I have been following this both on the website and facebook and I think if they can pull of it will be wonderful. I really miss the Concorde as I used to see it in the sky a few times when it landed at Manchester.
www.save-concorde.co.uk/
If they can keep one plane in the sky it would be amazing, it would worth traveling just to see it land and take off but I would have thought the costs involved are just too huge to imagine. For a start it would need a dedicated hanger which will cost a fortune unless they locate it in Iraq or something.
I really hope they suceed but I both BA and Airbus don't seem to be supporting it. Then there is the huge running costs even if they do manage to get a certifcate from the CAA.
|
they have absolutly NO chance of a: getting this in the air, b: keeping it flying.
Its dead and gone, but never ever forgotten.
|
Facebook campaign gets concorde flying.
Yeah right.
Have you seen the troubles the Vulcan bomber has been having?
|
The engineers are working on it at the moment, it isn't just pure fantasy in that respect, they have the plane and they have done lots of tests on it. The have Olympus engines installed too.
I believe the main problem is getting all the technicalities out of the way in order to gain a certificate. The plane will not be enetered into commercial flight but I don't know if that makes a difference in terms of getting the certifcate.
This is not a facebook campaign, facebook is merely used as apart of it.
|
|
Rattle. On its demise it was still making money for BA. It was grounded because the thing is DANGEROUS. There was little BA could do to make it less so.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Wed 4 Aug 10 at 01:13
|
It wasn't dangerious though was it? They were remodified in 2000/2001 and started flying again. The reason I understood was the following:-
1) Decrease in demand because of 9/11
2) Decrease in demand because of the internet
3) Constantly rising fuel costs
4) Airbus wanted an extra £40 million for the maintance.
I understood it only made a profit from the early 80's until 2000 and after it started to re-fly in 2001 it never really made the same profit.
Although the Concorde's avionics were state of the art in the late 60's I do believe probably would have had to be updated by now if it was used in commercial service which I suppose would have costed billions.
|
|
By sheer chance I'm watching the recent C4 documentary on Concorde and the disastrous crash. Worth a view if you can catch it on the web somewhere...
|
Its not cheer chance. I washed it last night on my PVR and afterwards decided to read a bit more on Concorde as it had been years since I have read about it. It was then when I found about this group :).
|
|
I recently watched a programe on the sinking of the titanic. You want that dragged up and steaming again at any cost?
|
Completly different that sank. There are still 18 Concorde's sat there doing nothing with perfectly good fuslages. The Titanic would also be a bit boring to watch where as Concorde was pure drama. Never got the sonic boom as it had just taken off or was landing when I ever I saw it.
|
18?
EIGHTEEN?
they never had that many flying when both BA and AirChance were actually using them.
the only way you would get the sonic boom was over the sea, high speed transition was forbidden over land.
|
>> the only way you would get the sonic boom was over the sea, high speed
>> transition was forbidden over land.
We used to hear it in Cornwall.
Boom boom.
|
Concorde wasn't dangerous. It was withdrawn because Air France decided to withdraw theirs due to poor operating practices and they couldn't stand to see BA make a success of operating theirs. They got together with Airbus and subsequently Airbus withdrew maintainance support and demanded a massive increase to re-instate it. At the price demanded, Concorde could never have been profitable. It had a good 20 years of fatigue life left in it.
Chances of it flying again.............absolutely none.
|
>> Concorde wasn't dangerous. It was withdrawn because Air France decided to withdraw theirs due to
>> poor operating practices and they couldn't stand to see BA make a success of operating
>> theirs. They got together with Airbus and subsequently Airbus withdrew maintainance support and demanded a
>> massive increase to re-instate it. At the price demanded, Concorde could never have been profitable.
>> It had a good 20 years of fatigue life left in it.
Ah the good old french conspiricy. It was dangerous well before the accident, and even if it hadnt crashed it would never get a CAA license today without some very serious money and design thrown at it.
|
>> It was dangerous well before the accident
Was it?
|
Yup, the CAA had some serious concerns over it,
Engine failures, flight systems failures, bits falling off the airframe, tyres and brakes.
you have to bear in mind, it was a devilishly complicated piece of machinery in every aspect.
|
"in every aspect"?
