It's dependent on whether or not the group can find one that can be made flight worthy.

http://www.cnn.com/travel/article/conco ... to-flight/

Betteridge's Law at work with that headline.

Doesn't seem like that amount of money would get a restoration effort very far.

They haven't raised the money. The article is clearly sceptical even about this first milestone. Most certainly, they may have "commitments" in that magnitude but not even a fraction of this on a bank account. And that is what counts.

Not even starting with all the other procedural and technical challenges. Let's just rest the Condordes in their graveyards.

That amount would only afford you the cost of the parts.....what about the professional experts required to put it together and get it airworthy.....they actually need at least 3-400 mil to be realistic

I cannot believe I am( a big concorde fan) saying this- 120 million will pay for a few more searches for MH370... Just a thought that struck me after reading the title.

If the aircraft manufacturer is refusing to get onboard it won't happen.

At first I was thinking this is a waste of money. Airbus has repeatedly said it will not issue an airworthiness certificate and I doubt EASA/CAA would either.

Then it got me to thinking.

There are plenty of vintage aircraft flying worldwide that are restored by hobbyists and flown at airshows.

How are these old aircraft still deemed airworthy? Many of their manufacturers no longer exist. They don't provide commercial service but I'm sure there are a few pilots that you can pay a few bucks to to climb in for a joy ride.

Is there a way to bend the rules (or are there specific FAA or EASA rules) to make the Concorde fly as a vintage plane?

A quick Google search yielded some vague guidelines that could make this possible under the "historic aircraft" category though I'm sure a commercial supersonic airliner is not what the authors of these guidelines had in mind when written:

https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/ ... al-pilots/

TropicalSky wrote:

That amount would only afford you the cost of the parts.....what about the professional experts required to put it together and get it airworthy.....they actually need at least 3-400 mil to be realistic

I’m sure there are some retired Concorde mechanics that would volunteer their time.

...ain't gonna happen.

cha747 wrote:

At first I was thinking this is a waste of money. Airbus has repeatedly said it will not issue an airworthiness certificate and I doubt EASA/CAA would either.

Then it got me to thinking.

There are plenty of vintage aircraft flying worldwide that are restored by hobbyists and flown at airshows.

How are these old aircraft still deemed airworthy? Many of their manufacturers no longer exist. They don't provide commercial service but I'm sure there are a few pilots that you can pay a few bucks to to climb in for a joy ride.

Is there a way to bend the rules (or are there specific FAA or EASA rules) to make the Concorde fly as a vintage plane?

A quick Google search yielded some vague guidelines that could make this possible under the "historic aircraft" category though I'm sure a commercial supersonic airliner is not what the authors of these guidelines had in mind when written:

https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/ ... al-pilots/

Without any knowledge (just on pure logic) this makes sense. Yes, there are some mach 2 aircraft presumably without manufacturer support that do fly under (probably experimental or antique) licenses. I think Paul Allen has a Sukhoi and Larry Ellison has a Dassault Alpha fighter (probably has mfr support)

ap305 wrote:

I cannot believe I am( a big concorde fan) saying this- 120 million will pay for a few more searches for MH370... Just a thought that struck me after reading the title.

I'd absolutely adore to see the Concorde fly again, but tbh I'd rather see that money go to MH370 searches too. With new theories and stuff flying around ever since 60 minutes the families must be feeling awful. They deserve closure. Not trying to derail the topic or anything.

But as others have said it won't be enough.

cha747 wrote:

At first I was thinking this is a waste of money. Airbus has repeatedly said it will not issue an airworthiness certificate and I doubt EASA/CAA would either.

Then it got me to thinking.

There are plenty of vintage aircraft flying worldwide that are restored by hobbyists and flown at airshows.

How are these old aircraft still deemed airworthy? Many of their manufacturers no longer exist. They don't provide commercial service but I'm sure there are a few pilots that you can pay a few bucks to to climb in for a joy ride.

Is there a way to bend the rules (or are there specific FAA or EASA rules) to make the Concorde fly as a vintage plane?

A quick Google search yielded some vague guidelines that could make this possible under the "historic aircraft" category though I'm sure a commercial supersonic airliner is not what the authors of these guidelines had in mind when written:

https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/ ... al-pilots/

There may be some way that could work but if they are planning on fare paying passengers with charter flights, no never. Reminds me of the Vulcan bomber project in a way.

Not going to happen - unfortunately.

