Concorde at Dublin Airport

mickdw

Very valid points re the experienced people who flew concorde.
I believe air france F - btsd, one of the younger ones has had its systems kept alive to a degree. This was all well and good if it was to be returned to air within a short time of being grounded. Now after 10 years, im not sure if its any advantage to it.
The very last build BA, G boaf at filton was considered a good prospect for flight but it is soon to be trapped in bristol (if not already) as the airport was to close and half the runway redeveloped for housing.

madalig12

Here is the NY one.

mickdw

Looks ok for a display aircraft.
Is it complete internally? Are interior tours allowed?

Tropheus

The one in Seattle looked in pretty good shape when I was there 3 years ago. However, it's outdoors so that probably won't last too long. I'll post pictures later.

kona

mickdw wrote: »

Looks ok for a display aircraft.
Is it complete internally? Are interior tours allowed?

Yup complete inside, although it's all behind plexiglass, I've pics somewhere on it. You used to be able to stroll on but now you have to pay for a tour, think its and extra $22 ontop of the $25 admission.

It's fine for a display, but still in bad shape when your used to being around operational aircraft !! Personally I think it should be indoors, like they are trying to do with the shuttle. Unfortunately the flight deck of the intrepid is fairly packed, some of the displays there ain't in great shape either, prob costs too much. Like I'm talking bout flat tyres ,damaged paint and plastic due to sunlight etc.

The displays below the flight deck are mint.

madalig12

mickdw wrote: »

Looks ok for a display aircraft.
Is it complete internally? Are interior tours allowed?

Yeah you can sit on the seats an get into look around the cockpit.

run_Forrest_run

madalig12 wrote: »

Yeah you can sit on the seats an get into look around the cockpit.

hmm, my experience matches kona's above, you certainly could not sit on seats etc. They were all sectioned off under plexiglass. The door to the cockpit was removed/open so you could look into the cockpit but not a chance of actually stepping into the cockpit.

I felt both sad and underwhelmed when viewing it, the thing should be working in an airport and not sitting in a museum.

mickdw

When I visited the one at filton, the access was great. The forward cabin was open to us, we sat in the seats, had a talk and had photos taken beside the working mach displays. We were in cockpit where we were allowed sit in one of the rear seats. Great access outside too, allowed to walk all around the underside of the aircraft. But yes, its more sad than anything when you realise that all BA concorde touched down back in 2003 in perfect condition and could never fly again.
If BA chiefs wanted a display aircraft in air, it would happen. Maybe in future, there will be a change of heart there. Im sure airbus could be persuaded to help too if BA were buying a few new planes off them.

afatbollix

I was at Brooklands in London at the weekend for a event I just had a quick look as I was busy.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

They have so much to see there. So I didnt even start looking around Im going to go soon and have a proper look around.

McWotever

I visited G-BOAC in Manchester four years ago and took the "Technical Tour". Which lasted bout 90 minutes and was more or less access all areas with a talk from an aeronautical engineer instructor.

The tour included a talk seated in the cabin and a trip to the flight deck which included sitting in the captains seat. 3 of us went and we sat in the left hand seat and engineers seat. The guide sat in the right hand seat but I'm sure if we asked he would of obliged us to let us sit there for a picture. But I think it took alot of effort for him to climb in there in the first place.

There was no problem pressing or switching switches or pushing the throttles etc.

That was all before they built the hangar for her so I don't know if it is still as accessible.

The technical tour also included a tour of other aircraft there including a Trident and prototype RJ145???. They now have a Nimrod too (comet).

Well worth travelling for the day.

Tenger

McWotever wrote: »

I visited G-BOAC in Manchester four years ago and took the "Technical Tour". Which lasted bout 90 minutes and was more or less access all areas with a talk from an aeronautical engineer instructor.......

That was all before they built the hangar for her so I don't know if it is still as accessible.

The technical tour also included a tour of other aircraft there including a Trident and prototype RJ145???. They now have a Nimrod too (comet).
Well worth travelling for the day.

