MP Wants Concorde to Fly Again ....
Discussion
Not often I support a Lib Dem but .....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/4114309.stm
Flying MP backs Concorde take-off
Campaigners want to see Concorde take to the skies again . A Welsh MP has launched a parliamentary campaign to save Concorde. Liberal Democrat MP Lembit Öpik, who holds a pilot's licence himself, is urging the UK Government to talk to aircraft and engine manufacturers and airlines.
He wants them to restore the supersonic plane to flying condition by 2007.
The Montgomeryshire MP has tabled an early day motion at Westminster hailing the formation of the Save Concorde Group.
Concorde made its last commercial flight in October 2003, ending 30 years of supersonic travel for British Airways and Air France passengers.
There were seven of the aircraft in the BA fleet, and most have now become museum exhibits.
Mr Öpik, the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats, said the goal of the Save Concorde Group was quite simple.
"Our objective is to get a Concorde back in the air by 21 January 2007 - exactly 31 years after the first commercial flight," said the MP.
The goal was not to restart a scheduled service he said, but to get one of the icon aircraft in use for air displaying at air shows and for research.
"We still have Lancasters from World War II flying. It can't be beyond the wit of engineers to get Concorde flying again.
British Aerospace, which is making the wings for the new Airbus super jumbo at its plant in Broughton in Deeside, and Rolls Royce are among those who would be asked for their help, added the MP.
"It's not my sole priority in politics, but I think I can find time to back this unique cause," said Mr Öpik.
A keen follower of air pursuits, the MP has held a pilot's licence for 16 years and used to paraglide before an accident in 1998 left him seriously injured.
He has flown twice on Concorde, and says he would like to do so again.
The parliamentary campaign was now "taking off" but it would take a little while before it went "supersonic", he said.
"Wouldn't it be great to see that absolutely fabulous delta wing in the air again?"
Ben Lord of the Save Concorde Group said about 10-12 MPs had declared their support, and he hoped Airbus could be persuaded to talk to supporters.
Mr Lord said Concorde was the "people's plane", funded by taxpayers, and the public deserved to see the figures on how much it would cost to retain it.
In October, a 20,000 signature petition gathered by the Save Concorde Group was handed in at Downing Street and to Airbus, who maintained the aircraft at Filton, in Bristol.
Design tycoon Sir Terence Conran and singer Phil Collins are among supporters of the group
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/4114309.stm
Flying MP backs Concorde take-off
Campaigners want to see Concorde take to the skies again . A Welsh MP has launched a parliamentary campaign to save Concorde. Liberal Democrat MP Lembit Öpik, who holds a pilot's licence himself, is urging the UK Government to talk to aircraft and engine manufacturers and airlines.
He wants them to restore the supersonic plane to flying condition by 2007.
The Montgomeryshire MP has tabled an early day motion at Westminster hailing the formation of the Save Concorde Group.
Concorde made its last commercial flight in October 2003, ending 30 years of supersonic travel for British Airways and Air France passengers.
There were seven of the aircraft in the BA fleet, and most have now become museum exhibits.
Mr Öpik, the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats, said the goal of the Save Concorde Group was quite simple.
"Our objective is to get a Concorde back in the air by 21 January 2007 - exactly 31 years after the first commercial flight," said the MP.
The goal was not to restart a scheduled service he said, but to get one of the icon aircraft in use for air displaying at air shows and for research.
"We still have Lancasters from World War II flying. It can't be beyond the wit of engineers to get Concorde flying again.
British Aerospace, which is making the wings for the new Airbus super jumbo at its plant in Broughton in Deeside, and Rolls Royce are among those who would be asked for their help, added the MP.
"It's not my sole priority in politics, but I think I can find time to back this unique cause," said Mr Öpik.
A keen follower of air pursuits, the MP has held a pilot's licence for 16 years and used to paraglide before an accident in 1998 left him seriously injured.
He has flown twice on Concorde, and says he would like to do so again.
The parliamentary campaign was now "taking off" but it would take a little while before it went "supersonic", he said.
"Wouldn't it be great to see that absolutely fabulous delta wing in the air again?"
Ben Lord of the Save Concorde Group said about 10-12 MPs had declared their support, and he hoped Airbus could be persuaded to talk to supporters.
Mr Lord said Concorde was the "people's plane", funded by taxpayers, and the public deserved to see the figures on how much it would cost to retain it.
In October, a 20,000 signature petition gathered by the Save Concorde Group was handed in at Downing Street and to Airbus, who maintained the aircraft at Filton, in Bristol.