Well, it's that time of year I guess, to gin up the "restore concorde" hype.

Personally, if you realistically want to fly fast and high, just invest that 100 million in Boom or Aerion, that's a lot more realistic and also practical as these two airplanes, unlike Concordes may Actually FLY one day. And, though riding around in vintage airplanes may be fun, isn't it even More Fun in this case to put your money towards something new and exciting and innovative to expand our flight technology, rather than pouring money into something old, unrealistic and not sustainable?

readytotaxi wrote:

If the aircraft manufacturer is refusing to get onboard it won't happen.

32andBelow wrote:

I’m sure there are some retired Concorde mechanics that would volunteer their time.

Unfortunately, no.

This isn't like some vintage WWII model, where a skilled professional with a detailed manual + the proper tools, could restore one.

Concorde's general maintenance was so incredibly complex that freakin' NASA would send their engineers to clinic with B.A.C.E. in order to learn best practices/ideas for maintaining the aging space shuttle fleet.

*********************************
In fact, captain Bannister stated that one of the reasons a single model wasn't kept airworthy for shows and heritage, is because maintaining just one (even for subsonic-only operations) didn't actually save much money over the cost of maintaining the whole fleet. And THAT'S with a ship that was in 100% working order at the time.

A group of volunteers, doing things in their spare time, after a decade-and-a-half of inactivity, with aircraft that are corroded/stationary, and with no support from the OEM or the likes of Exxon/Chevron?

The words "fat" and "chance" seem like a decent pairing here.

aeropix wrote:

Personally, if you realistically want to fly fast and high, just invest that 100 million in Boom or Aerion, that's a lot more realistic and also practical as these two airplanes, unlike Concordes may Actually FLY one day.

^ This. And lord knows that both of those programs could use all the help that they can get.

Of course, the counter-argument is going to be that they're just subsidizing the rich, because 99% of people who aren't wealthy will likely never set foot in either airframe should they ever enter service....... but then again, wasn't that Concorde's legacy?

Well that, and 120,000,000GBP into a defunct aircraft isn't exactly succoring the poor.

They might just get a 50% scale die-cast model, powered by 4 old Tornado engines for £120m.

It would be far cheaper and easier than refurbishing the real thing.

If it’s never going to carry 100 passengers, why bother building it full size?

I will not say that their dream is impossible. However, they are way short of showing the kind of resources or organization needed to receive the kind of cooperation from the authorities and Airbus on this. Here is my estimation of what it would take to be successful:

Establishment of a charity with about $1.5 Billion in conservatively invested assets, with 1/3 of that ($500 million) intended towards facilities and restoration cost of a Concord.

The remaining $1 Billion in assets is there to provide long term (many decades) financial stability of the charity - and it generally lives off and supports annual cost from the interest from that $1 Billion investment.

Show up with that kind of hard resources and the appropriately structured charity... and I think you will garner the cooperation of the major players needed (Airbus and perhaps the governments may want a person on the Charity Board of Directors).

Now perhaps it can be done for somewhat less... but; that is the kind of structure and likely amounts of money it would realistically take.

In my opinion; any concepts with substantially less funding and without that kind of structure will be considered a non-starter by Airbus and the governments involved.

So, if this group is serious: Why are they not establishing such a charity and fund raising? Such a charity could have a backup or alternate purpose as well (so that it does good even if it does not get a Concorde).

Have a great day,

Edited to add: I agree with the above posters about using the money to fund Boom or others; as being much more effective use of future resources (I personally prefer Boom - and I respect others that favor the other contenders).

2175301 wrote:

So, if this group is serious: Why are they not establishing such a charity and fund raising?

I'd hope it's because they don't have the audacity to raise $1.5billion for restoring a defunct aircraft under the guise of a charitable trust.... I mean, that's some Private Jet Preacher-level chutzpah, right there.

But realistically, it's probably because they're just too disorganized/dysfunctional to know that that's a tool at their disposal.

Even if it got flying with 120million it would just be an endless money pit that nobody could sustain.

Waste of money.

It would be in service for less than a year before something breaks, it runs out of money, no spare parts, or no mechanics available.

I'm one of the biggest Concorde fan boys out there (about the only thing I am a fan boy torwards in aviation) but this won't happen.

Concorde is an incredibly complex beast with a lot to go wrong with it. Getting it certified is another massive hurdle.

Please spend the money preserving the Airframes instead. Some are like chalk and cheese in terms of condition. Yes i'm looking at you Intrepid museum!

