http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mindthegap/2010/06/will_conco
rde_fly_back_for_a_2.html
Hi, not sure if the link above will work but do you think it might happen? Concorde return for the 2012 olympics.
And who is going to pay for that!? The vulcan bomber is stupidly expensive to run and it is only just kept afloat by millions of pounds of
donations...
Cant see it happening...
edinburgh council might pay, they seem to have millions to burn on crap nobody wants...
(not saying the concordes crap we dont want, dig at the trams...itd be ace to get concorde back)
[Edited on 6/8/11 by A1]
link didn't work for me but this should
linky dinky
yep works.
[Edited on 6/8/11 by jollygreengiant]
Doubt it will happen, Not an ex BA one anyway. The most intact one is the one at BA Heathrow and they have just abandoned it, drained the fluids and
left it for the mice. Really missed a trick when they opened T5 they could have had a cracking centrepiece.
Back to getting it flying, The return to service checks would be horrendous as no storage checks or maintenance has been carried out as far as
I'm aware. If you get past all that then you've got the totally inept Civil Aviation Authority to get past to get a certificate of
airworthiness, permits to fly etc. I think it could be done, but in a year? no chance, not with all the red tape to get through. The french may have
other plans for their's however as they have been working on their youngest example quite a bit.
When the plane were mothballed the engine's were not prepped for long term storage, would take too long to return them to service. Besides, there would be no spare parts and would take to long to get a CAA cert.
Would be nice but i doubt it
hmm wasn't it grounded because it was deemed unsafe to fly by its design, rather than grounded because it was too expensive to run?
i don't see it happening. i can't see the CAA (is that the right one? civil aviation authority) allowing it, just because its the olympics
quote:
Originally posted by blakep82
hmm wasn't it grounded because it was deemed unsafe to fly by its design, rather than grounded because it was too expensive to run?
i don't see it happening. i can't see the CAA (is that the right one? civil aviation authority) allowing it, just because its the olympics
IIRC after the crash, the problem was deemed to be that the wing fuel tanks were vulnerable to puncturing by debris thrown up by the wheels (which is
what happened) in France. A fix was designed and may even have been test fitted (involving lining the inside of the tanks with a glued on,
self-sealing rubber liner).
The nail in the coffin that ended any plans for returning them to flight was that the company with the experience to maintain them and carry out the
periodical major overhauls decided that they did not want to support concord any more.
Nice thought, but it will not be flying again! The cost of recomissioning it is unreal - someone mentioned the Vulcan - have a look at how much that costs to operate and maintain (what do they spend, something like a £1m a year roughly?), this would be orders of magnitude more to bring back into service, even if it is for just one fly-by.
As I recall, all airworthiness concerns with Concorde were fixed, however, BA and particularly Air France could not afford/lacked the will to keep it
going. The nail in the coffin was when Richard Branson tried to buy them from BA and Airbus announced (as the 'manufacturer'
that they
would no longer support keeping the aircraft airworthy. To my mind, this fact as much as the horrific expense, would be the deal breaker for any
return to flight.