Concorde - join the campaign

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 16:59:47 +0100, Clive wrote:

OK - so it would be really expensive to maintain in flying order.

BUT, lsn't that the case of most old aircraft. OK the concorde is
supersonic, maybe it could be flown, but not supersonic - ok, well maybe
that would defeat the object of getting it in the air again.

One last thought..... if nobody ever restored OLD aircraft... no
Spitfires, Mustangs, etc.

Airshows would also loose a lot of money..

There were thousands of Spitfires and Mustangs built, yielding a large stock of
spare parts to keep the dozen or so still existing flying. The single most
important part, the engines, were used on multiple aircraft types, making them
even more common, and their use in non-aviation applications means rebuilding
services are more common.

Spitfires and Mustangs are of a technology level that an ordinary mechanic with
a welding torch and a tinsnips can replace ~90% of the components in the
airframe. They are of a size that restoration can take place in a small hangar,
and of a complexity that a small crew of restorers takes just a few years to
restore even the most crumpled wreck. See http://www.thelostsquadron.com/, for
example.

Spitfires and Mustangs are of low enough complexity that they can be maintained
in airworthy condition by a part-time mechanic. Hence a single moderately-
well-heeled owner can afford to keep one flying. Spitfires and Mustangs are
fuel-hogs by normal General Aviation standards, but, again, it's not so bad that
it takes a billionaire to fly one every once in a while.

None of this applies to the Concorde.

Ron Wanttaja