What is the infatuation with MH? The plane, its crew, and passengers are long gone. Nothing is going to bring them back. It might very well be one of those mysteries that is never solved. Spending more money looking for them is not going to change things.

What plane do they own that could even be returned to service?

Surely not F-BTSD which has already been through one of these sagas.

If they really want to do something, spend the money to rebuild a flight simulator to full working order with motion platform and operate it as a tourist attraction then train up people to property operate it before all the existing knowledge goes away.

For that amount of money you could buy 3 brand-new Bombardier Global 6500s at full list price to fly you and your friends around the world in unsurpassed luxury, all the while using less fuel than a Concorde joyride.

Beech

Unfortunately, if the two manufacturers of the air frame and engines are not willing to be supportive, nor the two operating airlines, nor the two Governments that underwrote development / manufacture, never mind provide any tangible support, there is no way the group would obtain insurance to fly, even using experimental or historical classifications.

Aviation enthusiasm has a limit...no-go for all the reasons mentioned above...


Faro

cpd wrote:

What plane do they own that could even be returned to service?

Surely not F-BTSD which has already been through one of these sagas.

If they really want to do something, spend the money to rebuild a flight simulator to full working order with motion platform and operate it as a tourist attraction then train up people to property operate it before all the existing knowledge goes away.

Apparently the BA one at Barbados.

I'd rather see a VC-10 flying again. Concorde would cost north of a billion to get one flying again. VC10s meanwhile......

I costed this out ages ago in this very forum. Without Airbus participation the costs to certify and rebuild would be horrendous, and then there are engines. Anyone got four Olympus 593 with time on the clock lying around?

Rolls Royce doesn't support the engine any more. Overhaul parts would need making from scratch (=$$$$$$) and exotic alloys tend to have exotic price tags.

Just think of all those custom avionics too....

Wonder what it would take to get a Concorde to a point where it could do high speed taxi runs? Having grown up outside of JFK, the ground rattling takeoff roll in full afterburner was awesome. My parents were not too thrilled but.......

As a big Concorde fan (check my name) I would love for this to happen. But, unfortunately it is just a dream that will never come true. They will never get enough money and resources, and it will never get the support to be certified.

727200 wrote:

What is the infatuation with MH? The plane, its crew, and passengers are long gone. Nothing is going to bring them back. It might very well be one of those mysteries that is never solved. Spending more money looking for them is not going to change things.

Are you serious with this? Who is inexplicably ignorant enough to think that they're going to somehow revive the aircraft or people?

Even if one believes a continued mission to be misguided, it's not very difficult to understand their intent:
they obviously want to see if there's any chance the FDR/CVR are still salvageable, and they're wondering if remaining wreckage may grant additional clues to what happened and how to avoid it.

A380MSN004 wrote:

Apparently the BA one at Barbados.

Which is a no-go from the start, as BA has made it more than clear that they want no part of this.

727200 wrote:

What is the infatuation with MH? The plane, its crew, and passengers are long gone. Nothing is going to bring them back. It might very well be one of those mysteries that is never solved. Spending more money looking for them is not going to change things.

Cold like a Reptillian!

Always good to see these things ... but then again, we have Tesla .

Saludos,
Alex

120 million is enough money to contribute to far more productive causes. Like somebody else said, funding more searches for MH370, or maybe funding charter flights for civilians out of war zones or air medical services.

I love the Concorde too, but it ain't coming back. Let it rest.

readytotaxi wrote:

If the aircraft manufacturer is refusing to get onboard it won't happen.

There is no manufacturer, Airbus handed back all the certificates regarding the aircraft to EASA. It no longer holds the paperwork.

I understand some people can feel real love for this idea, but it won’t succeed. While some machines can be restored and kept operational for heritage or historic preservation, there are some other machines that are just impossible to see again.
Yes, the Concorde was incredible, was one of the wonders of the world for years. The key word is “was”. I would love to see with my own eyes the Saturn V rocket, fly in the Concorde and share a drink and a cigar with Winston Churchill, but I was born in the seventies in a small south American country. TV shows are the only way I can enjoy this giants of history....and I think we all must be realistic. If they can rise that big amount of money, the list of better things to do with it is really, really long.

Rgds.
G.

What about this article?

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/boom ... index.html

This seems more promising.

