Posts about: "British Airways" [Posts: 194 Page: 5 of 10]¶

Welcome back Landlady

Here's a question for you - how often did they surprise shuttle pax with Concorde as a replacement?

...and for the rest of you, roughly how much in terms of fuel would a shuttle flight in Concorde cost BA versus say a B737 or A320?

(i.e. it was obviously done for PR sakes as much as anything, but was it really costly?)

NW1 and ChristiaanJ
Ahh yes, the super hi-tech 'HUD'. It was right up there with the 'eye level datum' indicator and not to forget, the reheat capabiliy indicator in terms of sophistication. (Extremely reliable though ).
As far as 3 engined ferries went; well NW1, not sure if you'd call me seasoned or just just clapped out and wrinkly, but it did happen a very few times in days of yore, mostly from SNN back to LHR. There were at least two; OAF in 1980 when she had the infamous LP1 blade fail (and Monty Burton's immortal words during the 'event' "what *** ing drill?). The second one that I can remember was OAA in 1991 when there was another far less serious compressor blade failure. In each case for the ferry flight, the broken engine was 'swaged' to prevent it windmilling and the aircraft would be flown back to the LHR garage by a management crew. There was however another required ferry measure as well as the engine swaging, this measure was to prevent the good engines going into contingency, due to the very slightly flamed out dead 'donk'. This procedure required the Engine Speed Unit to be removed from the electronics rack and a special jumper plug fitted in it's place (without the jumper fitted the start switch would never latch in. In this case also the E/O would also need to manually disengage the start switch at 25% N2). I have to admit that I never in my life ever saw this jumper plug, and in the cases that I can remember the aircraft departed SNN with the three engines at contingency. I remember that the case of OAA back in '91 most certainly was; I was flown out to SNN equiped with a pile of circuit diagrams and test boxes to investigate what we all thought was just a surge related engine shutdown. only to find a slightly more hairy state of afairs, with a very broken engine indeed. As a matter of interest, this particular failure was the only one ever in the history of Concorde in BA attributed to the engine having run for a protracted time in rotating stall. (This had happened on the previous day). A lot was learned by both BA and Rolls Royce after this event, and this failure never occured again.

Dude

Cron
Sounds like the helicopter engineer's guess was right, they'd be the static wick mountings.
Feathers McGraw
Yes there was, that was the problem alright Feathers. I'd only heard an engine stuck in rotating stall during startup once; even on the flight deck it sounded like a tom cat with his gonads trapped in a vice, and we shut the thing down straight away. (The engine, not the tom cat ).
It was mainly a case of increased vigilance during engine start; it was always noticable to see rotating stall clearance on startup as the N2 went past normal idle and then rolled back. As far as modifications go, I'd designed a modification to detect and alert the crew if rotating stall had not been cleared on startup, but it was felt to be too costly and complex, when increased vigilance by all could prevent the nasty event happening in the first place. (I suppose only one BA occurence in 27 years is not so bad, and if the automatics did their job you had no problem anyway). But now at least EVERYBODY was aware of the malignant consequences of not clearing rotating stall on startup; it was no longer just a phrase that we all learned in training, but scary reality.

Dude

All due respect but this is the CONCORDE thread and it would be really nice if it could stay as such. If you wish to debate wing technology of other aeroplanes then please I would suggest a new thread be started on that subject. I daresay it would also make for an interesting discussion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LandLady said in a post many moons ago that there was a pool of some 240 "Concorde Ambassadors" (sorry but CC and FAs don't sound right for this aeroplane) for Her. What was the numbers of Captains, First Officers and the all important Flight Engineers (sucking up to M2 with that one )

Does anyone know how long did it take to fly from NZ (AKL if I remember correctly) to SYD (very early 90s I think). It is about the same distance at John O Groats to Lands End so I am guessing the 20 to 25 minute mark and how did the 2mt piece of rudder parting company with the fuselage at Mach 2.04 over the Tasman Sea affect or effect the handling characteristics? I remember the papers saying it was hardly a noticable event but I suspect the BA publicity department had a hand with that information.