In EVERY respect? The nosecone was knitted. I admit casting on is damned hard but...
JH
|
|
the ronco defuzzer doesent work on it either.
|
It's not impossible the Vulcan took to the sky again this year and is flying very well.
There's plenty of spares for the concorde but is there any money in it?
Who would opperate it and why?
The vulcan is a airshow crowd puller & the concorde may do the same but it's got to be cost effective to put that up and safely.
If you want them all to return to service repaired and doing transatlantic flights again this will cost a mountain of cash that i can't see anybody pilling cash into this.
|
|
It is not about money. It is a volunteer project but I agree it would cost so much money my biggest doubts about this project is about money and nothing technical.
|
Rattle,
It ain't going to happen. The Vulcan only got frlying again with lottery money, that ran out it's been kept going by a handful of very large donations and folks like me who pay £10 per month. Keeping a complex airliner flying, even on a permit for displays never mind with a full CofA is far too much for a volunteer outfit.
Even the last Comet, Canopus, a far simpler machine, was beyond flying restoration.
|
|
Vulcan receives engineering support, Concorde will never get it. And the Vulcan, even with all its backers, is an absolute money pit. They should have got a Shackleton going instead.
|
|
Not exactly dramatic looking or sounding like a vulcan tho, is it.
|
>> Not exactly dramatic looking or sounding like a vulcan tho, is it.
>>
I don't know. Those four Griffins certainly got my attention.
|
They should have got a Shackleton going instead.
No another lancaster like the one at east kirkby!!
Yes the vulcan is a money pit get your cameras out and take those shots i can't see it flying for many more seasons.
|
OK so if Concorde has had it even as a display machine what are the chances of a new super sonic passanger yet replacing it?
|
there is no comercial need for one. Or should I say, there is valid financial model to make one pay.
The internet has done for the need for superfast travel.
|
|
Near Hockenheim there is the "Auto & Technik Museum Sinsheim", a technical museum split into 2 sites. At one site they have a Concorde and a Tupolev TU144 next to each other. At the other site they have a Buran which was a Russian Space Shuttle, canned in the early 90s after the break up of the Soviet Union. All 3 are open to visitors, but sadly non-flying.
|
There are plenty of folk who would just pay up to fly Concorde. Three mates of mine did just that on one of the last trips.
M
|
The french concordes ended up ferrying fat old german tourists about on cut price day trips.
Do you *really* want that to be its lifestyle.
No forget it, Cool, incredibly noisy (the 12:00 and 13:00 concordes powered over my place every day for years, and you *always* looked up with a smile on your face) and drop dead gorgeous they were, so let the legend lie with its sexy glamour profile.
|
>> There are plenty of folk who would just pay up to fly Concorde. Three mates
>> of mine did just that on one of the last trips.
>>
I think it takes a bit of training too, not just paying up.
I flew a small 2-seater some years ago for a few minutes. But I didn't do anything complicated like taking off or landing, and the instructor sat beside me ready with his dual controls.
|
>>The internet has done for the need for superfast travel.
I don't think there was ever really a "need" for Concorde. I flew it a few times and thought it was brilliant, loved the whole thing, and extolled the virtues until I was blue in the face, but there was no "need".
There isn't as much "need" to fly anywhere at any speed as people like me would have you believe. A certain amount needs to be done face to face, but an awful lot is because people [I] like the life style.
However, wouldn't it be a sad and grey world if "need" was the only acceptable motivation. I think it should be kept [returned to] flying just because its cool and impressive.
Tell me who is doing it, and if they're raising funds I'll chuck the odd quid in their direction.
Just because Concorde is cool. Dirty, unpopular, unneccessary, perhaps unsafe, but dead impressive.
|
>>Tell me who is doing it, and if they're raising funds I'll chuck the odd quid in their direction.
I know, I know, read properly and follow the links. Doing it now.
|
|
Falling from the sky never hurt anyone.
|
>> Falling from the sky never hurt anyone.
only everyone since icarus.
|
I must say I miss the old paper dart with its not very muted thunder, walking in and out of Heathrow balanced on its tail. It was a supercar among aircraft though, not for most of us and a spectacular fuel guzzler. Although a technophile I couldn't fully approve of the thing. I knew it didn't represent the future of civil aviation.
