http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34301689 Looks like a bunch of enthusaiasts are looking to buy one of the Concorde's and return it to flight. Will they be able to do it, I have my doubts but part of me says it would be nice to see Concorde fly again.
Rich people problems. One Concorde for a privileged minority who can afford it. That being said, I'd be happy to see one flying cos I think they're pretty.
I'm surprised there are no new supersonics in production, or even serious planning. Everything right now is about cramming more people in.
I doubt any of the musems who or whoever ownes the remaining airframes would be that keen on selling one which would be the first hurdle. Second hurdle would be getting an airworthiness certificate. Can't find anything on the Air France airframes but the British Airways ones had their withdrawln. No airworthiness certificate, no legal flying. Also from reading the wiki entry, this isn't the first time that some-one has come up with the idea but it would cost over 10 million Pounds to get get a Concorde back to an airworthy condition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Restoration
True, unless someone comes up with a way to build a larger supersonic plane that can carry a few hundred passangers with operating cost similar to a sub-sonic plane then I doubt we will see supersonic or beyond flight.
That's the first step. For supersonics to be economically viable, you first need to put upside-down passengers in the overhead room, and ship then our non-critical body parts by sea for weight savings. And I think if we dumped the air we could get two or three passenger more per flight.
Some people might actually think you're joking if they haven't seen those plans of travelers packed like sardines.
Isn't rising fuel prices another reason why none of the aircraft companies have tried anything? Supersonic aircraft also burn a lot more fuel, if I'm right.
Well sometimes a company will sell something at a loss (A loss leader) in the hopes that it will bring in extra trade elsewhere.
It's just too dangerous. In it's entire flying career a Concorde spent a small fraction of the time an average 747 spends in the air in a year. It's accidents were way more common per hours flown than other planes...
Before they had those little tellies in the back of seats, absolutely but honestly, I quite enjoy watching two or three films while I stuff my face with nibbles. Play some black jack. Look out the window at Greenland. It's all good.
There are still some of those planes without personal inflight systems on long haul flights, I know I was stuck on one for 8 hours.
Yes!! I used to watch the pilot practice flights as a kid, around Prestwick Airport. Alas, I'll never have the opportunity to fly in one now I could afford to. I drive past the one in Bristol Filton quite often. It's a lovely thing. The chances of an airworthiness certificate is zero. The airframe will be beyond use now, engines will be knackered etc. no chance of them ever flying again. Even with millions to throw at it, you would need all the OEMs to agree to service it and provide spares etc which would cost too much and impact on the other parts they make for current planes.
Not to Derail the thread.. I do think that you could get Concorde to fly again..in the US with an experimental certificate.. that's how they kept those cold war fighters flying..but passengers ..no..
Boy, it would be great if they could get one of these flying again. I've spent several hours with 100-10 at the Intrepid museum and the one at Dulles and they are the most beautiful examples of industrial design as high art. I remember seeing 3 at their gates as I waited on the tarmac at DeGaulle in '88 and thinking "there's what the future of aviation looks like". 27 years later...