I looked at the photos posted by a thoughtful member in an earlier post and wonder how former crew felt looking at them. The photos give the impression that you could kick the tyres and light the fires and they would be once again gracing the skies. Obviously they are unairworthy BUT the photos project a different image.

Final one for this post. If She was still flying, do you still think that BA (sorry but going to ignore AF on this one) would have sufficient patronage to keep Her as a going and profitable concern?

I would say that the SR-71, and the Tu-144, are in a way honorary members of the Concorde family, so I don't mind if they fly into the discussion every now and then.

The full list of names (up to 2002) for both BA and AF can be found in "The Concorde Story" by Chris Orlebar. For BA, a quick count shows about 170 names. That book also mentions, that the maximum number of crews qualified at any one time was 28, in 1980, and that the average was about 20 crews.

Photos can lie.... or rather, they are rarely close-up enough to show clearly where corrosion has set in.

As an example, F-BVFC at Toulouse, which was the last one to remain at least taxyable, now has some patches of corrosion starting to show, when you know where to look. Not to mention the nasty smell of damp and mould in the cockpit which bodes no good for what's going on underneath the floor.

And even F-BTSD, kept "live" to some extent at Le Bourget, leaks some hydraulic fluid (like all Concordes did on the ground), so it's easy to imagine the dried-out hydraulic and fuel seals on the other museum aircraft.




And yes, that's kitty litter...
The composite material of the floor and the hydraulic fluid don't agree too well.

I'll leave M2dude to answer that one.

CJ

Have a quick look here:
Concorde FAQ
(Scroll down to "How much does a Concorde cost?" and "Did Concorde make a profit for the airlines?".)
IIRC, break-even was slightly over 100 airframes.

You are making the usual mistake of confusing development costs and operating costs.

The development costs were covered by the governments, so it that respect, yes, Concorde was a commercial disaster. Even so, the Concorde project paid for much of the groundwork of what was later to become the European Airbus consortium, so it certainly wasn't all wasted money.

BA and AF bought their first aircraft, much like all those other airlines that chickened out would have done.
Maybe they got a bit of a discount as launch customers, but they certainly paid for them!
BA and AF were never expected to pay for the development costs... you could say that was not their problem!

BA's operations were in the beginning subsidised, until they "bought out" the government, and revised their cost and pricing structure.
After that, overall, the BA Concorde operation was profitable until the end. Maybe the bottom line of the operation wasn't huge, but it was certainly positive and no myth.

AF's operations, for various reasons, were less of a success story....

CJ

Sorry.
The way your question was formulated didn't make that clear to me.

Exactly.
For the governments and the manufacturers, there was never even a mention of "profits", was there?
The only serious mention of "profits" has always been the BA operation, and they were just one of the 'buyers'.
Even if in the end they acquired two more aircraft (three if you count DG) for relatively nothing, when you start looking at the operating costs over the 27 years, those totally dwarf the initial acquisition costs.

I would really have to do a 'back-of-the-envelope' calculation to extract a break-even quantity from the limited data in the link I posted earlier.
Also, Concorde #17 would already have been a prototype "B" Concorde"... how much of that is included in the development cost figure?
With only 16 production aircraft, we were only just on the start of the "learning curve"... how exactly that would have evolved compared to other aircraft is anybody's guess.
Although, there was a trend already, since the last Concordes off the production line were already a ton lighter than the first ones.

But the original figures, at various stages, for the break-even point were in the order of 100 to 150 airframes, IIRC.

Unquantifiable in money terms, yes.
In terms of years lost, maybe not entirely.
I'll have to look up all the dates. But if Concorde had been "nipped in the bud", I would guess we would have lost ten years of experience in cooperation in development and manufacture.

In a roundabout way, look at the cancellation of the Boeing 2707 SST in 1971.
The figures at the time showed that the US had spent almost exactly the same amount on SST development as had been spent for Concorde at the same time.
For that, Boeing had a hangar-full of design drawings, a couple of nice-looking wooden mock-ups, and a few test articles for the swing-wing.
At the same date, we already had two prototypes and a pre-prod aircraft flying, and the production line getting under way.