It took me about a year, as a rather diffident freelance French newspaper correspondent in London, to get Tony Benn to agree to an interview. When I got it, having by then become rather sour about the 'hard left', I couldn't resist teasing him a bit by recalling his support as a Wilson government minister for the Concorde project in its infancy, during what someone, perhaps Benn himself, had called 'the white heat of the technological revolution'. By that time of course it was clear that the aircraft was carriage-trade only, and an extravagance in any case.
He wasn't terribly pleased but of course could take far worse than that in his stride. One of the few politicians I liked more after meeting him than before. A mensch.
|
>>
>> Falling from the sky never hurt anyone.
>>
>> only everyone since icarus.
>>
It is not the falling that hurts
its hitting the ground!
|
"Falling from the sky never hurt anyone. "
just the sudden stop.
JH
Last edited by: Tooslow on Mon 19 Jul 10 at 14:44
|
>>just the sudden stop
I can vouch for that. ;.(
|
>>There are still 18 Concorde's sat there doing nothing with perfectly good fuslages.
>>
Like this one ? image12.webshots.com/13/3/20/31/133932031JTVGuk_fs.jpg
Where are they?
tinyurl.com/2wnn3wf
There is not the slightest chance of any flying again.
There might be a slight chance of one being able to do ground runs.
I have flown three times in the big bird. The last time there were six passengers on a commercial sector. It was 50 tons lighter than normal trips so an even better take off and I was in the jump seat for landing. I saw the sun set twice that day and also saw it rise in the West. Magic.
SWMBO has also landed while in the jump seat.
Sensibly both my offspring flew on it a second time prior to its grounding.
They took my advice and flew out of JFK (unfortunately something I never did)
I do have a fairly unusual boast. My daughter flew supersonic before she was born.
I miss the daily sight and sound of Concorde and an sadened to see the last BA one still parked outside rotting at Hatton Cross. It is now parked, backed into its ground test mufflers so there is not much of it on view from the public road.
I always described it as noisy, smelly ( inside at take off) cramped with paper back sized window but wow what a machine!
The french always did their own thing!!
Concorde was on the very limit of its range from Paris to New York. The french routinely ignored the sonic boom restrictions and gunned it early down the channel. The boom was quite loud in Alderney and the boom reflected off the clounds could be heard in the likes of Bracknell.
IIRC if flown from Franfurt to New York only 36 passengers could be carried so its commercial worth was a little limited.
P. S
www.3dimages.co.uk/gallery/d/613-2/PEPSI+Concorde02.jpg
Fantastic PR but it could never go supersonic as it would overheat without its special white livery.
|
The one at Manchester airport sat in the viewing park for years before they built the hanger around it. I would not think it's in flying condition or anything like it anymore. One of the Concorde's had it's wings cut off and it was put on a barge to take it down a river. I think that one was going to somewhere in Germany.
www.clubconcorde.co.uk/concorde_locations.php
Six of the planes listed on the above site were development planes. I remember going onboard the one at Yeovilton - or it might have been another location but I was pretty young (6 or 7).
Last edited by: rtj70 on Mon 19 Jul 10 at 15:22
|
I was chatting to an ex-BA chief Concorde pilot a year ago (one must name drop, you know...) and he was of the opinion that it could never fly again. Not only were they reaching the end of their fatique life (and this had been extended several times), EADS refused to provide certification and if you add to that the monumental cost, it's clear that Concorde is grounded for life.
Don't see why they shouldn't get a ground run or two though.
|
What I remember from seeing the flight deck of the one at Yeovilton was that there was a gap between two panels on the ground you could not get anything between. At Mach 2 you could put your hand in the gap due to the plane getting longer when it heated up.
Now that sort of fatigue is very different to the flexing of wings on most aircraft.
Concorde used the fuel in the surrounding fuselage to keep the interior cool - or so I seem to recall.
|
There is a complete one at brooklands, used as a simulator.