I only spotted the Nimrod there last week. Definitely need to organise a day tour over the summer.

here's pics of the BA Concorde G-BOAD in NYC. As mentioned above you can enter the forward cabin but the seats are covered in thick plexi-glass. The cockpit and rear cabin are viewable but have waist high barriers to prevent access. These pics are form a few years ago. I was there last summer and the exterior paint is showing wear and tear,also the aircraft is not longer accessible freely. Paid tours only.

Concorde- front by tearbringer, on Flickr


Concorde-aft cabin by tearbringer, on Flickr

Davidth88

afatbollix wrote: »

I was at Brooklands in London at the weekend for a event I just had a quick look as I was busy.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

They have so much to see there. So I didnt even start looking around Im going to go soon and have a proper look around.

OMG , that old BA colour scheme suited The Concorde so much better !!

foxcoverteddy

It is only a thought but has anyone given any time to starting a save the concorde fund, it seems to be one of the most iconic means of transportation and from all the comments most of them are going to ruin.
Would it not be a good thing if aircraft enthuiasts got together and saved at least one concorde?
You never know some of the very rich ones might cough up, Bono, Sir richard, is there anyone else Michael the dancer

flazio

Didn't Branson try already to save Concorde?

mickdw

foxcoverteddy wrote: »

It is only a thought but has anyone given any time to starting a save the concorde fund, it seems to be one of the most iconic means of transportation and from all the comments most of them are going to ruin.
Would it not be a good thing if aircraft enthuiasts got together and saved at least one concorde?
You never know some of the very rich ones might cough up, Bono, Sir richard, is there anyone else Michael the dancer

There are various groups involved in trying to save concorde, from fighting for proper concorde display facilities to fighting for return to flight. Look up save concorde group, heritage concorde, Project flagship for a bit of background.
UNfortunately there is alot of politics involved. These groups are struggling to gather any traction re funding for proper exhibit buildings for concorde never mind getting funds together for a proper tilt at returning one to the air. When a group of engineers got working on the manchester one last year, they had literally zero funds. Drums of hydraulic oil had to donated, tools borrowed etc.
There was another group who had handling of 400k approx that was supposed to go towards a visitor centre but the money was pissed away on salaries, consultants etc - the usual story.
It needs a proper backer in the form of government heritage funding or British airways funding to even be considered possible to get one flying for shows etc. With the economic conditions, its hard to see many millions being pumped into it.
Also have a look a concordesst.com for info mostly on the return to flight back in 2001 following the paris crash.

andy_g

flazio wrote: »

Didn't Branson try already to save Concorde?

No he tried to buy 3 from BA and he was rejected

Gatling

Maybe somebody could ask Mr O'Leary nicely

foxcoverteddy

is the truth of the matter that Concorde was actually coming to the end of it's life, with the paris incident it appears to have come sooner than later.
Fully restored today would it still be a viable option, or is one of those if only projects?
I think personally that there should be at least one preserved example for future generations to see.
So what happened to the french concorde's? No one mentions them.

MugMugs

foxcoverteddy wrote: »

So what happened to the french concorde's? No one mentions them.

F-BVFA is in the Smithsonian in Washington.
F-BVFB is in Sinsheim in Germany and rests with a TU-144
F-BVFC was retired back to Airbus in Toulouse
F-BVFD was retired in 82 and used as a donor.
F-BVFF is on display in CDG
F-BTSC was involved in the Continental/CDG incident and destroyed.
F-BTSD is on display in Le Bourget

mickdw

foxcoverteddy wrote: »

is the truth of the matter that Concorde was actually coming to the end of it's life, with the paris incident it appears to have come sooner than later.
Fully restored today would it still be a viable option, or is one of those if only projects?
I think personally that there should be at least one preserved generations to see.
So what happened to the french concorde's? No one mentions them.

But huge money was spent following the crash on updates, safety mods, new interiors so even at that stage british airways were surely pkanning to another 10 years in commercial service. They brought 5 aircraft through that upgrade process and returned them to service.
It was all down to Air France finances and politics. BA also generally say that 9/11 was a severe blow to concorde. That was also the date of the first flight into jfk following the refit in preparation for return to commercial service. They were carrying just staff as a full exercise and all went perfectly only to find that the world had changed completely when they touched down. Not only was aviation changed that day but many regular concorde customers were killed also. So really given the effort put into returning to service in 2001, neither airline had any issues about the life of the aircraft.
The only hope now is for a heritage flight aircraft and that is a distant dream too.

