Concorde May Fly Again

[Swagger897]

You do though that's why XH558 isn't flying because the manufactors won't rebuild the engines and it's a rule by the CAA to have support from the manufactors or it ain't flying.

Title 14 for the Code of Fed. Reg's, states this:

§43.7 Persons authorized to approve aircraft, airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, or component parts for return to service after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration There are seven different persons listed in this section who may sign return to service (RTS) documentation:
1. Certified mechanic or holder of an inspection authorization.
2. Holder of a repair station certificate.
3. Manufacturer.
4. Holder of an air carrier certificate.
5. Certificated private pilot.
6. Repairman certificated with a maintenance rating for light sport aircraft only.
7. Certificated sport pilot for preventive maintenance on an aircraft owned and or operated by him or her

That's why I said a charter airline or of the sorts could do this.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Title 14 for the Code of Fed. Reg's, states this:


That's why I said a charter airline or of the sorts could do this.

It's not happening in america though

 

[Swagger897]

Could, but we don't have that many anyways.

I don't know anything about prototype or 'home-made' airplanes, but I wonder what would happen with F-WTSS.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Could, but we don't have that many anyways.

I don't know anything about prototype or 'home-made' airplanes, but I wonder what would happen with F-WTSS.

It won't it's being covered the CAA and they say no.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It won't it's being covered the CAA and they say no.

I see no reason why they won't get certification if the work's up to standard. This isn't a commercial airliner any more. The Club Concorde captains (certainly more expert with the aircraft than you or I) are confident that Private Heritage status covers it. If the CAA commercial rules extended to such aircraft then I'd guess that nearly 80% of historic display aircraft would no longer fly.

Passenger carrying is slightly different in these cases, disclaimers are long and watertight and pleasure flights are often by invitation rather than for specific hire/reward. The Lancaster is a good example, I don't think anybody has ever paid for a flight on her, they join a club instead.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

I see no reason why they won't get certification if the work's up to standard. This isn't a commercial airliner any more. The Club Concorde captains (certainly more expert with the aircraft than you or I) are confident that Private Heritage status covers it. If the CAA commercial rules extended to such aircraft then I'd guess that nearly 80% of historic display aircraft would no longer fly.

Passenger carrying is slightly different in these cases, disclaimers are long and watertight and pleasure flights are often by invitation rather than for specific hire/reward. The Lancaster is a good example, I don't think anybody has ever paid for a flight on her, they join a club instead.

Because they need a supply of parts the only people to supply those parts are Airbus and they have said no.

If you think stuff to this level can't be built by a group of enthusiasts then that's wrong as you just have to look at XH558 to see that as they only had so many engines and Rolls Royce stated they would not recondition the engines or produce spares etc which is why after this year it's being grounded.

The reason why you see Lancasters still flying is because there are still brand new merlin engines sitting around from WW2.

Also the BBMF is owned by the raf so not a civil flight so that means when the Russians come we can still send up spitfires!

 

[TenEightyOne]

Because they need a supply of parts the only people to supply those parts are Airbus and they have said no.

They seem to think they have it covered. There are still a number of Concordes with serviceable parts that aren't required (or in view) in their static mode. The same goes for engines.

Where's your source? As I say, the Concorde captains know this plane intimately and seem confident that the supply of parts and a recon engineer is possible.

 

[ECGadget]

Heck, I'll hit the books right away and get fully up to scratch on the Concorde if they needed an Engineer. I cannot see the CAA not giving it an airworthiness certification if the Captains and Engineers can prove that the plane is airworthy. Maybe not as a passenger craft of course, but a special craft. As for supplying replacement parts, Airbus may say no but as has been pointed out here there are many servicable parts on the other 13 Concordes, as well as possibly parts on the Prototypes that could be used. And when it comes to replacing parts, when someone is passionate about something like this, they'd find a way to make a worthy replacement part when needed. Who knows, if it does go ahead you may see Concorde with modern avionics in the form of a glass cockpit with a state of the art FMS (which I believe could be converted into use from another craft)
The ONLY major snag I see is the engines. Maintaining those would be a pain, but I also know RR are quite proud of that engine and have one on display in Derby for engineers who work there, so maybe they would mellow if things looked positive...

 

[Swagger897]

Heck, I'll hit the books right away and get fully up to scratch on the Concorde if they needed an Engineer. I cannot see the CAA not giving it an airworthiness certification if the Captains and Engineers can prove that the plane is airworthy. Maybe not as a passenger craft of course, but a special craft. As for supplying replacement parts, Airbus may say no but as has been pointed out here there are many servicable parts on the other 13 Concordes, as well as possibly parts on the Prototypes that could be used. And when it comes to replacing parts, when someone is passionate about something like this, they'd find a way to make a worthy replacement part when needed. Who knows, if it does go ahead you may see Concorde with modern avionics in the form of a glass cockpit with a state of the art FMS (which I believe could be converted into use from another craft)
The ONLY major snag I see is the engines. Maintaining those would be a pain, but I also know RR are quite proud of that engine and have one on display in Derby for engineers who work there, so maybe they would mellow if things looked positive...