When i say complete, it was cut into bits, shipped from filton on lorries and tack welded back together and smoothed over with filler.
You wouldnt want to try mach 0.anything in that one.
|
The example at Brooklands is G BBDG, on e of the pair of final pre-production examples. The British prototype G BSST is at Yeovilton and the first UK pre-production model G AXDN is at Duxford.
Presumably at least one of the French prototypes is at Le Bourget.
|
Not Jock Reid you were talking to was it Alfa ?
Neighbour of mine......
|
I saw the programme referred to earlier in the thread, and any machine that can move grown, well adjusted, well educated men to tears at its memory is something very special, in my opinion.
Economic realities aside for a moment, I would love to see just one kept flying for the display circuit. I want my kids to experience the sheer, slack-jawed wow factor of this beautiful plane roaring overhead on full reheat, and that unique, chest-thumping rumble and crackle of those Olympus turbojets fading into the distance, leaving only the beeping of car alarms and that brown fug of unburnt kerosene in their wake.
Flawed or not, it was, and always will be a beautiful piece of engineering with a character, and even a personality all of its own. People actually mourn its passing.
|
>>This beautiful plane roaring overhead on full reheat, and that unique, chest-thumping rumble and crackle of those Olympus turbojets fading into the distance, leaving only the beeping of car alarms and that brown fug of unburnt kerosene in their wake.
>>
I have my own video, taken at the BA base at Hatton Cross, of the last last night departure.
Car alarms all singing and then four red glows going west.
Many years ago, before they installed the " thou shall not see aircraft" panels on the fence
at Heathrow, I was driving west, after sundown on the northern perimeter roadwhen Concorde went past with the reheats on. It almost took my breath away.
One " indicator " that was fitted to BA the Concordes that always amused me by its simplicity can been seen on the pic in the link.
heritageconcorde.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/20030501_ba002concorde_54.jpg
It can been seen if max zoom is used.
If you follow the line downwards of the captains right hand horn of the control column, two thirds of the way towards the brown sunglasses case there is a number 4 in yellow.
This is the indicator that reminds how many reheats have been selected.
When three are selected the litlle bit of tin below the 4 is flipped to to expose a number 3. IIRC the 3 was in Tippex
Simples.
|
It was the crackle as it was leaving that always got to your soul.
Listening to to ATC, you could always smile at the the mention of SPEEDBIRD 001
Funny tho, it never got stacked and always landed on time.
|
>> It was the crackle as it was leaving that always got to your soul.
>>
Oh yes. I must run my home video tape again.
>>
>> Funny tho, it never got stacked and always landed on time.
>>
The last flight my daughter took back late one Sunday evening landed on time.
It burst a tyre or more. TWO hours later the passenger emerged but without bags.
Bags eventually appeared another two hours later.
BA did not cover itself with glory that evening. They were lucky that many on board were just there for the ride.
We extracted significant compensation in the form of frequent flyer miles
|
"Economic realities aside for a moment, I would love to see just one kept flying for the display circuit. I want my kids to experience the sheer, slack-jawed wow factor of this beautiful plane roaring overhead on full reheat, and that unique, chest-thumping rumble and crackle of those Olympus turbojets fading into the distance, leaving only the beeping of car alarms and that brown fug of unburnt kerosene in their wake."
Took my crew to visit the Kennedy Space Centre. Discovery launch the next day. Superb even viewed from Kissimee. Little enthusiasm for the whole experience. Thats women for you! Probable just a petrol head man thing.
|
>>It's not impossible
>>the Vulcan took to the sky again this year
>>and is flying very well
Yes it is.
It did happen to following ridiculous amounts of spending.
No it's not.
|
|
There were big question marks over whether the Vulcan would even make it to Farnborough this year. Thankfully it did, but next year??
|
|
Any TSR2s still knocking about, or did they all fall to bits when their undercarriage collapsed?
|
|
there is one at RAF Cosford, which by the way, is a must see museum.
|
The Labour Government of the day ensured that very few TSR2s survived in any condition. The majority of them were taken to Shoeburyness and cut up and then used for gunnery trials SFAIK.
The Vulcan is another story! The laws of libel do not permit permit true comment but it is fair to say that it has been a monstrous money-pit and not well managed.
