Question:
Will Concorde Fly Again?
Luke
2014-07-20 10:45:18 UTC
It's the worlds fastest passenger jet and it's really sad that It's no longer flying. Do you think Concorde will fly again sometime in the future or some other plane that can fly at Concordes speed or even faster.
Twelve answers:
Angela D
2014-07-21 14:14:19 UTC
no.



why do people keep asking this?
James
2014-07-21 05:52:04 UTC
I doubt it, sadly.



From a practical and mechanical standpoint, it could but this is somewhat superfluous considering the fact that the cost would be prohibitive.



There were originally 22 Concorde airframes produced. Airframe '0001' and the sixth airframe produced were used as static test airframes. This means they were never designed to take to the air; Airframe 0001 was deliberately tested to destruction in a fatigue test in Toulouse in 1974 and airframe six was tested at Farnborough until it had reached a sufficient amount of data to be discontinued. The nose of the Farnborough test specimen was used by the son of renowned designer Terrence Conran (Sebastian Conran) to create an art piece called 'icon'. Neither of these two frames will ever fly; they have been mostly scrapped.



The first two prototypes differ widely from the production aircraft; they have a shorter tailbone, bigger windows, different engine systems and had parachutes instead of thrust reversers to slow down. The undercarriage (wheels), wing leading edges, flaps, nose, visor heat shield and secondary exhaust nozzles were almost completely different to the production aircraft (although superficially similar visually). There are practically no parts for these two prototypes to ever fly again and although F-WTSS (001) and G-BSST (002) are well looked after in their respective museums, they are hemmed into hangars and have sat still for almost 35 years.



The third Concorde, G-AXDN is a hybrid of sorts between the prototype and the production aircraft and features the nose and visor of the production planes. It is a pre production aircraft and also lacks some engines and has been fully decommissioned despite being well maintained. This is not a candidate for return to flight. F-WTSA is another pre production aircraft and has been sat outside since 1976. Corrosion and an incomplete airframe completely rule out this aircraft for return to flight. Sadly, there is talk of the land that F-WTSA resides on being redeveloped and that the airframe has an uncertain future.



F-WTSB is the fifth Concorde and has sat outside for most of its life. It has been restored and resides at Toulouse in a new museum (Aeroscopia). This aircraft will soon be part of a museum so it is unlikely to fly ever again. G-BBDG is another production test airframe that never went into commercial service. This airframe was left outside and used for spares until being wonderfully restored by the Brooklands museum. It is now safely protected but had to be cut into sections when transported by truck from Filton, Bristol to Surrey. Despite being a superb static exhibit, the structural integrity of this airframe remains permanently destroyed.



F-BVFA, Air Frances first Concorde is inside a hangar and although in excellent condition, the positioning of the airframe inside the hangar makes it extremely difficult to remove for maintenance and servicing. G-BOAC sits in a wonderful hangar in Manchester and actually has many of its systems still running :) such as the visor but is incased in a glass building so a likely no no. F-BVFB is also looked after but is perched on top of a building and G-BOAA had it's wings sliced off for transportation; this particular Concorde also never received post crash modification so this one can be ruled out. F-BVFC was kept serviceable longer after the other concordes because it may have been needed to perform runway taxis for the Concorde crash trial. However, the airframe has now been decommissioned. Concorde G-BOAD is likely permanently damaged from salt water corrosion and from a truck crashing into it's nosecone ;(

F-BVFD was scrapped in 1994. It was retired in 1982 as Air France reduced it's Concorde fleet size and discontinued routes in order to make a profit. The airframe was coming up to a D check and there were rumours it was damaged in a ground handling accident. It also suffered a hard landing in 1977 but was repaired. G-BOAE is in Barbados and is in excellent condition but is too far out for a team to go and maintain regularly (there is also a museum centred around it). G-BOAG and G-BOAF are in relatively good condition but are at a logistical disadvantage (G-BOAG all the way in Seattle, G-BOAF without a run way to take off from). F-BVFF is visually spectacular but is mechanically incomplete and F-BTSD is in superb condition and is probably the best candidate for a RTF. F-BTSC sadly crashed almost 14 years ago with the loss of all on board. G-BOAB sits incomplete and in a sadly poor state at Heathrow without any post crash modifications and with no interior (and holes drilled into the fuselage to let the water out!!! :( )



There is no technical reason why G-BOAC, G-BOAE, F-BTSD and to an extent F-BVFA and G-BOAG could not fly again if cost was not an issue but the spare parts for any of the work needed would be non existent. Parts for the complex computing systems of the flying controls and engine systems are long gone; a full service (practically a rebuild) would be necessary. One of the reasons Concorde was retired was because the electronics and systems, although beautifully maintained and engineered, were extremely complex, hard to fix and no longer being made. Without the support of Airbus to produce parts, even an air show appearance would be difficult, let alone commercially viable airline operation. I love Concorde, but I feel protecting the surviving airframes, especially the vulnerable and poorly protected F-WTSA and G-BOAB, is a more realistic prospect. Concorde was an engineering masterpiece and from 1984 to 2000 made BA up to 30 million a year in profit. Even Air France, perceived by many as the state airline who operated loss making concorde operations, managed to turn a small profit of up to 6 million a year after it dropped excess aircraft and un profitable routes (from 1984 onwards to the mid 90s).
lana_sands
2014-07-21 03:44:15 UTC
For the 100th time asked, NO.........
The original Peter G
2014-07-21 02:14:38 UTC
Not a chance. Look at the Vulcan project that's grounded for cost. Nobody will pick up the cost of reconditioning a Concorde to airworthy status.
Vincent G
2014-07-20 14:15:50 UTC
No.