Design tycoon Sir Terence Conran and singer Phil Collins are among supporters of the group
Lembit is the only MP I really admire these days - although I think he's barking up the wrong tree on this occasion.
He is originally from Northen Ireland and his dad was a well known astronomer in Irish circles - being a leading light in the study of asteroids and comets. That's why Lembit has been one of the MPs backing a proper survellance of the Solar System for rogue, potentially dangerous, Earth orbit crossing lumps of rock.
He always gives a good account for himself when engaged in public debate and he's the long term partner of Sian Lloyd as well!
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 22 December 09:38
He is originally from Northen Ireland and his dad was a well known astronomer in Irish circles - being a leading light in the study of asteroids and comets. That's why Lembit has been one of the MPs backing a proper survellance of the Solar System for rogue, potentially dangerous, Earth orbit crossing lumps of rock.
He always gives a good account for himself when engaged in public debate and he's the long term partner of Sian Lloyd as well!
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 22 December 09:38
Yertis - not that funny really 
.
In actual fact, his dad, Ernst Opik, WAS an asylum seeker. He fled Estonia in the 1930s due to the iminent inavsion of his country by the Soviet Union. He initially fled to Germany (not a smart move) but eventually took up a professional position at the Armagh Observatory in Northern Ireland. He died in 1985.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 22 December 11:46
. In actual fact, his dad, Ernst Opik, WAS an asylum seeker. He fled Estonia in the 1930s due to the iminent inavsion of his country by the Soviet Union. He initially fled to Germany (not a smart move) but eventually took up a professional position at the Armagh Observatory in Northern Ireland. He died in 1985.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 22 December 11:46
Well whatever. I still think he's wasting his time to try and get Concorde flying again. More important issues quite frankly, quite apart from the technical aspeccts - and how does celebrating Concorde (hardly the most environmentally friendly machine) sit alongside the Lib-Dems avowedly green political stance?
This was discussed extensively a few months ago.
For a Concorde to fly again, it would need to be re-certified by the CAA. One of the reasons they were withdrawn was because re-certification was becoming necessary and it was decided not to go ahead on cost grounds. Airbus Industrie, the ONLY organisation with the authority (or expertise) to maintain Concorde has categorically stated that it WILL NOT be providing any technical support for the aircraft. If they are not going to do it, no one else can.
End of story.
For a Concorde to fly again, it would need to be re-certified by the CAA. One of the reasons they were withdrawn was because re-certification was becoming necessary and it was decided not to go ahead on cost grounds. Airbus Industrie, the ONLY organisation with the authority (or expertise) to maintain Concorde has categorically stated that it WILL NOT be providing any technical support for the aircraft. If they are not going to do it, no one else can.
End of story.
Gone to Jurassic Park to join the other noisy and thirsty old dinosaurs such as SRN4 cross-channel hovercraft www.jameshovercraft.co.uk/frames/index.htm
It's a one way trip to the Park....
It's a one way trip to the Park....
Eric Mc said:
Airbus Industrie, the ONLY organisation with the authority (or expertise) to maintain Concorde has categorically stated that it WILL NOT be providing any technical support for the aircraft. If they are not going to do it, no one else can.
End of story.
Which is balderdash really, isn't it.
Any mechanical thing can be maintained by anyone with sufficient understanding of the principles of it, and although the big C was high-tech in the 60s, it's fairly mundane now.
So it comes down to money. Without sufficient likely income from a project, no organisation is going to bother putting together a suitably-competent team and hassling the relevant bodies to keep it going.
High tech of the 60s is still way too high tech for a bunch of enthusiasts to maintain today. If you look at the jet warbird scene - you will see quite a few 50s jets still flying (MiG-15, F-86 Sabre, Hawker Hunter, Lockheed T-33) but vitually none from the 60s (McDonnell F-4 Phantom, General Dynamics F-111, English Electric Lightning, McDonnell F-101 Voodoo, Convair F-102 Delta Dart). These beasts need a complex infrastructure of spares backup and qualified individuals to keep them airborne. With the odd exception, none of these planes will ever fly outside of their original military context.
And the same goes for Concorde. She is not a simple aeroplane by any stretch of the imagination, even by today's standards. She has some unique attributes that no one untrained on Concorde would have any experience of, even if they worked on the latest digital fly-by-wire Airbuses.
She has a fuel system which can be pumped around the airframe to maintain trim at transonic and supersonic speeds.
She has computer controlled (analogue - of course) variable geometry engine inlet ramps - unheard of on any other airliner - and rare even in miliary aircraft.
