Petition for keeping one Concorde flying

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.

I am not an aviation buff by any means, but I would say the sheer size and
complexities of Concorde, not least the more specialist parts it needs, are
prohibitive for Airbus to keep it flying for such un-occasional use.

I expect all the others listed fly, or are being fixed to re-fly, with
donations of hundreds or thousands of pounds. Surely Concorde would cost
millions to keep flying - and nobody is going to pay that!

I admit it is a shame - I was there at Heathrow to watch the last landings.

And, isn't it a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted?
All the Concorde's have gone, or are going, to their new static homes -
there isn't a Concorde left to fly is there??

D.

"David Wright" wrote in message
...
I expect all the others listed fly, or are being fixed to re-fly, with
donations of hundreds or thousands of pounds. Surely Concorde would cost
millions to keep flying - and nobody is going to pay that!

Millions, probably. Millions here too. Still hope it happens!

http://www.tvoc.co.uk/index2.htm

"David Wright" wrote in message
...
And, isn't it a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has
bolted?
All the Concorde's have gone, or are going, to their new static homes -
there isn't a Concorde left to fly is there??

Well, they've (mostly) flown there and been put in a hangar. They haven't
been taken apart or anything like that as far as I know. Ignoring the
legalities, I would guess you could, for example, bring AF out of the
hangar at Filton, fuel it up and fly it tomorrow. Or today even... :-)
Maybe they've drained the oil, don't know...

One of them (AB?) is still at Heathrow, standing out on the tarmac.
This one hasn't had the kevlar liners put in the fuel tanks.

By the way, we (at Brooklands museum) hope to get BBDG in March
or maybe April.

http://www.concordesst.com/

Paul

"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
...
One of them (AB?) is still at Heathrow, standing out on the tarmac.
This one hasn't had the kevlar liners put in the fuel tanks.

AA is at Heathrow too apparently. Guess it's inside.

And, isn't it a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has
bolted?
All the Concorde's have gone, or are going, to their new static homes -
there isn't a Concorde left to fly is there??

Well, they've (mostly) flown there and been put in a hangar. They haven't
been taken apart or anything like that as far as I know. Ignoring the
legalities, I would guess you could, for example, bring AF out of the
hangar at Filton, fuel it up and fly it tomorrow. Or today even... :-)
Maybe they've drained the oil, don't know...

I seem to remember hearing that engineers were standing by at Manchester to
make it unflyable the day it arrived?

"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
...
SNIP
Well, they've (mostly) flown there and been put in a hangar. They haven't
been taken apart or anything like that as far as I know. Ignoring the
legalities, I would guess you could, for example, bring AF out of the
hangar at Filton, fuel it up and fly it tomorrow. Or today even... :-)

At a very minimum it would need a 100hr check - Cost?
Then are the C of A, compass swing, C of R, weigh schedule, Radio licence
etc. still valid ?

Slatts

"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
...

legalities, I would guess you could, for example, bring AF out of the
hangar at Filton, fuel it up and fly it tomorrow. Or today even... :-)

I've been past Filton several times since it arrived and each time I've seen
it standing outside. I assume it was taken out of the hangar as soon as the
crowds had gone home and has been there ever since. I don't suppose that
standing outside will do it much harm in the short term, but I did get the
impression, at the time it arrived, that it was going to be looked after
rather better than that.

Stephen

The planes airworthiness certificate relies upon the manufacturer to support
it. They have stated their refusal to do that. The many spitfires etc,
flying around use very basic (1930's) technology and are no more difficult
to keep in the air logistically than a cessna or piper - more expensive
though!

Concorde is a huge leap in technology and the cost of maintaining just one
would far outweigh the income it could derive from shows. Without it's
certificate, it can never carry passengers. Besides, many of the museums are
building special halls to accomodate concorde, do you think they'll let it
go out for a run whenever it wants?

I would love to see one flying, but be realistic, it's not going to happen.
:-(

John

"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
...
"David Wright" wrote in message
...
And, isn't it a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has
bolted?
All the Concorde's have gone, or are going, to their new static homes -
there isn't a Concorde left to fly is there??

Well, they've (mostly) flown there and been put in a hangar. They haven't
been taken apart or anything like that as far as I know. Ignoring the
legalities, I would guess you could, for example, bring AF out of the
hangar at Filton, fuel it up and fly it tomorrow. Or today even... :-)
Maybe they've drained the oil, don't know...

One of them (AB?) is still at Heathrow, standing out on the tarmac.
This one hasn't had the kevlar liners put in the fuel tanks.

By the way, we (at Brooklands museum) hope to get BBDG in March
or maybe April.

http://www.concordesst.com/

Paul

"John Bishop" wrote in message
...
The planes airworthiness certificate relies upon the manufacturer to
support
it. They have stated their refusal to do that. The many spitfires etc,
flying around use very basic (1930's) technology and are no more difficult
to keep in the air logistically than a cessna or piper - more expensive
though!

Concorde is a huge leap in technology and the cost of maintaining just one
would far outweigh the income it could derive from shows. Without it's
certificate, it can never carry passengers. Besides, many of the museums
are
building special halls to accomodate concorde, do you think they'll let it
go out for a run whenever it wants?

I would love to see one flying, but be realistic, it's not going to
happen.
:-(

John

I would rather see the money spent on the flyable restoration of a fleet of
historic planes than to keep one Concorde in the air. In the overall scheme
of things the Concorde does not hold a significant spot in aviation history.

I agree with your first point, but you couldn't be more wrong on the second.
concorde was a fantastic achievement, and if you compare the cost of modern
fighter jets, not that expensive.

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

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..

"John Bishop" wrote in message
...
The planes airworthiness certificate relies upon the manufacturer to
support
it. They have stated their refusal to do that. The many spitfires etc,
flying around use very basic (1930's) technology and are no more
difficult
to keep in the air logistically than a cessna or piper - more expensive
though!

Concorde is a huge leap in technology and the cost of maintaining just
one
would far outweigh the income it could derive from shows. Without it's
certificate, it can never carry passengers. Besides, many of the museums
are
building special halls to accomodate concorde, do you think they'll let
it
go out for a run whenever it wants?

I would love to see one flying, but be realistic, it's not going to
happen.
:-(

John

I would rather see the money spent on the flyable restoration of a fleet
of
historic planes than to keep one Concorde in the air. In the overall
scheme
of things the Concorde does not hold a significant spot in aviation
history.