Last edited by: Perky Penguin on Mon 19 Jul 10 at 18:13
|
I have been to the Manchester Airport Concorde exhibit. I was very surprised at the lack of room inside the cabin and the size of the windows (small!).
However the luggage hold was located directly underneath the cabin and the access was via a a door looking like a loft access door in your house. Luggage was therefore unlikely to come off quickly.
|
The windows were small to avoid metal fatigue I would have thought. Not been since they have built the new hanger for it.
I hate that area as it is just a confusing mess, I wonder if I could get to the viewing park via style road thus avoiding the big round abouts next to the airport?
|
|
A lot of exciting things were made to happen in the '60s weren't they ? I was only a small child but it must have been a time of great enthusiasm and hope for those who were young adults. Concorde and the Moon landing to name but two.
|
>> A lot of exciting things were made to happen in the '60s weren't they ?
>> I was only a small child but it must have been a time of great
>> enthusiasm and hope for those who were young adults. Concorde and the Moon landing to
>> name but two.
Transistor radios, Pirate radio, and England* winning the world cup.
Yup the 60s were great.
*cuban missile crisis and near world extermination, given England winning the world cup most jocks would have seen global nuclear war as a preferable option.
|
|
The 60's gave the world the Klinks too :)
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Mon 19 Jul 10 at 19:29
|
Was that another type of Newton's Cradle then ?
:-)
Edit - What were those pairs of metal ball things you could sort of clack together caled again ?......
Last edited by: Humph D'bout on Mon 19 Jul 10 at 19:33
|
>> Edit - What were those pairs of metal ball things you could sort of clack
>> together called again ?......
Don't know about metal, but the plastic ones were called .. er .. clackers
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackers
|
Thanks Focus, I'll sleep better now !
:-)
|
I used to get my Clackers out to impress the kids.
Here's an expert...turn the sound up !
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMwV62qwoGY&feature=related
Ted
|
>>
>> I used to get my Clackers out to impress the kids.
>> Here's an expert...turn the sound up !
Expert? Pah.
I was bribed with clackers to be a page boy at my sister's wedding when I was nine - it was the big thing at school at the time. The clackers, not the wedding.
Being an expert, however, meant being able to nicely judge when the amber perspex ones were JUST about to shatter, and aiming them into someone's eye with luck.
They were banned at school shortly after.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Tue 20 Jul 10 at 08:22
|
|
The windows were also small so that, if one or two of them blew out, the cabin air loss would be minimised and there would be a chance of getting to a height where breathing the aircraft oxygen mask system would work. At the 37,000 that we fly around these days the masks plus a rapid descent ensure people surviving. At 60,000 with no aerodynamic devices to slow it down Concorde would take so long to get to down to 20,000 ft that survival would be very questionable
|
I work for Airbus, and am lucky enought to park alongside aircraft 216 every day. She still makes me smile when I walk past. I was also lucky enough to be stood on the side of the runway when she flew in - it was the last flight of any Concorde. 216 was one of the most viable aircraft as it was youngest and had few hours on it. It also had the full terrance conran refit.
Its being taken off display in October to be taken into one of our hangars for maintenance. The situation is a little odd in that the aircraft still belongs to BA and Airbus have an agreement with them that they will maintain it. It's now suffering a bit after being sat outside for so long.
I am not sure that I agree that it was unsafe, but it certainly had a fair few incidents - many that never made the news. A colleague who worked in customer support told me that BA were very good - no expense was spared, and any mods / improvements offered were snapped up - not quite the same for AirChance.
I think the reasons for it's grounding were political - Airbus had no interest in it, and it was becoming a liability - with the A380 pushing the boundries and making the headlines the last thing they wanted was any bad publicity.
They also had plans for a successor to Concorde - AST - it was scrapped due to the niche market for such a machine - reality is that they would have sold very few and the development costs were huge
|
, I wonder if I
>> could get to the viewing park via style road thus avoiding the big round abouts
>> next to the airport?
Long way now, you have to go into Wilmslow. The road through Styal village has been blocked off due to new runway..
Go down M56, Ignore Airport spur and take the next gate. head for Wilmslow, Take the first left, for the Romper pub. At the side of the Romper turn right........voila !
Ted
>>
|
>I used to get my Clackers out to impress the kids.<
But now I have to sign the paedophile register...
I was booked on a Concorde flight for my 50th birthday, after half a lifetime of waiting.
The week after the Paris crash.
|
Some nice shots of Concorde here together with some scary footage of 747's landing sideways at Kai Tak.....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVy6cgbF3F4&feature=related
|
>> Some nice shots of Concorde here together with some scary footage of 747's landing sideways
>> at Kai Tak.....
>>
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVy6cgbF3F4&feature=related
Pity it's only CGI :)
|
After so much neglect to the surviving planes that maybe could have flown again at some point (no expense spared), would you fly as a passenger knowing it's sat in the open for years? The one at Manchester airport was exposed to the elements for years. Others were cut up before moving.
Maybe this is not going to happen....
|
>> After so much neglect to the surviving planes that maybe could have flown again at
>> some point (no expense spared), would you fly as a passenger knowing it's sat in
>> the open for years? The one at Manchester airport was exposed to the elements for
>> years. Others were cut up before moving.
>>
>> Maybe this is not going to happen....
>>
Yes, no problem. All aircraft corode, but Concorde was unusual in as much as it got so hot during flight that it was always dry. They have only started to corode since they stopped flying, so their airframe "age" is not as significant as its years would suggest
|
|
Alas the airframe age is indeed aged, due to all the expansion and contraction due to it getting so hot.
|
Branson reckoned he could make a go of it. Maybe he could but no way were BA going to sell him one.
A pity as it was a triumph of British (OK Anglo French) engineering and getting rid of it was a retrograde step surely.
|
All commercial aircraft have to be supported by a designated manufacturer under type certification rules. Airbus were providing this however the cost per unit was high because prior to the 2000 crash only 12 Concordes were in service (7 BA and 5 Air France) and after 2000 this was reduced to just 9 (5 BA and 4 Air France).
Subsequently when Air France announced their intention to cease flying Concorde BA realised that they could not sustain the type cert costs on their own amortised across only 5 Concordes.
The mistake is what was done next, to allow the aircraft to be cut up / and or sit in the open with no protection. What both airlines should have done is to park the fleet (the 12 airworthy Concordes) in the Mohave Desert in zero humidity or mothballed them in aircon'd hangers.
The remaining three production aircraft that had not flown since 2000 could perhaps have been ferried to the Mohave or mothballed or perhaps have been used as museum pieces. However the 2 prototypes and 2 pre-production aircraft plus G-BBDG that was at Filton (now at Brooklands) provided enough in the way of exhbits to satisfy those armchair enthusiasts who are keen to see a Concorde if only as an inanimate object.
Airfrance and Airbus conspired to keep one Concorde F-BTSD with electrcal power connected and functioning hydraulic systems. This is a loooonnnnng way from being airworthy though they have recently been conducting boroscope tests to inspect the engines meaning it is just possible that they might attempt and engine start and possible a taxi run though this would still be one hell of a loooooonnnnnnng way off a flight.
|
>> Branson reckoned he could make a go of it. Maybe he could but no way
>> were BA going to sell him one.
>>
>> A pity as it was a triumph of British (OK Anglo French) engineering and getting
>> rid of it was a retrograde step surely.
Branson KNEW he couldnt ever get Concorde up and flying commercially again, but iwas too good a chance to miss having a pop at BA so he did.
|
"Branson KNEW he couldnt ever get Concorde up and flying commercially again"
I thought he declared his interest whilst BA were still flying them but announced their intention to retire them - hence none of the extensive recommissioning work talked about here.
Could Branson have succeeded in making Concorde financially viable?
|
>>
>> Could Branson have succeeded in making Concorde financially viable?
>>
See my post above re type cert regs.
|
"Subsequently when Air France announced their intention to cease flying Concorde BA realised that they could not sustain the type cert costs on their own amortised across only 5 Concordes."
Therefore could Branson and Virgin Atlantic have sustained the costs? Surely this would be based on marketing and pricing Concorde travel accordingly to maximise revenue in order to pay these costs.