Glass cockpit would be cool on this thing, but really a really expensive overhaul.

I just thought this though.. if the group were to incorporate themselves in the US, would (could?) registration be done via FAA?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Glass cockpit would be cool on this thing, but really a really expensive overhaul.

I just thought this though.. if the group were to incorporate themselves in the US, would (could?) registration be done via FAA?

Expensive/difficult doesn't seem to be putting them off. I wonder if they'll buy the Vulcan engines, perhaps even employ some engineers from that project?

 

[daan]

The Concorde

a Concorde

the Concorde

the Concorde

Just Concorde. There is no "a" or "the". When it comes to Concorde, there is only Concorde.

I'd love to see it flying again, but I don't think it'll happen. I recall being at my dad's relatives in Reading way back in the late '70s (or early 80's) and running out to the back garden to see it coming in to land at Heathrow. Even coming in to land, it announced its presence very loudly.

As mentioned earlier, it was of its era and doesn't really function in today's world. The internet, email and video conferencing killed it off as much as anything else. It was also very cramped and I'm nowhere near able to stand up in its cabin.

 

[ECGadget]

Glass cockpit would be cool on this thing, but really a really expensive overhaul.

I just thought this though.. if the group were to incorporate themselves in the US, would (could?) registration be done via FAA?

They could do so but I do not know all the regulations pertaining to that. I think there may be a grace period (but that has probably expired) before being able to apply for an airworthiness certificate from another body. On the other hand, I don't think many people here would be happy if the plane stayed in the states most the time... I wouldn't be...

@daan oversight on my part lol. I've done that a few times before -_-

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Expensive/difficult doesn't seem to be putting them off. I wonder if they'll buy the Vulcan engines, perhaps even employ some engineers from that project?

The Vulcan engines aren't the same! And there's none left which is why XH558 is being grounded because Rolls Royce aren't servicing or rebuilding them.

There is no supply of parts because as Airbus won't make them and all other concords are privately owned so they aren't going to allow theirs to be butchered and even then those parts will be lifed.

http://www.concordeproject.com/faq.html

 

[R5]

Just Concorde. There is no "a" or "the". When it comes to Concorde, there is only Concorde.

Unless you're French 👍

 

[Swagger897]

Expensive/difficult doesn't seem to be putting them off. I wonder if they'll buy the Vulcan engines, perhaps even employ some engineers from that project?

Probably not, because the Vulcan Olympus' evolved into the 593's that Concorde uses.

The engines from the SR-71's could be a viable replacement, P&W J58's.
If the group wanted, and if P&W would agree, a newer version of the engine could be produced with higher standards. I don't think that the engines from the TU-144 would be a good choice.

The good thing about the J58's is that they are 1,000lbs lighter, allowing for more stuff to fit into them. They produce only 10,000lbs less thrust and the air flow is only 110lbs lower too. The only reason why I say it could be a feasible option is the fact that P&W hasn't merged with anyone.

They could do so but I do not know all the regulations pertaining to that. I think there may be a grace period (but that has probably expired) before being able to apply for an airworthiness certificate from another body. On the other hand, I don't think many people here would be happy if the plane stayed in the states most the time... I wouldn't be...

@daan oversight on my part lol. I've done that a few times before -_-

I'm just talking about how to legally get it flying without registration in the CAA.

I'd rather see it on the Thames too.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The Vulcan engines aren't the same! And there's none left which is why XH558 is being grounded because Rolls Royce aren't servicing or rebuilding them.

There are four left, I saw them running a few weeks ago. Many parts are common as is the expertise. The main issue is certifying people for inspection work. If Club Concorde are serious about a ground-up Concorde project I think they can do it.

EDIT: The Vulcan B2 that has just been retired from display does have the bomber version of Concorde/TSR2's Olympus Mk320(593), the difference is in the reheat ability.

 

[ECGadget]

The engines from the SR-71's could be a viable replacement, P&W J58's.
If the group wanted, and if P&W would agree, a newer version of the engine could be produced with higher standards.

That's actually a half viable option in my opinion to replace the Olympus engines if need be, but they longer, with a larger diameter, and have a lower max thrust value. That would require some sort of redesign of the engine housings. If they could build one with better thrust and to the diameter and length of the 593s then...

 

[Swagger897]

That's actually a half viable option in my opinion to replace the Olympus engines if need be, but they longer, with a larger diameter, and have a lower max thrust value. That would require some sort of redesign of the engine housings. If they could build one with better thrust and to the diameter and length of the 593s then...

ohh.... just saw the fuel types for the two....

scratch that out then.

EDIT:
OH MY GOD I FOUND IT!!!

So I remember watching a show when I was a kid about the craze for super sonic travel, and just now thought of the fact that the Americans wanted in. The Russians had the TU-144, France and Britain had Concorde, and the US had the Boeing 2707.

Although it never left the boards, GE still made the GE4 for it (only 3 though). That engine has far better thrust, but would be too large for it.

Then you have the B1-B from Rockwell which uses the GE F101 series, which is about the next closest thing I could find fitting length and width requirments. I'm quite sure GE could still service this engine as the US forces still employ a few of these goose like birds.

