# Work starts to get Concorde flying



## Gnomey (May 29, 2010)

> The engines on a French Concorde are to be examined as the first move in a £15m project aiming to get the supersonic passenger jet back in the air.
> 
> The Rolls Royce engines of the former Air France Concorde will undergo an initial examination to see what work needs to be done to start the engines.
> 
> ...



BBC News - Work starts in £15m plan to get Concorde flying


----------



## Matt308 (May 29, 2010)

But the question is... WHY!?


----------



## BombTaxi (May 29, 2010)

Why not? Concorde is an important part of British and French aviation history, and the retirement of Concorde was significant in as much it was the first time in commercial aviation history that a change of equipment made a major flight longer instead of shorter - truly a case of technology going backwards.

If Continental Airlines are found guilty of causing the accident, maybe part of their fine could go to financing this project?


----------



## red admiral (May 29, 2010)

Why? The same reason that other historical planes are still flying. It's not a return to passenger service but for airshow usage.


----------



## Matt308 (May 29, 2010)

yeah but CRIPES that would be expensive as hell!!! It;'s almost like getting a B-36 back into flying condition for airshows. Makes no frickin' sense. I can see restoring it, but making her airworthy is a whole other world.

[Keep in mind you are talking with a person who does not advocate our precious WWII airplanes flying in airshows either. Wonderful pieces of history whose scarcity makes them virtually priceless. We lose too many too often. But that's another thread.]


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 29, 2010)

Talk about cost prohibitive.


----------



## Trebor (May 29, 2010)

and those olympus 593's aren't exactly fuel efficient, either. that plus high maintenance costs were the major downfall of the Concorde, not counting 9/11 and the Air France 4590 crash


----------



## Matt308 (May 30, 2010)

Yeah, your gonna need a whole hell of a lot more money than that. Your recurring costs will be astronomical. Ask FlyboyJ. You can't just get a local gear head to fix up the engines, systems and equipment and hire a electrician to make the needles work. You have to demonstrate the airplane conforms to the type design, updated to ensure that all outstanding airworthiness directives have been complied with, have it inspected, flight tested, maintained and INSURED!!!. Better get out a bigger wallet.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 30, 2010)

Raising the money probably won't be a problem. When XH558, the last airworthy Vulcan, needed a massive re-build, it was thought cost would be a killer. However, the money was raised in no time through an appeal - the owner of Wolverhampton Wanderers FC stumped up about half a million quid on the spot to get the ball rolling, and the rest was done through small individual donations like the ones me and my dad made. Here in the UK people will give to a historical cause like this if they can relate to it - things like the National Trust keep our historic buildings going more less solely on public subscriptions, for example. I would say everyone in the UK could relate to Concorde. We still think of it is British, whatever the French say 8)


----------



## Matt308 (May 31, 2010)

More power to ya, my UK friends!


----------



## Trebor (May 31, 2010)

if y'all would be able to develop a fuel efficient supersonic engine to replace those olympus 593's, I'd be right behind ya. but it doesn't seem to me that you're doing that. so I seriously oppose this. I'm sorry. as much as I love airliners and the concorde, I'll have to pass


----------



## Waynos (May 31, 2010)

Why would you need to develop new engines for it? That would be incredibly wasteful. Not to mention utterly unrealistic.


----------



## Trebor (May 31, 2010)

it's incredibly wasteful to try to get that plane back in the air


----------



## Matt308 (May 31, 2010)

.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 31, 2010)

LMAO, that says it all.


----------



## Trebor (May 31, 2010)

what the heck is that? that's just funny xD


----------



## BombTaxi (Jun 1, 2010)

I think you missed the point a little Trebor. A restored Concorde would fly maybe half a dozen times a year at airshows, so whether the Olympus is fuel-efficient or not is neither here nor there - the relative usage will be so little that the plane's carbon emissions will be negligible. 

Why do we want to put this gas-guzzling ozone-killer back in the air? It's important to us Brits and it's iconic. It's also one of the few remaining bits of our aviation heritage left. If you Americans want to see a great piece of your aviation heritage flying, you just walk down to the airport and watch a few departures. We have to restore old planes at huge cost to get the same thing


----------



## Trebor (Jun 1, 2010)

ohhhhhh, gosh, I feel like a heel. hehe. airshows are a completely different thing. just think if P-51s returned to service. lol


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 1, 2010)

If the fleet was retired from front line airline service because cost were too prohibitive, how in the heck are they going to make enough money offering heritage flights to keep just one in the air, flying at select shows. Wouldn't each engine require a thorough inspection each time it was going to fly if it sat for most of the year? I do not think enough donations would keep coming year in and year out to keep it in the air. 
Would it be like a US museum trying to keep a SR71 airworthy? Hugely expensive. Cool as hell, but not feasible.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 1, 2010)

Exactly... the recurring costs will quickly bankrupt this venture.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 1, 2010)

I happen to agree. Its all right having an initial cost target to get it flying again, even if this is achieved the recurring costs, which are only going to go up and up, will quickly cripple the project. Look at XH558's ongoing funding issues, and Concorde is a lot more complex and expensive than she is.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jun 1, 2010)

IIRC, the withdrawal of Concorde was down to the fatal incident at Paris, not cost-effectiveness or lack thereof?


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 1, 2010)

Wrong, the recurring costs were absorbed in a business model that included other revenue streams besides Concorde operations. She has been subsidized directly or indirectly since her inception. Get her back into airworthy shape and stick her into a museum.

Flying her is folly.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 2, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> IIRC, the withdrawal of Concorde was down to the fatal incident at Paris, not cost-effectiveness or lack thereof?



That is not correct. Concorde had been profitable for BA for a number of years but not for AF. The accident was not Concordes fault and BA never wanted to ground them in the first place, but not long after the mods had been completed and the type returned to service Airbus announced they were withdrawing support for the Concorde and cancelling its type certificate, thats why it was retired.


----------

