Discussion » Questions » Transportation » Do you think Concorde should fly again?

Do you think Concorde should fly again?

Considering the fault that caused the crash was resolved, British airways and air France still grounded Concorde, Richard Branson offered to buy the fleet off them and was turned down.

Posted - October 31, 2017

Responses


  • 16359
    Uneconomic. Very fuel hungry and the newest aircraft is almost forty years old.
      October 31, 2017 5:04 AM MDT
    0

  • Suppose so but wouldn't it be nice if they made a mkII and made the RR engines up to modern efficiency whilst keeping the true shape? After all it is a flight for the wealthy and could charge the earth if they want. I knew Brian Calvert (one of the pilots) he is sadly deceased, he got a discount for a village group flight, we were living in Ashampstead and the 'Bell Inn' was our nearest pub, such a lovely guy. We still keep in touch with his wife Mary
      October 31, 2017 9:35 AM MDT
    0

  • 2500

    The Rolls Royce Olympus II engines were just fine efficiency wise, for their class. But there's now better, more efficient ways than afterburners to achieve that kind of power and speed. Plus current computer design techniques allow for substantially more "slippery" airframe designs at supersonic speeds. Now the big problem is quieting that supersonic "boom" so that they're not speed-restricted over land (and engineers are making a lot of headway there too).

    There used to be a "trick" used by some travel agents Stateside to get their best clients a seat on the Concorde for really cheap. There was a BA flight from either JFK or Dulles (Dulles, if I remember correctly) from there to some destination in Europe, with a connection at Heathrow. What they didn't mention is that the leg from the USA to Britain was on the Concorde. Seems that both that particular flight and all the Concorde flights at the time were greatly under-booked. BA couldn't cancel Concorde flights for PR reasons so they canceled the regular flight and shifted that traffic to the empty seats on the Concorde.

    One other interesting fact . . . there was a third airline that flew the Concorde in regular service for a while. Braniff had a route from Dulles to Dallas that was on the Concorde. It was a BA aircraft (Braniff covered the BA logo on the tail with a Braniff banner during boarding) and it flew sub-sonic for the entire route, but Braniff frequent-fliers could say that they had flown on the Concorde.  
      October 31, 2017 10:03 AM MDT
    1

  • Absolutely superb research!
      October 31, 2017 11:22 AM MDT
    0

  • 2500

    Nah. Not so much research. More the product of being an avid flying enthusiast for the last 35 + years. Read a LOT of issues of Flying magazine during that time. 

    By the way, British Airways had a rule that ALL Concorde pilots had to come from the Capitan pool from their 747 fleet. 
      October 31, 2017 6:44 PM MDT
    0

  • 2500

    Supersonic airliners, yes. There's a couple of models on the drawing boards at various aerospace companies right now; a couple of "business sized" models will probably be the first.

    But as to the Concorde itself . . . nah. It's now a museum piece. It would be like trying to bring back the Saturn series of rockets to service the space station. There's no longer a "ground base" to support that bird in any serious way and it would cost a bloody fortune to re-build all that support. The designs, while brilliant (and derived by  Anglo-Franco cooperation), are pushing 50, The aircraft was designed when oil was under $10/barrel. And even at that price the Concorde was a loss-leader for British Airways and Air France. 
      October 31, 2017 9:46 AM MDT
    0

  • 16359
    I heard that the designers are happy with the airframes but are waiting for propulsion technology to catch up, it's a dog's breakfast atm. What's the point of building supersonic turbofans if the ramjet researchers get it right soon after? BAe are always claiming that they're "almost there".
      October 31, 2017 6:59 PM MDT
    0

  • 2500

    The main "problem" with airframe design is the sonic boom. Designers are STILL trying to deal with that.

    Powerplants have always been the long pole in the tent with aircraft design all the way back to the rotary. We've had both turbojet and "scramjet" engines capable of supersonic performance for the last 50 + years. The problem has always been fuel efficiency. The latest hope is the pulsed ramjet engine, which remain a drawing board novelty. So far as I know there has not been a successful test of one that has the capability of pushing an airliner along at Mach speeds while just sipping fuel. They're still in the same boat as the nuclear-powered aircraft.
      November 1, 2017 12:31 PM MDT
    0

  • 22891
    only if it dont happen again
      October 31, 2017 5:55 PM MDT
    0

  • Not really. Supersonic speeds meant lotsa noise and shattered house windows. 
      February 17, 2018 12:37 AM MST
    0