Restoring the old Concorde to flight status would mean getting a reliable part supply and re-establishing the airworthiness certificate, and that would cost about as much as certifying the aircraft from scratch.



As to designing a replacement successor aircraft capable of supersonic speed, the answer is again NO for now.

Just look how much the 787 project cost: $32 billions (see link); that for an aircraft that was all new (same as would be required for a new supersonic), but still of a rather conventional subsonic design. How much would a supersonic of comparable capacity and range to a 787 would cost to develop? Conservative estimate would be 3 times as much.

Now, the 787 has sold a bit over 1000 units (most still to be delivered) in 10 years.

How many supersonic aircraft with the same basic mission would be selling?

For the m get go, less than half. Why? A supersonic flies faster, so can carry more people in less time. At twice the speed of sound -- which is the minimum speed for a supersonic to be really competitive, and was thus the speed the Concorde was cruising at -- a plane would be able to fly both ways on a typical route, and would therefore replace two slower aircraft.

But the interesting thing is that, if the supersonic design, development and certification cost is amortized on half as many plane, each plane would therefore have to carry twice as much of a premium, above and beyond the part and assembly cost, to account for it. So, each supersonic would then be priced higher still because it would sell in lower number.

So, flying supersonic would be costlier right off the bat, not even taking into account the cost of fuel, which will have to be a lot higher (drag increases with the square of the speed, so flying twice as fast would require 4 times as much fuel per unit time; and since you are flying twice as fast, so half as long, a supersonic would take twice as much fuel as a subsonic airplane; not taking into account the other aspects that bring a degree of inefficiency, like the airframe having to be heavier per passenger, to resist the heat and stress of flying faster), so twice as much fuel is a very conservative estimate.

So, we already have a plane that would cost DOUBLE as a very minimum, to operate, and three times more to develop and therefore buy.

Now, let's compound this with the desirability factor. Suppose that you fly regularly, say, between Chicago and London. You have the choice of a subsonic aircraft flight (a quick google search shows the non-stop between Chicago and UK ranging between $2574 and $3555) or a supersonic flight that would be between $7500 and $10000. How often would you be flying supersonic? One time out of 5? Once out of 10?

Imagine that the same frequency applies to everyone, and suddenly the market for the supersonic is again shrinking 5 or 10 fold, since the slower but much cheaper subsonic aircraft would still be there.

So, now the market for a supersonic that would fly mission similar to a 787 is reduced to 10 airplane sold per year, compared with 100 for the 787.

Which means even less plane to amortize the development costs. Which means each plane will sell for more. Which means it will be less competitive, with still higher ticket cost. Which means it would sell even less.



So, at the bottom line, you have the likes of Boeing and Airbus who would love to develop a supersonic (trust me, I am an aerospace engineer, we would just LOVE to work on a SST), but are unwilling to come up with the $100 billion up front to develop it, unless the airlines are so sure they will buy it, they would be willing to put money up front to reserve a delivery slot of the aircraft. Which the airlines will not do unless they have money, which they don't.

Unless future passengers are willing to pay their tickets now for flight 15 years form now.

Are YOU willing to invest $10000 right now for the ticket on a flight 15 years from now? And if you are, how many more people are as willing to finance the project?



Let's have a show of hand...



Fly faster than the Concorde did, and you increase all those costs dramatically, and sell even less plane, both because more expensive planes are harder to sell, and because faster plane are more productive, carrying more people in the same time, shrinking their own market.





That is why there will not be a successor to the Concorde in the currently foreseeable future. Something massive would have to occur first to make it plausible.
Warbird Pilot
2014-07-20 11:46:59 UTC
No.
Skipper 747
2014-07-20 11:43:43 UTC
Very unlikely any Concorde will fly again - they are all in museums -



- No certificate of airworthiness or maintenance or new parts available -

- No pilots or flight engineers current and qualified to fly them -

- Would cost a fortune to get one "in the air" even for just one flight -



Retired airline pilot - Flew once as passenger on Air France Concorde JFK to CDG -
USAFisnumber1
2014-07-20 11:42:47 UTC
No. They were incredibly expensive to operate and never turned a profit. They are all in museums now and the parts needed to maintain them are no longer being made.
anonymous
2014-07-20 11:13:38 UTC
I hope it does at least at air shows. When you have seen this plane flying you never forget it.
Zack
2014-07-20 10:51:59 UTC
By 2050, there might be a passenger plane that can fly past Mach 4, faster than the SR-71 Blackbird (!!!). It will be called the ZEHST.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Emission_Hyper_Sonic_Transport
anonymous
2014-07-20 18:19:27 UTC
There has been some talk in England of trying to restore one, like the Vulcan XH558, which flies on a Permit to Fly.



Nobody has ever suggested that the money to do so is likely to become available and I believe that there is only one airframe left which has the slightest chance of being restored. All of the others have been rendered permanently un-airworthy.
Sal*UK
2014-07-20 10:46:33 UTC
There is military stuff out there now a lot faster. We watched a lovely programme about it yesterday - very good. Loved Concorde - such an iconic thing.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...