There goes Concorde

TobyV · Post by **TobyV** » 20 Oct 2006, 19:33

Without wishing to get too political, I'd sooner it was spent on that than some of the stuff my taxes pay for today :roll:

VEGAS · Post by **VEGAS** » 22 Oct 2006, 20:43

Well I would say anything is possible.

The Russians & Americans brought the TU-144 back to life in 1997 for a joint venture with NASA.

However, after several test flights it was permanently withdrawn from use.

The TU-144LL, as it was known for the programme, was previously out of service for over two decades!

The USA could pull something out of the bag in years to come. Who knows?

Air France/BA or whoever - I'd love to see her in the air again. :crying:

delticbob · Post by **delticbob** » 22 Oct 2006, 22:09

AndyG wrote:Erm, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it mainly down to Air France that Concorde was taken out of service? So very nice that they are keeping one maintained, but if BA had their way they would still be flying anyway.

AndyG

I thought I had read that Airbus Industries, who as successors to BAC & Aerospecial

had informed Air France & BA that as of a date (of which I don't have to hand, they would cease to supply spares & support for Concorde.

No spares - no fly

Bob

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 22 Oct 2006, 22:49

Bob, as long as there are "static" examples, may spare parts can be obtained simply by removing the parts that aren't required for static display to occur and putting them into the aircraft being kept flying. This is a common occurence even in the modern US military. This is the primary duty of AMARC (Aerospace Maintenance And Reclamation Center) at Davis-Monthan AFB in the US. They "reclaim" parts out of stored aircraft to support the aircraft still flying which do not have spares still being made for them. Many times, they are able to reclaim several times the aircraft's purchase value worth of spares from the aircraft and still have it externally complete and available for static display at various museums around the world. It's a cost effective way of maintaning aircraft without requiring someone to make all your parts. 2004's number at AMARC was $14 worth or parts put back into the inventory for every $1 spent to pull the parts out of the planes and keep the aircraft in storage.

Sl4yer · Post by **Sl4yer** » 22 Oct 2006, 23:36

Chris,

How many Concordes in AMARC?

No manufacturer support (i.e. Airbus), no operation. End of story, unfortunately.

Can't blame Air France or BA either. If I'd known they were operating Concorde flights with only 6 passengers, I'd have made an offer myself! Good technology as it is, it's just not economically viable nowadays... :sad:

James

Post by **TSR2** » 22 Oct 2006, 23:59

They don't need manufacturer support... they do need somone to become the Maintenance Organiseation and the Design Authority, and that can be anyone with the appropreate certifications. Kentic where going to run them for virgin if BA had sold them.

The economic argument depends on how much money you want to make from them, if your happy to break even, there will be plenty of punters prepared to pay top dollar... if your trying to run an airline, they are un economic as its easier to opperate modern wide bodies on long haul routes. Concorde is very neche and so will never find a place in a "conventional" airline.

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 23 Oct 2006, 02:52

James, the plane doesn't have to be in AMARC to have spares recovery occur. If one aircraft was to return to airworthy status and remain so for a period of time that would presumably need more spares than are available in a warehouse somewhere (believe me, there's still spares out there for aircraft you wouldn't think would have spares because people put the spares somewhere and they get "lost"), then they can enter an agreement with those who have the similiar (BA or AF) aircraft that will never fly again to begin spares recovery on those aircraft. As such, they'd be able to get things like the flight surface power control units, flight surfaces (to be replaced by the non-airworthy surfaces from the flying aircraft), engines, exhausts (again, exchanged from the airworthy aircraft), and most of the cockpit contents (again, repaced with the inoperable ones from the flying aircraft).

The reason that planes like the Convairliners, Constellations, Douglases (DC-3/4/6/7) and other aircraft built over 50 years ago is because when you need spares, you find them somewhere. Either direlect aircraft, old spares stores that someone horded away years ago, or you find a suitable replacement part from a modern aircraft and make the required modifications to keep it going. The point is, you can be quite resourceful.

Also, if the aircraft is registered to operate within the US or Canada, they don't require a 3rd party to be the "responsible party" for the Airworthiness Certificate. The AC is issued on a "per aircraft" basis, and if one wants to assume the previous Design Certification and Type Certificate, one can do so, even as a private individual as long as you can certify that you will maintain the certificate (basically providing the support required of the certificate holder for any flying aircraft). This doesn't mean you have to fix it, it only means that when someone has a question about the airplane, you have to provide the answer.