What did we gain? Only a few Concordes, but also a European aircraft industry capable of meeting Boeing on its own terms.

What did Boeing gain? Some swing-wing design experience for the B1.. and even that wasn't much use... look at the B1-B.

CJ

Biggles78
oooo that's a hard one to answer. The financial crisis that we are (I hope) clambering out of would almost certainly have impacted in a big way the load factors on the aeroplane. This almost certainly would have resulted in at least a severe curtailment in the operating schedule, but quite possibly now she would be absolutely THRIVING in the recovering world airline business. To answer your question fully, I think that there would at least NOW have been the willing and ability within the airline to keep her going in a big way, but there would be major expense over the last and next few years. The FAA SFAR88 directive would have already resulted in a major review of all fuel tank wiring and components. (However this appplies to any aircraft, ageing ones in particular). EGPWS would have been mandated by now, which means provision for at least one (probably two) GPS antennas. This upside of this would have meant the relative ease of incorporating a more accurate navigation system, the Litton LN93 system (Laser INS with GPS update) was already being looked at before retirement. A major structural modification to the fuselage crown area would certainly have been mandated under the FAA/EASA ageing aircraft programme, although the mods were pretty much drawn up before retirement (and would have been a permanent fix for the one chink in her supersonic armour). It is also probable that predictive windshear would have been activated. (The Bendix RDR4a had this capability but it was disabled in Concorde). I think that for PWS and RWS to operate correctly you'd need some sort of pilot display in any case.
Another seperate issue would be having sufficient 'O' licensed Engineering Officers in the airline; due to basic demographics there would be precious few left in the airline now. (My personal guess is that pilots would have to be trained as to qualify as P3's).
So although it would be far from easy to keep her going, if she was earning sufficient current and potential revenues, then I'd say yep!! (But this is just my humble opinion of course).

Dude

Nick Thomas
Hi again Nick, I totally agree that anyone suggesting tha Concorde was a 'terrible waste' is either totally mis-informed or naive; either way they are totally wrong anyway. The Airbus spinoffs as well as the know how gained on both sides of the English Puddle were immense. What she brought to BA as a brand of course is a totally different matter; for BA she was just the best thing since sliced bread.
As far as another SST, well you never know. I maintain that in aviation you can never say 'never', but far more likely than an SST as such is a hypersonic sub-orbital machine such as the Reaction Engines Lapcat. In any case such a venture will require immense financial investment as well as HUGE political balls to have any sort of chance of becoming anything more than a paper aeroplane. More conventional SST designs are around both in Europe and Japan, perhaps a trans-continental venture is the answer here?

ChristiaanJ
I'm with you on the business jet angle, it's such a quick and convenient way of getting from city centre to city centre. And as for the SSBJ, it did sound promising didn't it, that would have been the ultimate business travel tool. (Shall you and I design a 'mini-conc') ?
Regards to all

Dude

Can I just throw a comment in ?

In about 1992/1993 [not sure of the date now] I was lucky enough to exchange my JED->LHR BA Economy ticket for a Concorde Ticket for 400 notes.

All I can really remember about the flight is the noise, acceleration and comfort [not to mention the stunningly good on-board service Landlady]. I got a quick cockpit visit and have a treasured photo of me crouching between the pilots.

I know it's a long shot but did anyone here crew on one of the flights to Jeddah ?

Oh, I forgot the "two shoves in the back" presumably from inboard/outboard application of reheat to go through the sound barrier.

Thanks for a wonderfully informative thread - it's so heartening to see so many people who haven't forgotten this aircraft.

Hi M2 Dude

Thanks very very much for your long reply and good explanation.

- So once we select the Engine schedule to mode Hi or F/O the Prim nozzle will
open wider causing the pressure at the Prim nozzle to drop and hence the
higher flow of the exhaust through the LP turbine = Higher N1 RPM.
Am I understand it correctly?