Tenger

I concur. BA had invested the cash/effort/planning to overhaul their Concorde service. It was their 'jewel in the crown' so to speak. They were planning to keep them flying for at least 5-10 years.

For AF however they never made profit on Concorde so were more willing to let it die. Airbus then announced that they would withdraw Tech Support. BA then had to fall into line.

In practical terms perhaps the post 9/11 world would have made Concorde unprofitable for BA anyway (without the CDG crash) Fuel costs, lower levels of flying, increased awareness of eco issues, increased connectivity in business terms, Willie Walsh not having a sentimental bone in his body, etc etc may well have caused BA to retire Concorde 5-8 years ago?

BA Concorde had already had their fuel tanks reinforced. The theory stands that the CDG incident would not have been as bad (a relative term!) if it was a BA aircraft that was hit by the errant piece of metal.

EDIT: I would say that re-enginging may never have been an option with Concorde. The engines are inset in the fuselage/wing assembly. So any effort may have been seen as an aircraft redesign and thus subject to a mountain of regulatory check.

kona

Just on the fuel issue, I wonder if they could be re engined?

L1011

kona wrote: »

Just on the fuel issue, I wonder if they could be re engined?

There hasn't been as serious an effort to improve fuel consumption on afterburning turbojets or trying to find another type of engine to power a SST compared to the absolutely massive improvements for subsonics. No consumer customers and relatively fuel price impervious military customers doesn't put as much pressure on.

When Concorde was being designed, most subsonic commercial planes were powered by 4 turbojets, now they're usually powered by two high bypass turbofans, so the fuel consumption gulf has just got wider and wider.

pclancy

I wonder how those engines built with 60's technology would fair in economy and performance compared to whats out there now.

jippo nolan

Oceanfrogie, I was one of those aer lingus engineers,
Also saw usaf f16s & a10s close up on ramp for baldonnel airshow.
On leaving they done a fly pass, fantastic.

kona

MYOB wrote: »

There hasn't been as serious an effort to improve fuel consumption on afterburning turbojets or trying to find another type of engine to power a SST compared to the absolutely massive improvements for subsonics. No consumer customers and relatively fuel price impervious military customers doesn't put as much pressure on.

When Concorde was being designed, most subsonic commercial planes were powered by 4 turbojets, now they're usually powered by two high bypass turbofans, so the fuel consumption gulf has just got wider and wider.

The Concorde isn't that big a aircraft, the Olympus made 38,000 pounds of thrust, surely there's lighter more efficient power plants now?

I'd say stopping after burning would save massive amounts of fuel.

mickdw

kona wrote: »

The Concorde isn't that big a aircraft, the Olympus made 38,000 pounds of thrust, surely there's lighter more efficient power plants now?

I'd say stopping after burning would save massive amounts of fuel.

I think im right in saying that concorde due to good design didnt need after burners at all to maintain supersonic flight whereas the russian supersonic did.
I think talking about re engine etc is beyond possibility. One aircraft in non commercial service would be the best I would ever envisage.

madalig12

The tour guide said they saved fuel by using the afterburners to take off and fly up to crusing height.

L1011

kona wrote: »

The Concorde isn't that big a aircraft, the Olympus made 38,000 pounds of thrust, surely there's lighter more efficient power plants now?

I'd say stopping after burning would save massive amounts of fuel.

The PWs that power all the recent US fighters would be the closest in thrust available. But they're still afterburning.

McWotever

mickdw wrote: »

I think im right in saying that concorde due to good design didnt need after burners at all to maintain supersonic flight whereas the russian supersonic did.

If I remember from my flight sim days, the afterburners were only used on takeoff and initial climb (first 1000ft or so). And then only to accelerate from mach .88 to mach 1.30 after which they were turned off and the acceleration to mach 2.0 + was to do with its gentle climb to 50,000ft and air pressure.

I'm open to correction (from Concorde commanders only)