notoriously difficult maintenance of the hydraulic system and the fact that it needed constant caring while in use. Sitting around for quite a few years now without any care or without having been properly stored it would probably not be repairable.

There would certainly be a way to remanufacture parts or even replace parts of or the whole system, but I doubt this is within the financial reach of the project...

If you have two hours to spend and like technical discussions of this kind of machine, I'd highly recommend the podcast.
http://omegataupodcast.net/201...

Re:Hydraulics

[Anonymous Coward]

The car I drive cost me $8,000. I regularly pull up next to $250,000 cars.
I may only want to spend $500 for a flight but those 1/4 million dollar folks could easily spend 30 times just like they did on the car.

My inability to afford things does not mean others can not or do not want to.

Re: "It would likely cost quite a lot of money ...

[rpstrong]

We're loosing our language.

Which is a good thing, because the language should be free.

Price...

[MoarSauce123]

...was always the issue with the Concorde. Freakishly expensive to fly with and even freakisher expensive to operate it. Air France and British Airways did not say it out loud, but they were happy about that accident because it allowed them to box up the Concordes without losing face. I understand nostalgia, but if this club wants to do something awesome for the history of air travel find a way where transatlantic tickets can be had for 400-500$ top without losing too many of the amenities. If they can pull that off they will need their own airport because folks will be buying tickets like there's no tomorrow. I remember the times where I could go for 300$ from Luxembourg to JFK with Iceland Air (an excellent airline!). Those times aren't even that long ago.

Re: "It would likely cost quite a lot of money ...

[adolf]

Idk, sumtims I tink we shuld try hardar to git it rite.