Petition for keeping one Concorde flying

"Ali Hopkins" wrote in message
...

"Sla#s" wrote in message
...

I think when we are down to the last serviceable machine of historic
type
it
should be grounded!

You'd not restore the Vulcan, then?

Restore - Yes - Fly - only if one other stays grounded.
But mind you the museum could always catch fire - nothing is totally safe

Slatts

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 06:27:56 -0000, "John Bishop"
wrote:


It's like F1 racing cars, they might cost a fortune, but many new ideas are
developed on these cars that are later in everyday use by the rest of us.
Concorde was no different.

John

Like what? Really, I'm curious, what now common technologies from
formula one are in constant use in street cars?

Thanks, Corky Scott

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...
Sla#s wrote:

I think when we are down to the last serviceable machine of historic type it
should be grounded!

Fine, then let's keep two of them flying.


Someone would have to pay and I suspect it would take all the airshow
income in the world to keep a couple of Concordes flying and that
would to the great disadvantage of many other interesting aircraft who
depend on airshows etc to help keep them in the air.

Concorde should rest peacefully in the museums safe in the knowledge
that as museum peices they are unique.

They are in terms of airframe, engines etc more techically advanced
than much else flying and will be for quite some time. Its not often
the case where museums are in that position.

Concorde RIP

I'm not going to tax my brain to work out how many, but try modern day
braking systems with anti-lock and traction control, advances in gearbox
design, including paddle controls (waste of time), fuel injection systems
that cut off supply whilst coasting to economise, active suspension system
design, turbo charged engines. Need any more for getting on with?

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 06:27:56 -0000, "John Bishop"
wrote:


It's like F1 racing cars, they might cost a fortune, but many new ideas
are
developed on these cars that are later in everyday use by the rest of us.
Concorde was no different.

John

Like what? Really, I'm curious, what now common technologies from
formula one are in constant use in street cars?

Thanks, Corky Scott

Sla#s wrote:

Restore - Yes - Fly - only if one other stays grounded.

This implies that you think it's ok to fly one as long as there are other examples
which are grounded. That makes sense, and I agree with it, but that's not what you
originally said.

If that's really what you mean, then you won't argue against keeping a Concorde
flying, since there are several intact planes safely on the ground.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:59:20 +0000, Peter
wrote:


B S D Chapman mail-at-benchapman-dot-co-dot-uk wrote:

Airbus wanted to withdraw the Type Certificate (in other words, their
support for the aircraft), without which the PTCoA could not be
maintained.

Ok, but that leads to the question as to WHY they wanted to withdraw
it.

I've got a customer who wants to buy an old obsolete product which I
discontinued years ago and which is a pig to make, so I quoted him a
high price. I didn't tell him to go away. So there is more to this
story.

That's exactly what Airbus did.
They said that they would tripple their costs from October 2003. If that
wasn't acceptable to the airlines, then they would drop their support for
the Type Certificate.

Airbus didn't want concorde on their conscience anymore. It was simply
bad press. Since the Paris accident, every engine surge and maintenance
related delay has been headline news, as if another concorde was about to
drop out of the sky. Add to that the real problem of rudder failures, and
you have Bad Press every month.

What if?

Airbus wanted to drop concorde because it was too hot to handle for them.
Sad thing is of course, that in the public eye, airbus had f**k all to do
with the project!!!

So they priced themselves out of the market.

--

....And so as the little andrex puppy of time scampers onto the busy
dual-carriage way of destiny, and the extra-strong meat vindaloo of fate
confronts the toilet Out Of Order sign of eternity... I see it is time to
end this post.

Every French airplane I ever flew had one thing in common. They would
sell or lease the airframes to you for a bargain only to later gouge
you on the parts. The Falcon 20 standby hydo pump we discovered, was
made of gold and cost as much as some second hand loaner engines we
had used. We had to resort to a very iffy shade-tree overhaul just to
stay in business. The Airbus A310 reverser AD was so expensive
(millions of dollars) that instead, my outfit sought and recieved
relief to operate for over a year with *both* reversers inop! This
contributed to a over-run accident in the tropics ten months later.
After being refused permission to fly over French airspace durring
Desert Storm, I say I can't imagine having to depend on the French for
any kind of support at all!

IMHO, best to retire that fine old girl before she starts falling out
of the sky like the Commet.

