Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > RC Jets
Reload this Page >

Concorde Should she still be flying

Notices
RC Jets Discuss RC jets in this forum plus rc turbines and ducted fan power systems

Concorde Should she still be flying

Old 11-27-2013, 01:22 PM
  #1  
Jetflyer3000
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: , UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Concorde Should she still be flying

On UK TV there is quite a lot on at the moment about the Concorde crash in Paris and the eventual last flight of Concorde.

Watching these programmes covering the various safety factors surrounding the plane and indeed the pollution that she caused when she flew I was wondering if she should have been grounded or if she should still be flying today.

What are your opinions
Old 11-27-2013, 06:59 PM
  #2  
eric_monster
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Westminster, CA
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I think the Concorde was a novel idea. I'd love to see them still flying today. Or at least I'd like to see a manufacturer take the concept of an SST and pair it with current technology. Other than the addition of more composite material during manufacture and more fuel efficient engines, there have been no real big advances in air travel IMHO.
Old 11-28-2013, 04:11 AM
  #3  
Henke Torphammar
 
Henke Torphammar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ljungby, SWEDEN
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Just don't let Lockheed Martin design it
Old 11-28-2013, 05:27 AM
  #4  
Turbotronic
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

With new modern engines it could quite possibly have been a lot more viable.
Its really an icon of engineering. Even losing money it was an inspiration to mankind to do even better things.
I kick myself for not ever making the effort to fly on one.
Andre
Old 11-28-2013, 08:51 AM
  #5  
Jetflyer3000
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: , UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Turbotronic View Post
With new modern engines it could quite possibly have been a lot more viable.
Its really an icon of engineering. Even losing money it was an inspiration to mankind to do even better things.
I kick myself for not ever making the effort to fly on one.
Andre
I was surprised to see on one of the documentaries I saw that for a period of time concorde was making over a quarter of the total profit being made by British Airways

Dennis
Old 11-28-2013, 10:41 AM
  #6  
FalconWings
My Feedback: (57)
 
FalconWings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 6,924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Henke Torphammar View Post
Just don't let Lockheed Martin design it
Why is that?
Old 11-28-2013, 10:46 AM
  #7  
FalconWings
My Feedback: (57)
 
FalconWings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 6,924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

It would be nice for a philanthropist to keep one flying for shows and heritage events (Sir Branson where are you)......but it wouldn't work for commercial use. Airbus was basically custom making parts and spares, which is not economically feasible by a long shot. The older they get, the worse it gets.

But could there be anyone out there who would not like to see it fly again?
Old 11-28-2013, 10:57 AM
  #8  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 7,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by FalconWings View Post
Why is that?
Thats what I would like to know. Not only has LM done a great job supporting the F-16 but the F-35 is a huge success.
Old 11-28-2013, 10:59 AM
  #9  
HarryC
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: private, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 3,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Here's why it can't fly again no matter how much money
http://www.vulcantothesky.org/news/5...mber-2013.html
Old 11-28-2013, 12:22 PM
  #10  
Henke Torphammar
 
Henke Torphammar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ljungby, SWEDEN
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by FalconWings View Post
Why is that?
Assuming you want some speed out of the new Concorde, looking at the F35 LM would not be my choice
Old 11-28-2013, 12:54 PM
  #11  
FalconWings
My Feedback: (57)
 
FalconWings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 6,924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Henke Torphammar View Post
Assuming you want some speed out of the new Concorde, looking at the F35 LM would not be my choice


Ok, I see your point......but do understand that the 35 is not designed for speed and agility, but still does pretty good. The F35 will outcelerate a Viper and an Eagle, and will supercruise......just not a Mach 2.

Regarding speed, search for SR-72. It's coming, not exactly soon.....but proof concepts are out there.

Finally......all production aircraft top speed records are held by LM airframes. There was an A12, which to date,it is said it went well into upper Mach 3's over Vitnam/Cambodia.
Old 11-28-2013, 01:12 PM
  #12  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 7,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Henke Torphammar View Post
Assuming you want some speed out of the new Concorde, looking at the F35 LM would not be my choice
You do realize that LM designed the 35 based on the specifications provided by the US government. Northrop Grumman and another company I can't recall at the moment had flying prototypes that lost to the LM design. Look at how well LM had done with the legacy program F-16 and C-130J. In most cases, increasing capability of an existing design is more difficult then starting fresh. I think overall LM has a great track record, just look at the current stock prices.
Old 11-28-2013, 02:24 PM
  #13  
Doctor jet
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wiltshire, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by HarryC View Post
Here's why it can't fly again no matter how much money
http://www.vulcantothesky.org/news/5...mber-2013.html
Just to add to this news article.... thanks Harry!...
I was at Filton 10 years ago when 216 made its final landing. The memories will never fade.
The main problem with ongoing airworthiness of the structure was the bonded joints in the metal skin / honeycomb elements, for example in the control surfaces. (This is based on what I heard at the time, I'm too young to have worked on it). I also believe that airframe fatigue life would have stopped it flying before too long anyway, had it continued in-service.

