Concorde to fly again ?

[rreis]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8712806.stm

[JohnH]

Thanks...didn't know that. Mindblowing! 6 months to reach a verdict? Europe leads the way in some things but in others: Insane.

JH

[JDK]

How realistic this is remains at best, arguable, but what is certain is that someone is being taken for a ride and the ticket for that is going to be much higher cost than any airliner flight. The question is who?

[bilwor]

Sounds like to be for Heritage Flights and not regular passenger service

[JDK]

Sorry Bill, not what I meant. The other kind of paying to be taken for a ride.

Anyone wanting to fund this, I've got this bridge in London for sale...

[rreis]

Sorry Bill, not what I meant. The other kind of paying to be taken for a ride.

Anyone wanting to fund this, I've got this bridge in London for sale...

People that decide where to spend other people's money are good candidates

[cott]

Why not? They got a Vulcan flying again, and it sat for longer than any of the Concorde airframes. You at least have to admire their thought and spirit.

It would sure be nice to see a Concorde land in Oshkosh again.

Chris

[JDK]

Why not?

Good question.

Because:
1. The Musee de l'air's primary mandate is preservation, not operation.

3. They have a long backlog of significant aircraft awaiting restoration (like a B-17, Sunderland and, underway, a Lancaster) many of which are still outside and many of which are housed in inadequate buildings (the le Bourget fire was due in part to the poor repair the buildings were in) plus they have a number of the main display buildings in need of refurbishment as well as the storage areas. All that needs money, and the amount that may come from the French side that goes to getting one aircraft flying would cover a lot more long term benefits for a much wider collection of aircraft in current need. (Of course it depends on where the funding's coming from. If The Musee isn't providing any cash, fine, but see 1.)

They got a Vulcan flying again, and it sat for longer than any of the Concorde airframes.

Not all of us are impressed by the management and achievement (in airshow and public display terms) of that project. Hats off to the engineers, workers and those that donated cash. Bang for the buck? Very poor. The continual pleading poverty by Plemming's people isn't good project management or PR, nevermind specifics. I treasure the memories of XH558 back in the day with the RAF when it always turned up and was flown with elan. That's gone.

You at least have to admire their thought and spirit.

Not really, it's a waste of cash, IMHO. When BA pulled the plug, that was the end of the era. Playing at supersonic airliners is a very expensive bit of fun that proves nothing and has no educational value. That is, of course just my opinion, and I certainly like as much variety within my aviation as I can get. But I can tell daft when I see it too.

It would sure be nice to see a Concorde land in Oshkosh again.

Sure. But sometimes things are simply over. This is one of those things.

Cheers!

[RyanShort1]

If this was a privately-funded commercial endeavor, I'd say fine - it's their money and their problem if it's not a success. I'm sure there are some really wealthy folks who might benefit from the time savings. I certainly have become more aware of how time savings can be very valuable to a very busy business-person.
I'd also say fine if it's a privately-funded nostalgic or history-motivated idea, though I'd be skeptical of the person or entity doing it. However, I personally think that it's a bit silly.
I'm really bothered if it's coming from ANY public funds. Gotta say I'm with James on this one.

Ryan

[tom d. friedman]

no foundation is going to financially back the up keep of the sst because lack of spare parts etc. sure, there are heritage connies, dc 4's & 6's & 7's not counting such foundations such as collings that have ample pools of parts due to past mass production & gradual destruction sorry to say. the sst does not have the inventory of spares & specialized tools.

[JDK]

Good points, Tom, and it's also not just a bit more complex and expensive than a DC-6, it's exponentially more... (and it is more complex in performance than a Vulcan, too - speed and wing-loading for starters.)

Another crucial point is the withdrawn type support.

Gotta say I'm with James on this one.

Sorry, the grumpy corner's full.

Of course if someone were to pull it off, good for them.

But it would require just silly-cubed money and paperwork, and I can't see anyone whose stuck to that kind of cash and logistical ability being prepared to back it; (contradictory requirements). Sadly there's a lot of people who are prepared to donate small amounts of their hard earned not realising the size of the support required for such a dream. Hence my remark for tickets to be taken for a ride.

Regards,

[Iclo]

Huummmm, I wonder where these journalist found these "first hand information"

The director of "Le musée de l'Air" NEVER NEVER said that the plane will fly again. Him announce was "trying to put two engines and the basic vital systems in running conditions, , and allow ONE taxi run each year".

Simply an anounce, and it will not be the first announce followed by nothing in this organisation.

Why a Concorde will never fly again ?
- The builder (now EADS) refuses that, and a owner of the certicate of type (I don't know the correst word in English) is needed.
- The spares part were methodicaly sells in small batch to collectors, to be sure that nobody will try to put one of this birds in the air, even with a very very deep pocket (Branson had a plan for that, but BA refused to sell him two Concorde and the spares availables)

[JDK]

Thanks Iclo, and I agree with your earlier posts on the subject.

- The builder (now EADS) refuses that, and a owner of the certicate of type (I don't know the correst word in English) is needed.

Type Certificate. You were almost there!

- The spares part were methodicaly sells in small batch to collectors, to be sure that nobody will try to put one of this birds in the air, even with a very very deep pocket (Branson had a plan for that, but BA refused to sell him two Concorde and the spares availables)

I don't think so. We'll never know for certain, but Branson knew a great PR coup when he saw one. Making an offer guaranteed to be refused by BA for flying Concorde under the Virgin flag guaranteed huge publicity and cost him nothing in real commitment or costs. It's a pity BA didn't call his bluff by selling the aircraft to him, but BA neither have a sense of humour, an ability to manage risk or even a very good PR dept. Branson has the last, and is very, very good at getting free publicity for lots of ideas that don't actually happen and cost him nothing. (As well as a few, well calculated real achievements.) Smart, but don't confuse the noise with action.

Regards,