Cheers,

pacplyer



B S D Chapman mail-at-benchapman-dot-co-dot-uk wrote in message ...
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:59:20 +0000, Peter
wrote:


B S D Chapman mail-at-benchapman-dot-co-dot-uk wrote:

Airbus wanted to withdraw the Type Certificate (in other words, their
support for the aircraft), without which the PTCoA could not be
maintained.

Ok, but that leads to the question as to WHY they wanted to withdraw
it.

I've got a customer who wants to buy an old obsolete product which I
discontinued years ago and which is a pig to make, so I quoted him a
high price. I didn't tell him to go away. So there is more to this
story.

That's exactly what Airbus did.
They said that they would tripple their costs from October 2003. If that
wasn't acceptable to the airlines, then they would drop their support for
the Type Certificate.

Airbus didn't want concorde on their conscience anymore. It was simply
bad press. Since the Paris accident, every engine surge and maintenance
related delay has been headline news, as if another concorde was about to
drop out of the sky. Add to that the real problem of rudder failures, and
you have Bad Press every month.

What if?

Airbus wanted to drop concorde because it was too hot to handle for them.
Sad thing is of course, that in the public eye, airbus had f**k all to do
with the project!!!

So they priced themselves out of the market.

On 4 Feb 2004 23:29:54 -0800, pacplyer wrote:

IMHO, best to retire that fine old girl before she starts falling out
of the sky like the Commet.

Hmmm.
The comparison with the commet is most unfair - to both aircraft.
Commet fell out of the sky because of the lack of understanding about
metal fatigue. Pressurisation was a new thing for the airliner industry.
It was a tragic design flaw (which may or may not have been covered up)
that everyone in the world learnt from - not least Boeing. The second
generation of Commet lasted many years... and 19 of those airframes will
be arround for another 20 years (with just a minor overhaul costing
billions of pounds of course!!!)

Concorde on the other hand has been amazingly successful considering the
boundries the designers had to cross. More amazing that the one fatal
accident it has had was nothing to do with the design around those
boundries.





Cheers,

pacplyer



B S D Chapman mail-at-benchapman-dot-co-dot-uk wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:59:20 +0000, Peter

wrote:


B S D Chapman mail-at-benchapman-dot-co-dot-uk wrote:

Airbus wanted to withdraw the Type Certificate (in other words, their
support for the aircraft), without which the PTCoA could not be
maintained.

Ok, but that leads to the question as to WHY they wanted to withdraw
it.

I've got a customer who wants to buy an old obsolete product which I
discontinued years ago and which is a pig to make, so I quoted him a
high price. I didn't tell him to go away. So there is more to this
story.

That's exactly what Airbus did.
They said that they would tripple their costs from October 2003. If
that
wasn't acceptable to the airlines, then they would drop their support
for
the Type Certificate.

Airbus didn't want concorde on their conscience anymore. It was simply
bad press. Since the Paris accident, every engine surge and maintenance
related delay has been headline news, as if another concorde was about
to
drop out of the sky. Add to that the real problem of rudder failures,
and
you have Bad Press every month.

What if?

Airbus wanted to drop concorde because it was too hot to handle for
them.
Sad thing is of course, that in the public eye, airbus had f**k all to
do
with the project!!!

So they priced themselves out of the market.



--

....And so as the little andrex puppy of time scampers onto the busy
dual-carriage way of destiny, and the extra-strong meat vindaloo of fate
confronts the toilet Out Of Order sign of eternity... I see it is time to
end this post.

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
One of the interesting facts is that the chief pilot for BA has more
supersonic stick time than all of the fighter pilots of all of the
airforces
of the world added together... The speed birds are indeed a magnificant
technological triumph... Unfortunately, they are not economic to keep
flying
and cash strapped socialist governments lack the will to build the next
generation of birds...


If the UK had a socialist government, then I could see your point.

Ali

Paul Sengupta wrote:

"David Wright" wrote in message
...

Don't know if you know about this, but the petition to keep Concorde
flying is going to change. The emphasis is now going to be on keeping
one airworthy to be used at airshows, etc.


Oh dear, why bother - it's obvious that it's not going to happen. No
petition of any size is going to influence Airbus! There is no cost

benefit

from flying a Concorde for airshows is there?


Maybe not. But then there isn't to keep Spirfires or Lancasters or
Hurricanes or Hunters flying, or returning Vulcans, Lightnings or
Buccaneers to the air.


The difference is that what Concorde does that's so impressive -- fly
supersonic in the high flight levels -- doesn't really provide good
theater at air shows, the way restored warbirds do.