727200 wrote:

What is the infatuation with MH? The plane, its crew, and passengers are long gone. Nothing is going to bring them back. It might very well be one of those mysteries that is never solved. Spending more money looking for them is not going to change things.

What is the infatuation with the Concorde? The plane is long gone. Nothing is going to bring it back. Dreaming to restore it might very well be one of those mysteries that is never solved. Spending more money is not going to change things.

If they have 120 million, let them try.

For me the biggest question is whether there is still a sufficient market for Concorde pleasure flights, at the kind of price point which makes an operation commercially viable.

cha747 wrote:

How are these old aircraft still deemed airworthy? Many of their manufacturers no longer exist. They don't provide commercial service but I'm sure there are a few pilots that you can pay a few bucks to to climb in for a joy ride.

Is there a way to bend the rules (or are there specific FAA or EASA rules) to make the Concorde fly as a vintage plane?
/

The vast majority of these aircraft are not pressurised, this changes things significantly.

People can dream I guess but that's all it will ever be you would think.

Ben

The words "fat" and "chance" seem like a decent pairing here.
There are two chances here; one is slim and the other is fat!!

BartSimpson wrote:

What is the infatuation with the Concorde? The plane is long gone. Nothing is going to bring it back. Dreaming to restore it might very well be one of those mysteries that is never solved. Spending more money is not going to change things.

I plead to all my fellow A.Netters. Please do not allow this blasphemy of our beloved Concorde to cloud your judgement of BartSimpson. Please do not chase him so far over the hills of damnation that the Lord himself cannot find him with his best telescope, nor curse him so that the fleas of a thousand camels infest his armpits. May not all his teeth fall out but one, and in that one he should not have raging toothache.

We can learn to forgive him, even if we cannot forget.

A380MSN004 wrote:

cpd wrote:

What plane do they own that could even be returned to service?

Surely not F-BTSD which has already been through one of these sagas.

If they really want to do something, spend the money to rebuild a flight simulator to full working order with motion platform and operate it as a tourist attraction then train up people to property operate it before all the existing knowledge goes away.

Apparently the BA one at Barbados.

Didn't it have a structure collapse on it once? Although it hasn't had wings taken off it or anything else like that, has it had any regular checks and work done on it?

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, but I can't really see it happening. Probably going to be more like F-BTSD and G-BOAC. From memory British Airways still owns all of their planes, so that is a huge barrier.

OA940 wrote:

ap305 wrote:

I cannot believe I am( a big concorde fan) saying this- 120 million will pay for a few more searches for MH370... Just a thought that struck me after reading the title.

I'd absolutely adore to see the Concorde fly again, but tbh I'd rather see that money go to MH370 searches too. With new theories and stuff flying around ever since 60 minutes the families must be feeling awful. They deserve closure. Not trying to derail the topic or anything.

But as others have said it won't be enough.

Paul Allen also has a Northrop F5B and an Alpha Jet. Both are flown regularly from KBFI. The field support comes from the seller in this case, which in turn are both US based companies.

PlymSpotter wrote:

If they have 120 million, let them try.

For me the biggest question is whether there is still a sufficient market for Concorde pleasure flights, at the kind of price point which makes an operation commercially viable.

Well, getting Concorde moving on the ground (taxi), under its own power, would be a crazy expensive task 1.0
Getting it capable to become airborne, would be parabolically more expensive task 2.0
Getting it airborne legally would be yet unthinkably more expensive task 2.9

All of the above -- incredibly expensive, based on non-existent spare parts stock, unavailable OEM support and incredibly skeptical support staff (who actually, in general, seem highly doubtful about possibility of even getting the whole thing started; the outcome is dubious beyond belief). Legally, all of this would be in that netherworld of "experimental" or "historical" aircraft operation, with limitations left, right and center.

Now, carrying paying passengers, is a totally different story, and you'd probably have to certify the plane as an airliner. All the previous expenses suddenly are dwarfed by the bills you have to swallow (with no guarantee the certification would be even granted, in the end).
So, no, commercially all of this is beyond possible.

There's a nice documentary on Netflix about the last flight of the last flyable Avro Vulcan.
It explains well (ish) how much effort is needed to keep such a bird in the air.

Sorry if someone has mentioned it already, but I'm under the impression that even with an endless money pit it would still be impossible to return a Concorde to the air.

I'm sure an a.net member who is an ex BA Concorde maintenance engineer has stated a few times over the last few years that the aircraft were decommissioned in a way that renders it impossible be reactivated.