After that is the Pratt & Whitney F119, currently used for the F22 and F35. So that's a definite can do engine if it's able to be housed.

 

[BobK]

If enough money is waved under the right noses, then all things become possible. The big question is, how much? The secondary question is, whose nose(s)?

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

There are four left, I saw them running a few weeks ago. Many parts are common as is the expertise. The main issue is certifying people for inspection work. If Club Concorde are serious about a ground-up Concorde project I think they can do it.

EDIT: The Vulcan B2 that has just been retired from display does have the bomber version of Concorde/TSR2's Olympus Mk320(593), the difference is in the reheat ability.

But they don't have any hours left on them which is why it's being retired if they were still usuable then she would be flying and there's more to them than just the reheat capability.
http://www.concordesst.com/powerplant.html

If enough money is waved under the right noses, then all things become possible. The big question is, how much? The secondary question is, whose nose(s)?

if Richard Branson with his billions of pounds can't run Concorde then that says it all.

 

[Swagger897]

if Richard Branson with his billions of pounds can't run Concorde then that says it all.

I wouldn't doubt if Branson himself was involved already with this project.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

I wouldn't doubt if Branson himself was involved already with this project.

I doubt he is he has new toys to play with now

Also an article here as well from the guy that got the Vulcan in the sky stating Concorde won't happen

http://www.imeche.org/news/engineering/concorde-will-never-fly-again-says-vulcan-restoration-expert

 

[Crash]

No they're two separate structures and both go through different testing like the stress strain done on wings in the R&D test labs. The Fuselage also has it's own testing obviously, but it's not done as a single unit.

The two units are bolted together to create an airplane, yes, and both fuselages and wings will have had tests done separately, but the airplane does go through two tests as one unit:

1. Wing bending test - to ensure that the as-built wing and wing-to-body interface will not break before the maximum load + factor of safety load is reached.
2. Long term fatigue testing

The wing to body join is the most critical joint of the airplane as well, and one that can only be tested once the two are assembled together.

You may think it's a sad day when the last 747 flies, but the truly sad day will be when the last 757 does. An aircraft that is labeled the "Ferrari of the sky", more efficient per passenger than some of the 737's it's being replaced by, only because the market took a hit during 9/11...

No, 757s have great performance but are actually pretty inefficient. They are, for a lot of missions, over-winged and over-engined. They had performance to the point where they were, and still are, being used for transcontinental service. The 757 may be slightly more efficient than a 737 when filled to max capacity and operating at a range that is towards the absolute max of what a 737 can do, but that requires the 757 to be put on a route that is longer than what a 737 can comfortably do and where they can fill that airplane up regularly. Hell, if you can fill a 777 to max capacity, then the per passenger block fuel would be more efficient than a 757 over the same route.

It won't it's being covered the CAA and they say no.

I cannot see the CAA not giving it an airworthiness certification if the Captains and Engineers can prove that the plane is airworthy.

I just thought this though.. if the group were to incorporate themselves in the US, would (could?) registration be done via FAA?

Type Certificates are issued by each national aviation authority or in certain situations, an international aviation authority. A Type Certificate issued by a particular aviation authority permits that particular airplane design to fly within that respective authority area's airspace, but not necessarily automatically in another aviation authority's airspace.

There are 2 primary aviation authorities in this world that issues Type Certificates: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Well, 2.5 ish if you count Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB). FAA has jurisdiction over the US, while EASA is a unified EU agency that has jurisdiction over all of European Union. Almost every other country in this world follows FAA's and EASA's lead, and will grant certification as long as those two organizations have as well.

Though CAA is still the UK's national aviation authority, it has relinquished all its certification-granting ability to EASA. Concorde was retired while it was still CAA responsibility and before EASA's existence, but for it to come back into service now, it'll require an EASA Type Certificate to even fly in European airspace. In addition, it will require a FAA Type Certificate for it to be flown to and in American airspace.

Who knows, if it does go ahead you may see Concorde with modern avionics in the form of a glass cockpit with a state of the art FMS (which I believe could be converted into use from another craft)

Glass cockpit would be cool on this thing, but really a really expensive overhaul.

That will require a supplemental type certificate to be issued, which will require a flight test program to demonstrate airworthiness before it is issued, on top of the new training program and the completely redone wiring systems that will be needed.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The two units are bolted together to create an airplane, yes, and both fuselages and wings will have had tests done separately, but the airplane does go through two tests as one unit:

1. Wing bending test - to ensure that the as-built wing and wing-to-body interface will not break before the maximum load + factor of safety load is reached.
2. Long term fatigue testing

The wing to body join is the most critical joint of the airplane as well, and one that can only be tested once the two are assembled together.

Yes I know, I was identifying the fact that since they are tested separately, they don't start life as a single structure. And I've done plenty of structure mechanics examples this semester to know, but thanks for adding to what was said by me and other users.

Basically we answer to a simple extent for the user who wanted to learn that yes, planes aren't just one sand cast build as you see them (this shouldn't be taken literal just in case).