Petition for keeping one Concorde flying

David Cartwright wrote:

It's expensive to run, it's as noisy as hell, ...

And the feeling of a tight turn-out with the burners on at the end of a
"clean" pass down the display line at Duxford in Alpha Fox is not
something one forgets in a hurry - it's the thick end of twenty years
ago now.

... and in the current climate of dwindling ticket sales, I don't
think BA really had a lot of choice but to withdraw it.

Unfortunately, I dare say you are right.

That said, the timing of the final flights could, IMNSHO, barely have
been worse:
why, oh why, didn't they keep two (or four, to allow for backups)
airworthy for another three or four weeks?

Surely it would have been fitting to bow out with final flypasts at
Kitty Hawk and Runnymede (the latter preferably in the company of the
BBMF and the Red Arrows in "Concorde" formation) on December 17th.

B S D Chapman mail-at-benchapman-dot-co-dot-uk wrote in message ...
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.

I thought the rudder tear-aways that happened several times on the
Concord were design/operator metal fatique problems. I would say that
there are only a few supersonic airframes the size of the concord that
have ever flown. Just like Commet's square windows with repeated
pressure vessel expansion and contraction, the behavior of large
vertical stab structural members over thirty years at mach numbers is
unknown except on Concord and Blackbird. Wouldn't you say?

As well, the lack of a robust wheel-well area that could not allow for
tire fragments at 200mph seems like another pioneering shortfall just
like square windows on a pressurized fuselage. My comments were not
meant to denigrate either spectacular flying machine, just to point
out that these were the first of their kind out of the gate, and that
without good factory/national support the continued operation of a
sole example seems risky at best. (but I too would like to see it fly
again.)


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.

I can't argue with that. Those falling Commets probably led to boeing
overdesigning the 707. My dad flew those tanks and was shocked later
at how the DC10 fuselage "flexes me all over the place." I too flew
the "deathcruiser" as we called it for one year, and I agree: I've
never heard so much cracking and snapping as that thing did especially
in descent or in turns on the ground.


The second
generation of Commet lasted many years... and 19 of those airframes will
be arround for another 20 years

Flyable? I didn't know that. Are you sure?


(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.




I agree. The fact that it grows six inches in flight boggles the
mind. Something about the pax rolling along on rollers!

Best Regards,

pacplyer - out





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.

"pacplyer" wrote in message
m...
B S D Chapman mail-at-benchapman-dot-co-dot-uk wrote in message
...


The second
generation of Commet lasted many years... and 19 of those airframes will
be arround for another 20 years

Pardon my pickyness, but it's Comet.


Flyable? I didn't know that. Are you sure?


Nimrod.

Ali

I have to say I find it interesting to hear people talk about petitions to
keep Concorde flying. Where do people expect the money would come from?
It's interesting that people are willing to put their name on a petition,
which requires no personal commitment or sacrifice, when all it would have
taken to keep her flying would have been for even half of those people to
buy tickets on her. It always amazes me how ready people are to spend
others' money.

Shawn
"Ali Hopkins" wrote in message
...

"pacplyer" wrote in message
m...
B S D Chapman mail-at-benchapman-dot-co-dot-uk wrote in message
...


The second
generation of Commet lasted many years... and 19 of those airframes
will
be arround for another 20 years

Pardon my pickyness, but it's Comet.


Flyable? I didn't know that. Are you sure?


Nimrod.

Ali

Before you make assumptive statements like this, you might like to ask a
polite question, and avoid looking daft by making snide remarks about
people you've no knowledge of. .

I been lucky enough to make four Concorde flights.All paid for, not
business, and out of my hard earned salary.

Is that enough of a contribution for you?

And I'd happily stump up for a preservation fund, I've done it for other
things; when they ask, I'll be there.

Ali


"ShawnD2112" wrote in message
...
I have to say I find it interesting to hear people talk about petitions to
keep Concorde flying. Where do people expect the money would come from?
It's interesting that people are willing to put their name on a petition,
which requires no personal commitment or sacrifice, when all it would have
taken to keep her flying would have been for even half of those people to
buy tickets on her. It always amazes me how ready people are to spend
others' money.

Shawn
"Ali Hopkins" wrote in message
...

"pacplyer" wrote in message
m...
B S D Chapman mail-at-benchapman-dot-co-dot-uk wrote in message
...


The second
generation of Commet lasted many years... and 19 of those airframes
will
be arround for another 20 years

Pardon my pickyness, but it's Comet.


Flyable? I didn't know that. Are you sure?


Nimrod.

Ali

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 20:04:02 -0000, Ali Hopkins wrote:


"pacplyer" wrote in message
m...
B S D Chapman mail-at-benchapman-dot-co-dot-uk wrote in message
...