She has afterburning turbojets.
The droop nose system only ever appeared on a handful of other aircraft.
And the same goes for Concorde. She is not a simple aeroplane by any stretch of the imagination, even by today's standards. She has some unique attributes that no one untrained on Concorde would have any experience of, even if they worked on the latest digital fly-by-wire Airbuses.
She has a fuel system which can be pumped around the airframe to maintain trim at transonic and supersonic speeds.
She has computer controlled (analogue - of course) variable geometry engine inlet ramps - unheard of on any other airliner - and rare even in miliary aircraft.
She has afterburning turbojets.
The droop nose system only ever appeared on a handful of other aircraft.
Eric Mc said:
High tech of the 60s is still way too high tech for a bunch of enthusiasts to maintain today. If you look at the jet warbird scene - you will see quite a few 50s jets still flying (MiG-15, F-86 Sabre, Hawker Hunter, Lockheed T-33) but vitually none from the 60s (McDonnell F-4 Phantom, General Dynamics F-111, English Electric Lightning, McDonnell F-101 Voodoo, Convair F-102 Delta Dart). These beasts need a complex infrastructure of spares backup and qualified individuals to keep them airborne. With the odd exception, none of these planes will ever fly outside of their original military context.
And the same goes for Concorde. She is not a simple aeroplane by any stretch of the imagination, even by today's standards. She has some unique attributes that no one untrained on Concorde would have any experience of, even if they worked on the latest digital fly-by-wire Airbuses.
She has a fuel system which can be pumped around the airframe to maintain trim at transonic and supersonic speeds.
She has computer controlled (analogue - of course) variable geometry engine inlet ramps - unheard of on any other airliner - and rare even in miliary aircraft.
She has afterburning turbojets.
The droop nose system only ever appeared on a handful of other aircraft.
Yeah, difficult for ENTHUSIASTS to maintain, but not a profitable company. That's the point: if it can't make money, bin it. Wonder if you could set the plane up as a charity, then set up a company that donates lots to charity.... could you claw it back from taxes?
wedgie - cloud cuckoo land I'm afraid. The aircraft are still OWNED by BA and have been technically LOANED to the various museums where they now rest (I'm not sure about the legal position of the Air France planes).
If another business was to fly even ONE of the flyable survivors (I'm not sure how many of them could be returned to the air - some were chopped about to ease transportation to the various museums), they would have to do so either with BA's permission (not likely) are actually BUY it from BA. BA have flatly refused to sell any of these aircraft.
Even if someone COULD buy one of these planes, they would probably NEVER be able to make them profitable to operate. Don't forget, BA were only ever able to claim that they could fly Concordes profitably because they were allowed to buy their fleet for the princely sum of £1. The true cost would have been closer to £500 million. Air France never even bothered pretending that the planes were profitable.
So, the idea that flying Concorde to raise money for charity is nonsense. The company would be hard pushed trying to raise enough money to keep the plane going. As for tax, businesses pay tax when they make profits. I could safely predict that any business operation trying to make money purely out of flying a single Concorde woulkd NEVER make a profit and therefore NEVER have to worry about paying tax,
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 22 December 18:49
If another business was to fly even ONE of the flyable survivors (I'm not sure how many of them could be returned to the air - some were chopped about to ease transportation to the various museums), they would have to do so either with BA's permission (not likely) are actually BUY it from BA. BA have flatly refused to sell any of these aircraft.
Even if someone COULD buy one of these planes, they would probably NEVER be able to make them profitable to operate. Don't forget, BA were only ever able to claim that they could fly Concordes profitably because they were allowed to buy their fleet for the princely sum of £1. The true cost would have been closer to £500 million. Air France never even bothered pretending that the planes were profitable.
So, the idea that flying Concorde to raise money for charity is nonsense. The company would be hard pushed trying to raise enough money to keep the plane going. As for tax, businesses pay tax when they make profits. I could safely predict that any business operation trying to make money purely out of flying a single Concorde woulkd NEVER make a profit and therefore NEVER have to worry about paying tax,
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 22 December 18:49
Eric.... no... I meant that if any company could claw tax back from charitable donations, they could do so by donating to a Concorde 'charity' (thinly disguised plot I admit 
)
I know about BA not selling them etc... just shooting the sh!t really. It is a great shame, but so was the scrapping of the (RMS) Olympic, in hindsight...
) I know about BA not selling them etc... just shooting the sh!t really. It is a great shame, but so was the scrapping of the (RMS) Olympic, in hindsight...
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff