Let's get Concorde flying again!

In message <41hrj2F1erv75U1@>, at 10:20:33 on Thu, 29 Dec
2005, "Mike Cawood, HND BIT" <michael.cawoodsnooze@homecall.co.uk>
remarked:
>It would cost a fortune to get these museum pieces flying again, bearing
>in mind that at the plane's age, corrosion will be setting in, resulting
>in very expensive airframe repairs, the specially developed creep
>resistant aluminium alloys simply aren't made any more.

What if it were to be repaired for sub-sonic flight only?

>Getting Concorde flying again is totally impracticable and out of the
>question.

Plenty of more ambitious restoration projects have been undertaken. It's
probably a little early to start on Concorde, but in a decade or two you
can almost guarantee that people will have changed their minds and
decided that the decommissioning process was sheer vandalism, and make
an attempt to get one flying again.
--
Roland Perry

Steve Firth wrote:
> Do you object to the
> town of Scunthorpe?

I do. I've been there.

Edward

Caruthers <carstairs-mackracken@cookstown.com> writes:

: Which, while well and good, has nothing to do with the matter of
: whether the Concorde is advanced.

> It was advanced it no longer is. It is out dated. Now stop talking
> like a thick job. Go and watch TV, listen to the radio but leave this
> topic to the big lads. There's a good boy!


It would only be outdated if there were another, more advanced SST
taking its place. Since that obviously isn't the case, your assertion
is easily dismissed as a steaming pile of intellectual trouser-fudge.




Geoff

--
"Is it true that Dorothy Parker named her pet parakeet Onan because
he kept spilling his seed upon the ground?" -- David Mikkelson

On 29 Dec 2005 08:52:23 -0800, geoffm@u1.netgate.net (Geoff Miller)
wrote:

> Badda-
>bing, badda-boom. send in the next case.

BUT does that mean that it turns in a profit?

In message <VA.00000169.00a75eb0@tesco.net>, Edward Hawkins
<Edward.Hawkins@Tesco.Net> writes
>Steve Firth wrote:
>> Do you object to the
>> town of Scunthorpe?
>
>I do. I've been there.
>
>Edward
>

Now that was funny :)
--
Alun Bell

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote

>I'm not sure that doing a flypast at an airshow is a disadvantage. Such
>a thing could only ever be done subsonic.

c. 1989 I went to an unusual airshow at Boscombe Down; a B1 went
supersonic overhead. Amazing to see the airflow around the wings
change as seen in the vapour trails.

As usual with airshows in those days (e.g. Farnborough) the traffic
was appallingly mismanaged, with everybody being funnelled in through
a tiny farm lane, just wide enough for a tractor. I happened to have
some detailed maps and we managed to skip past a traffic jam which, as
we later discovered, lasted most of the day....

In article <648br1hf03lm9ab99nhv6g1iss4bmgvrk7@>, Peter
<nobody@somewhere-in-the-uk.com> writes
>
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote
>
>>I'm not sure that doing a flypast at an airshow is a disadvantage. Such
>>a thing could only ever be done subsonic.
>
>c. 1989 I went to an unusual airshow at Boscombe Down; a B1 went
>supersonic overhead. Amazing to see the airflow around the wings
>change as seen in the vapour trails.
>
>As usual with airshows in those days (e.g. Farnborough) the traffic
>was appallingly mismanaged, with everybody being funnelled in through
>a tiny farm lane, just wide enough for a tractor. I happened to have
>some detailed maps and we managed to skip past a traffic jam which, as
>we later discovered, lasted most of the day....

I hope the ATC was better than the road traffic control.
--
Mike Lindsay

Stan de SD wrote:
[snip]
> Complaining about the quality of immigrants isn't racist at all. Plenty of
> minorities who have established roots in the US complain about how the
> latest crop of immigrants have no respect for the culture,
[snip]

Yes, racism isn't confined to any one group. I've been lectured about
how the "damned blacks" are ruining the UK by a taxi driver named Cohen
wearing the Star of David. He should have known better, so should you.

Steve Firth wrote:

> Only in the US would someone refer to me as a liberal.

If the shoe fits........

Simon Hobson <simonsnews@thehobsons.codotuk> wrote

>The fact that the refused to allow anyone else to have them signals to me
>that they really were concerned that someone might be able to turn a profit
>with them (note, not ON them, WITH them - there's a difference).

I think the above is absolutely correct. Whether Richard Branson was
really intending to operate Concorde, or was just rubbing BA's nose in
it, very few people will ever know. But if he did operate Concorde,
Virgin would have become UK's #1 airline without question.

The final thing, AIUI, is that BA never disposed of the aircraft. They
continue to own those recently retired ones sitting in museums.

BA did make damn sure they could never fly again although the
motivation behind that is not exactly clear. Did they think somebody
was going to steal them?