The second
generation of Commet lasted many years... and 19 of those airframes
will
be arround for another 20 years

Pardon my pickyness, but it's Comet.


Flyable? I didn't know that. Are you sure?


Nimrod.


Still the greatest maritime patrol aircraft in the world.
And that goes for the MR1, let alone the MRA4!!

--

....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.

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 06:15:28 -0000, ShawnD2112
wrote:

I have to say I find it interesting to hear people talk about petitions
to
keep Concorde flying. Where do people expect the money would come from?
It's interesting that people are willing to put their name on a petition,
which requires no personal commitment or sacrifice, when all it would
have
taken to keep her flying would have been for even half of those people to
buy tickets on her. It always amazes me how ready people are to spend
others' money.



I was one of the folk that phoned up for discounted tickets, but couldn't
afford the full price fare.
Let there be no doubt, I expect that nearly everyone in the country would
have had "fly on Concorde" in their list of things to do before you die,
but most people couldn't afford to do so. I would have done so -
eventually. It might have been another two or three years down the
road... it could have been ten. But I was most upset that I have had the
chance to do so refused.

The sad fact is that Concorde was viable had the Americans not shunned Air
France (the reason they stopped flying straight away), and if the fear of
flying following 9/11 haddn't dissuaded the new "replacement" executives
from becomming the replacement regulars.

The regulars had kept her ticking over while the dreamers could have their
once-in-a-lifetime chance.


Shawn
"Ali Hopkins" wrote in message
...

"pacplyer" wrote in message
m...
B S D Chapman mail-at-benchapman-dot-co-dot-uk wrote in message
...


The second
generation of Commet lasted many years... and 19 of those airframes
will
be arround for another 20 years

Pardon my pickyness, but it's Comet.


Flyable? I didn't know that. Are you sure?


Nimrod.

Ali







--

....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.

"TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote in message
...
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.

True, but it does provide a great airshow performance too!

Paul - Fairford '92.

"B S D Chapman" mail-at-benchapman-dot-co-dot-uk wrote in message
news
I was one of the folk that phoned up for discounted tickets, but couldn't
afford the full price fare.

It's not the done thing to say "me too" on here, is it? :-)

I would have done so -
eventually. It might have been another two or three years down the
road... it could have been ten. But I was most upset that I have had the
chance to do so refused.

Yup...

The sad fact is that Concorde was viable had the Americans not shunned Air
France (the reason they stopped flying straight away), and if the fear of
flying following 9/11 haddn't dissuaded the new "replacement" executives
from becomming the replacement regulars.

The regulars had kept her ticking over while the dreamers could have their
once-in-a-lifetime chance.

There was a programme on TV about this. 40 of Concorde's regular
passengers were killed in the WTC. Not only were these the regular
passengers, they were also the people (along with others) who had the
authority to sign off travel for lesser executives on Concorde. With them
gone, Concorde's passenger load was around 50%. They needed about
70% to break even. It was also in a period of recession in the economy in
general and in air travel particularly. Keep them another couple of years
and passenger numbers would probably have gone up again.

Paul

I appreciate that, Ali, but you have to admit you are in the minority.
Most of the discussions I've heard or read on the topic over the last 9
months or so have been along the lines of "I wish someone else would pay to
keep it flying so I can go see it for the entrance fee to an airshow". The
economics, which you, as a fare paying pax, are familiar with, are pretty
far away from that.

Shawn
"Ali Hopkins" wrote in message
...
Before you make assumptive statements like this, you might like to ask a
polite question, and avoid looking daft by making snide remarks about
people you've no knowledge of. .

I been lucky enough to make four Concorde flights.All paid for, not
business, and out of my hard earned salary.

Is that enough of a contribution for you?

And I'd happily stump up for a preservation fund, I've done it for
other
things; when they ask, I'll be there.

Ali


"ShawnD2112" wrote in message
...
I have to say I find it interesting to hear people talk about petitions
to
keep Concorde flying. Where do people expect the money would come from?
It's interesting that people are willing to put their name on a
petition,
which requires no personal commitment or sacrifice, when all it would
have
taken to keep her flying would have been for even half of those people
to
buy tickets on her. It always amazes me how ready people are to spend
others' money.

Shawn
"Ali Hopkins" wrote in message
...

"pacplyer" wrote in message
m...
B S D Chapman mail-at-benchapman-dot-co-dot-uk wrote in message
...


The second
generation of Commet lasted many years... and 19 of those
airframes
will
be arround for another 20 years

Pardon my pickyness, but it's Comet.


Flyable? I didn't know that. Are you sure?


Nimrod.

Ali