beating a dead horse

[Craig.]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/4114309.stm
:-/

[Woodlouse2002]

I like the idea. It's what they should have done in the first place, kept one airframe airworthy for airshows and such.

I hope they succeed.

[Hagar]

It's a nice idea but I thnk they left it a little late.

[forfun]

I think it'd be a waste of money. I know everyone wants the concorde back and everything but it would be a huge project and it'd just waste the governments money.

Also, you'v seen Concorde fly for 30 years, isn't that enough?

[zcottovision]

I've actually met that guy, Lembit Opik. He's a strange sort of character and when he puts his mind to something, he does well from it.

But Concorde just proved too expensive and unprofitable to run, and the costs involved with just running it at airshows would be sky-high. I believe the next SST we see in the skies will be a brand new plane, not Concorde.

[Hagar]

I think it'd be a waste of money. I know everyone wants the concorde back and everything but it would be a huge project and it'd just waste the governments money.

Apart from a lottery grant which doesn't belong to the government anyway* I very much doubt that they would consider financing it. No government has any money of its own anyway, it's our taxes they spend like the proverbial "man with no arms". Please don't ask me where that saying came from.

Also, you'v seen Concorde fly for 30 years, isn't that enough?

I've been fortunate enough to see Concorde in the air several times over the years. Each time I saw it the sheer grace & beauty took my breath away. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing it again. Many people weren't as lucky as me & never had the opportunity.

*PS. I'm sure that some MPs think it does.

[Craig.]

It wont happen, none of the concordes have their COA's and which concorde should be restored? all have been given to museums so askking for them back really isnt an option. the only one left is the Terminal 5 centre piece which i doubt BA will give up. People need to accept, that even with the millions in backing it will need, theres still a snowballs chance in hell of it returning. As much as i want to see it fly again, i realistically know it wont happen

[forfun]

I have never even seen the aircraft. But i'v got no problems with seeing it in a museum. I will do that one day.

I personally don't know why you would waste time and (anyones) money. And with the technology of today, wouldn't you rather see a new supersonic airliner rather than trying to keep the 30 year old design?

[Craig.]

Well firstly, that 30 year old design was actually 40 years ahead of its time, along with numerous systems onboard, that are only just being introduced into modern airliners. Secondly there is nothing a new supersonic plane could do that would be any better. The simple fact is, supersonic travel is too noisey and expensive to be viable. No modern engine is going to change that right now. Give it a few years and someone will get it.

[Hagar]

You're talking to the wrong chap. As a vintage aircraft freak I believe that they should be seen in the air where they belong & not stuck in some dusty museum.

I'm not convinced we will ever see another SST. Can you imagine how much it would cost to develop one, not to mention operate it? Very few people would be able to afford to travel on it & the customer base would be much the same as for Concorde. As I've mentioned before, most of the hold-ups are travelling to & from the airport & in the airports themselves. I don't see the point of crossing the Atlantic in 1 hour when it takes longer every day to get where you want at each end of the journey. I think it world be much more sensible to sort that out first.

[forfun]

that 30 year old design was actually 40 years ahead of its time

So what your saying here is that the concorde is more modern than say, the a380 or 777.

That's not right, the concordes design would have been very modern at the time and still is, but it's still a 30 year old design, there are flaws in there that designers could fix and an engine could be made. It would cost millions of dollars, but it's possible.

[Craig.]

like i said, alot of the technology you are now just seeing in the 777 and A380/330/340 and so on, was in concorde from the start. Just because it didnt have a glass cockpit doesnt mean it was a long way ahead of what people think.
The simple fact is, until the boom from supersonic flight is deadend to a point its ok to fly over land (people are working on this) then another supersonic aircraft wont be in. Boeing have tried their sonic cruiser, they spent so much money trying to make it better in design than concorde, and because of that they failed, thats how good concorde was.

[forfun]

Could concorde fly over land? I think not

[Craig.]

And that my friend is a problem that cant be fixed with a few million and new engines:)  alot of design changes are needed, and its going to take at least 10 to 15 years before they find a viable solution

[Hagar]

The whole thing about Concorde is that it was an international project funded by two governments. Neither government wanted to admit failure or be the first to give in. The development costs far exceeded the wildest estimates & many people would have liked to see it abandoned. In the end this would have been more expensive than completing it. This was the only reason that Concorde finally succeeded. It never reached its true potential as the only airlines to operate it were the national carriers of the countries involved, both heavily subsidised. It was further thwarted by being banned from airports all over the world & even from flying over some countries. Noise was given as the excuse but there's no doubt in my mind that this was mainly for political motives.

The situation is very different now & I doubt very much that any government would dare suggest funding a similar project. I think it would be far too costly (& risky) for any company or group of companies to consider seriously.