Or is it a case of if BA couldn't make it work then no one could.
|
>> "Subsequently when Air France announced their intention to cease flying Concorde BA realised that they
>> could not sustain the type cert costs on their own amortised across only 5 Concordes."
>>
>> Therefore could Branson and Virgin Atlantic have sustained the costs? Surely this would be based
>> on marketing and pricing Concorde travel accordingly to maximise revenue in order to pay these
>> costs.
>>
>> Or is it a case of if BA couldn't make it work then no one
>> could.
>>
Sharing the costs would not have haelped as they would have been sharing the ticket sales to. Still only a limited number of seats to sell each day.
There was no way that BA were going to let Virgin get their hands on one, and thats one of the reasons that BA still retain ownership of their Concordes
|
Well, what its like to have friends who live 150 yards from the Farnborough aerodrome fence.:)
On Saturday from the comfort of my folding seat, burger in one hand beer in the other.
Saw the A380 flying- Wow big init. The B52 made a VERY brief flyby, many noisy fast military jets, including the raptor, The Lancaster - a few spits - Me 109, the red arrows (who missed putting the arrow through the heart) and of course THE VULCAN.
Nicole couldnt get it when i tried to describe a vulcan on reheat. She got it on Saturday!
Glad I went then, apparently the brakes failed on landing and couldnt get into the air for Sunday.
|
When the Vulcan went into a steep climb with the afterburners on, you could see the upper surfaces of the wings rippling as they flexed... but perhaps they don't do that one any more.
A friend was present at Farnborough the year the DH110 luffed, or gybed, or whatever they call it in aeronautics, coming out of a steep dive, stopped more or less dead and sent both its engines arrowing into the crowd at 500 mph while the airframe fluttered down, pilot and all, like a handful of confetti. Unusual sort of accident.
|
My Farnborough observations ....
The Vulcan was not flying on Thursday but I went to have a look at it on the ground and took some video footage.
It was parked up around half way down the runway so a long walk to get there from the trade area.
I was watching the flying beside the Vulcan when the A380 took off and did a steep bank to the right giving it full power on all four engines leaving myself and other spectators minus hats and covered in grass cuttings.....
The A400 M did a good display ......
B52 was a waste of time ... one slow fly past ... but at least theYanks found the correct airport this time ......
The Red Devils did a good display but the poor sod with the Union Jack who landed last got pulled along by his chute and fell flat on his face.... very embarrassing.
The Blades display team were brilliant......
The Hercules did a great display .. ...
Of the fighters all did good displays
F18 was noisy....
F16 was noisier.....
The Eurofighter was on last and noisiest........
Nothing is better than that crackling sound as they stand on their tails and climb on full power...........
|
Concorde, Spitfire and Comet - three of the most beautiful designs man has ever conceived.
Sadly though Concorde will never fly again.
|
Lockheed SR71 Blackbird - the meanest , most incredible looking aircraft, I'd like a ride in one of them, I couldn't take my eyes off the one at Duxford, it's like what I imagine an alien craft would look like.
>> Alas the aircraft frame is indeed aged
Studies of the titanium frame of the Blackbird showed it was getting stronger due to the heat treatment from air friction at high speeds.
Last edited by: corax on Tue 27 Jul 10 at 17:28
|
But Concorde was not made of titanium. The SR71 was indeed a wonderful plane. Rumour was it was only retired after it was replaced. They kept the SR71 secret for a long time so who knows if Aurora exists.
Now didn't the SR71 leak fuel when on the ground and only sealed the tanks properly when it heated up. But the fuel was not highly flammable so they didn't try to fix the problem.
And it should have been the Reconnoissance Strike 71 but the president got it wrong and RS71 became SR71. Or so they say. But I think it's actually a myth.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 27 Jul 10 at 17:44
|
|
There's a good bit of movie footage where John Travolta steals a Blackbird. Well I think it's a Blackbird. Big fast matt black thing anyway.....Lots of bang bang shoot shoot stuff and impossible stunts. Just the ticket....
|
I think that was a stealth Bomber Humph
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_bomber
Last edited by: Pugugly on Tue 27 Jul 10 at 18:26
|
|
Quite right PU, thats the puppy !
|
>> Studies of the titanium frame of the Blackbird showed it was getting stronger due to
>> the heat treatment from air friction at high speeds.