The attached image shows the cockpit prior to decomissioning. I can confirm that BA engineers drained the hydraulic systems and also removed all the safety equipment, i.e. the emergency exit slides with explosive charges, which i presume were made safe prior to being thrown in a skip. I wonder what fate the remaining serviceable engines received?

On a more positive note, the aircraft remains a design icon and will inspire designers both present and future. Concorde 216 will get a roof over her head in the next coming years. Funding for this new museum has been secured and the site (close to the exiting Filton tower and partly on the taxi-way) is also secured thanks to BAE systems. Looking back at my photographs of her in the former assembly hangar after the final flight, highlights the degradation of the paint by the elements. She is going to need one hell of a clean and polish!

If anyone fancies a go in the old simulator that used to be a Filton, it is now at Brooklands museum in working condition! albeit in static mode (no motion) - an amazing acheivement in my opinion as the original umbillical cabling was just chopped off. The actuators for the sim..... again ... went in the skip.
Visit this ..... http://www.brooklandsmuseum.com/inde...rde-simulator/

Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	G-BOAFfilton4.jpg
Views:	324
Size:	172.6 KB
ID:	1943179   Click image for larger version

Name:	Concorde - cockpit before decomission.jpg
Views:	465
Size:	268.0 KB
ID:	1943180   Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_0083 - reduced.jpg
Views:	330
Size:	417.6 KB
ID:	1943181  
Old 11-28-2013, 02:30 PM
  #14  
collector1231
Moderator
My Feedback: (1)
 
collector1231's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: A place in a place.
Posts: 4,192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Henke Torphammar View Post
Assuming you want some speed out of the new Concorde, looking at the F35 LM would not be my choice

And, adding to that, the Lockheed Martin L1011 was a massive success. Not one known design flaw. Unlike the Death Cruiser 10 series.
Old 11-28-2013, 06:10 PM
  #15  
edh13
My Feedback: (9)
 
edh13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
Thats what I would like to know. Not only has LM done a great job supporting the F-16 but the F-35 is a huge success.
F35 is a huge success??? That's a little premature. It won't even be operational for two more years (Marines), three to five years (Air Force / Navy). 8 years behind schedule, 100% over budget and described by Flight Test Evaluators as "flawed beyond redemption"; is the only way it can be described at this time.
Google is your friend, stop reading the brochures.

Last edited by edh13; 11-28-2013 at 06:36 PM.
Old 11-28-2013, 07:46 PM
  #16  
Bobsav
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Maine
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

One thing I never understood about them grounding the Concorde was that the crash was an accident.
From what I remember the pilot began takeoff on the wrong runway and ran over some metal debris which punctured the gas tank and caused the fire and explosion.
Then all of a sudden the "concorde" was an unsafe plane and not airworthy.
I think a lot of planes given the same conditions would have resulted in the same outcome.
No Planes are designed run over things like scrap metal.
That's the reason aircraft decks are subject to "FOD" like 10 times a day.
JMHO
Bob
Old 11-28-2013, 08:42 PM
  #17  
raron455
My Feedback: (38)
 
raron455's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Waco TX
Posts: 1,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by edh13 View Post
F35 is a huge success??? That's a little premature. It won't even be operational for two more years (Marines), three to five years (Air Force / Navy). 8 years behind schedule, 100% over budget and described by Flight Test Evaluators as "flawed beyond redemption"; is the only way it can be described at this time.
Google is your friend, stop reading the brochures.
Your probably right,, the worlds premier producer of military aircraft from design, engineering, and building does not know what they are doing,,,
The intial order for the f-35 was cut, meaning less money for design and production, I have plenty of friends who work for LM in fort worth, and they are always at work. As far as evaluators,, I have read no negative reviews,,, although not in service there are units in flight right now. Is it a success,, Your right there it is not a proven platform, but it is what they are calling the most advanced fighter in the world,, and believe me I am not partial to it,,, I think it is as ugly as homemade soap!! But the company has to build what is ordered, No one will argue the fact that the f-22 is the current reigning superior fighter, despite what the typhoon guys, and Mig guys say,,, And You have LM engineers to thank for that... Just my 2cents

