http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/4114309.stm

It's a nice idea but I thnk they left it a little late. I also wonder if they realise how much it would cost. Not only to keep it in the air but also things like hangarage, maintenance & a base with a long enough runway to operate it from. Has anyone given a thought to where would they get the spares from to just keep it going? Personally, I would rather see the Vulcan fly again. It was the biggest attraction at any air display for years & I always thought a way should have been found to keep one example flying. I could be wrong but I don't remember that being raised in parliament.

PS. Considering all the stupid things they waste the money on I wouldn't object to a lottery grant for Concorde providing it doesn't interfere with the Vulcan project.

PPS. Wasn't there some talk of disbanding the Red Arrows as they're considered too expensive? Let's get our priorities right.

I've actually met that guy, Lembit Opik. He's a strange sort of character and when he puts his mind to something, he does well from it.

But Concorde just proved too expensive and unprofitable to run, and the costs involved with just running it at airshows would be sky-high. I believe the next SST we see in the skies will be a brand new plane, not Concorde.

It wont happen, none of the concordes have their COA's and which concorde should be restored? all have been given to museums so askking for them back really isnt an option. the only one left is the Terminal 5 centre piece which i doubt BA will give up. People need to accept, that even with the millions in backing it will need, theres still a snowballs chance in hell of it returning. As much as i want to see it fly again, i realistically know it wont happen

Well firstly, that 30 year old design was actually 40 years ahead of its time, along with numerous systems onboard, that are only just being introduced into modern airliners. Secondly there is nothing a new supersonic plane could do that would be any better. The simple fact is, supersonic travel is too noisey and expensive to be viable. No modern engine is going to change that right now. Give it a few years and someone will get it.

Quote:

So what your saying here is that the concorde is more modern than say, the a380 or 777.

That's not right, the concordes design would have been very modern at the time and still is, but it's still a 30 year old design, there are flaws in there that designers could fix and an engine could be made. It would cost millions of dollars, but it's possible.

Could concorde fly over land? I think not

The whole thing about Concorde is that it was an international project funded by two governments. Neither government wanted to admit failure or be the first to give in. The development costs far exceeded the wildest estimates & many people would have liked to see it abandoned. In the end this would have been more expensive than completing it. This was the only reason that Concorde finally succeeded. It never reached its true potential as the only airlines to operate it were the national carriers of the countries involved, both heavily subsidised. It was further thwarted by being banned from airports all over the world & even from flying over some countries. Noise was given as the excuse but there's no doubt in my mind that this was mainly for political motives.

The situation is very different now & I doubt very much that any government would dare suggest funding a similar project. I think it would be far too costly (& risky) for any company or group of companies to consider seriously.