And in aircraft airframes, that is frequently not a good thing. Weaker softer bits flex as desired, harder stronger bits break - not a good thing at all.
|
You can see the BA Concorde in its previous "dumping " place at Heathrow.
It is alongside a taxi way at the East end of the airport.
It looks a little odd as the image appears to have been taken from above.
The tail has disappered but the shadow tells you it is still there.
|
>> You can see the BA Concorde in its previous "dumping " place at Heathrow.
>> It is alongside a taxi way at the East end of the airport.
>> It looks a little odd as the image appears to have been taken from above.
>>
>> The tail has disappered but the shadow tells you it is still there.
>>
Link please?
|
|
tinyurl.com/39zzavp - links to googlemaps
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 28 Jul 10 at 00:37
|
|
Thanks, she looks so sad, don't you think?
|
The Vulcan was supposed to be coming to RNAS Culdrose tomorrow (Wed),
I doubt if it would have been landing though and the last I heard they were having trouble with the anchors.
|
We had a VC10 flying (often very) low over our area for two or three weeks recently undergoing trials and maintenance at BAe Warton.
Magnificent sight, yet there were still some who moaned like crazy about the noise.
One or two even wrote to the local newspaper claiming it would depreciate the value of their properties if they put them on the market..:-)
|
>> ... at BAe Warton.
>>
>> Magnificent sight, yet there were still some who moaned like crazy about the noise.
>>
Wot? Live near a known aircraft establishment, and complain about the noise?
Some folk just haven't a clue!
Like the local woman who complains about the noise and smells.
Well, surely you DID know that the killarney racetrack has been there since 1950, and that the Caltex refinery has been there since the 60s?
|
I have great sympathy with these inconvenienced people. My heart really goes out to those who move to the country and are tormented by cocks crowing, cows mooing and the smell of horse manure. I mean they couldnt have expected that.
And what about those who moved to the Heathrow area for the almost 100% employment the airport brings, they shouldnt have to put up with aircraft noise as well should they.
|
The VC10 may be an elegant beast but hearing one does make you appreciate how much the noise performance of airliners has improved since the 60s. My old garden used to see planes on descent into Birmingham - occasionally a 777 or A330 low enough to show 'Emirates' painted on its belly. Even the biggest were far less audible than the VC10s I've seen flying higher than that over the Cotswolds.
And they called it the 'whispering giant' in the 60s; Concorde was in another noise league entirely.
|
The RR conway used in the VC10, was a bit of a noisy, thirsty, dirty power plant.
However the VC10 was a quiet comfortable plan to fly in, no doubt helped by having the power plants behind you.
|
|
From a passenger's point of view it seems a pity more aircraft now don't have the engines in the tail. One of my few flights this year was a short one in row 3 of a Fokker 100 and the engines were barely audible. On the other hand I remember in 1991 being in the very last row of a 727 and finding that experience less than restful, so perhaps wing engines make for lower noise overall.
|
>> From a passenger's point of view it seems a pity more aircraft now don't have
>> the engines in the tail. One of my few flights this year was a short
>> one in row 3 of a Fokker 100 and the engines were barely audible. On
>> the other hand I remember in 1991 being in the very last row of a
>> 727 and finding that experience less than restful, so perhaps wing engines make for lower
>> noise overall.
>>
I recall siting in a taxying 737 at Frankfurt a few years ago watching the engine suck pieces of ice in off the taxyway - quite disturbing at the time but makes you realise why the runway has to be clean.
|
>>The RR conway used in the VC10, was a bit of a noisy, thirsty, dirty power plant.
>>
The rare VIP VC10 visiting Heathrow was a reminder as it barked its way skywards of the old days!
A reminder of another beast that was a Heathrow userv
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTlT2-i4gjw&feature=related
and it really was like this, yes really!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms1q6pz3qlE
|
Will Concorde ever fly again? - Zero