Now to the original post,, Yes I believe the concorde should still be in service, accidents happen, period, to ground a specific plane due to an accident is ridiculous. ALSO I know that If requested LOCKHEED MARTIN could redesign the concorde so that all passengers would have to wear space-suits..
Old 11-28-2013, 09:04 PM
  #18  
sideshow
My Feedback: (11)
 
sideshow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Pleasanton, CA
Posts: 3,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by edh13 View Post
Google is your friend, stop reading the brochures.
I love when people say stuff like this.....like what's on the inter webs is gospel

Old 11-28-2013, 09:06 PM
  #19  
049flyer
My Feedback: (18)
 
049flyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Tyler, TX
Posts: 1,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

The Concorde burns way too much fuel and has way too few seats to be a viable commercial aircraft by today's standards. Although the Concorde proved that supersonic passenger transport is POSSIBLE it did NOT prove that it was PROFITABLE or would remain profitable.

A supersonic transport will be designed and manufactured when airlines comit to purchasing them in numbers large enough to attract interest by aircraft manufacturers.

Besides does anyone realize how bonkers the Europeans are getting over global warming and carbon credits? That alone would likely double the price of a ticket to Europe on any similar aircraft.
Old 11-28-2013, 09:23 PM
  #20  
invertmast
My Feedback: (22)
 
invertmast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: North Port, Fl
Posts: 7,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

The days of the concord were drawing to an end before the accident. The accident just gave the owners/ operators a good excuse to end its days sooner rather than later.
Old 11-28-2013, 11:01 PM
  #21  
Boomerang1
 
Boomerang1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Then all of a sudden the "concorde" was an unsafe plane and not airworthy.
Total shame.

When you think about it the Concorde went from being statistically the worlds safest airliner
to an aircraft which people perceived as dangerous after just one crash which was not the
Concorde's fault.

The Concorde provided prestige & pride for Air France & BA as it lined up amongst all the
look alike airliners from everyone else.

John.
Old 11-29-2013, 12:30 AM
  #22  
JohnMac
 
JohnMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Leeds, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by FalconWings View Post
Ok, I see your point......but do understand that the 35 is not designed for speed and agility, but still does pretty good. The F35 will outcelerate a Viper and an Eagle, and will supercruise......just not a Mach 2.

Regarding speed, search for SR-72. It's coming, not exactly soon.....but proof concepts are out there.

Finally......all production aircraft top speed records are held by LM airframes. There was an A12, which to date,it is said it went well into upper Mach 3's over Vitnam/Cambodia.
This is true. The measure of Concordes success as a concept was that as a passenger you could relax in the back in your shirt sleeves, sipping champagne. That is a very different environment to SR71. The two aircraft were chalk and cheese. Both were fabulous examples of western engineering prowess.
John
Old 11-29-2013, 04:51 AM
  #23  
on_your_six
My Feedback: (11)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Maryland, MD
Posts: 1,393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Block to block, I think that today's generation of private corporate jets reduce the overall trip time.

You leave when you want to, you do not have to drive to one of the major airports that the Concorde was allowed to fly.

Private jets can take off and land at more destinations near to the ultimate trip end point. Sometimes the speed of the aircraft is not the whole story.

If supersonic transport was economically feasible, it would happen again. I am surprised that there are no private supersonic capable aircraft.
Old 11-29-2013, 06:34 AM
  #24  
Dustflyer
My Feedback: (13)
 
Dustflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Abington, PA
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

The Concorde; unfortunately, was a money losing proposition. They could not charge enough to make it work. Very few people actually "needed" to ride it, even if they could afford it. Why spend 10 grand to fly to London in 3 1/2 hours in a narrow, cramped seat with little headroom when, for one third the price, you could do it in a big comfy First Class chair on a 747 drinking enough champagne to kill an elephant and eating enough filet Mignon, lobster, and caviar to choke a horse? The Concorde became an expensive carnival ride for the wealthy, but for the seasoned traveler, that First Class seat in a 747 was the way to go.
Old 11-29-2013, 07:39 AM
  #25  
Quikturn
My Feedback: (12)
 
Quikturn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: West Des Moines, IA
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Anyone remember the Boeing Sonic Cruiser 797 concept? That would have been a cool modern alternative to the Concorde. Twin engine, 300 passenger at 2.7 Mach.

Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	171
Size:	60.5 KB
ID:	1943317  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.