- According to your reply, the E schedule that will provide the most thrust is
the Low mode since the prim nozzle area will be the smallest among all of the
other mode which mean the highest pressure and temperature.
Am I understand it correctly? And if so why do BA [as far as I know] told the FE
to use Hi mode? Because the higher thrust can be obtain with higher N1?

- Also does the the Hi mode can deliver the higher N1 RPM, does that mean
the Engine control unit must deliver the higher fuelflow rate in order to keep
N2 run at the constant speed [higher N1 speed => higher pressure => more resistance
=> higher Fuelflow require to keep N2 run at constant speed]

Thanks for all of your reply!

Best Regards

Vortex

Mr Vortex
More or less you are correct yes, but remember that schedule selection was more or less automatic. ( E Flyover was armed prior to take-off, and E-MID during approach by the E/O, otherwise it was more or less a 'hands off' afair).
Oooo no, we are way adrift here I'm afraid. I'm trying not to get too 'heavy' with this explanation, and I've enclosed below the Rolls-Royce E Shedule diagram to try and help clarify everything. (I've edited out the exact equation figures in deference to Rolls-Royce). Where N1/√θ and N2/√θ is quoted, the term ' θ ' related to T1 in degrees K/288 . (288 deg's K being 15 deg's C). The hotter things are the higher the spool speed scheduled is, and visa-versa for lower temperatures. Only at a T1 of 15 deg's. C (Standard day temperature) does N/√θ equate to N. (But remamber that T1 is TOTAL temperature, that varies with Mach Number).
The use of E LOW above 220KIAS was not only strictly inhibited by the automatics, if you over-rode the automatics and 'hard selected' E LOW , the aircraft would fall out of the sky when reheat was cancelled at Mach 1.7. This was because the low N1/√θ scheduled by E LOW would now invoke an N2/√θ limit (The E3 Limiter in the diagram) and claw off fuel flow by the tonne.
The most efficient schedule for supersonic cruise was E HI which again would be automatically selected.
E-MID was automatically selected during afterburning operation, to minimise the chance of an N1 overspeed on cancellation of reheat. E-MID could also be selected by the E/O for noise abatement approach.
E Flyover was as we discussed before used for take-off flyover noise abatement as well as subsonic cruise if desired. (If Mach 1 was exceeded with E Flyover still selected, a yellow NOZZLE light illuminated and E HI would be automatically selected.
I sincerely hope that this blurb is not clear as mud, feel free to ask away.
Nope, that is the beauty of it all. Because of the part choking of the LP turbine section of the engine, the pressure changes due to Aj variation were felt exclusively by N1 and not N2. (Clever, these Rolls-Royce guys ).
Regards

Dude

Landroger
It always was a bit of a paradox; in terms of fuel price and environmental concerns, Concorde was about 5 years too late. But in ELECTRONICS terms she was 10 years too early. Bearing in mind that the first Intel 4004 was not even commercially available until 1971. When the decision was taken in late 1970 to 're-design' the analog air intake control system into a digital one, there was nothing to fall back on; a BAC custom guided missile processor (used I believe on both the Rapier and Sea Dart SAMs) had to be adapted. This processor was, as I've yawned on about before, comprised of multiple double sided PCBs completely stacked with TTL ICs. In spite of being a total antique and a dinasore (just like me ) this thing was really cutting edge technology at the time, even using a 64 bit data word. The AICS as again I've yawned on about before, was the WORLD's first commercial airborne digital control sysstem, but the Concorde analog stuff in fact worked pretty well indeed.

Galaxy Flyer
As always GF you make your point really well. As far as Concorde went, the very few American (Branniff) pilots who flew her thought she was totally amazing, and the American BA engineers at JFK and IAD absolutely adored the aeroplane.
And back to your 'charriot', the C5 has been a staggeringly successful aeroplane in terms of US service. and is still thriving (big modernisation programme underway). Not bad for an aircraft that entered USAF service in 1969!!!
Regards

Dude

Cron

If you watch some of the more recent Concorde programmes, such as "Concorde's Last Flight", you'll hear and see the reaction of the various people (including our very own Dude) from the BA side of things as they talk about their charge. The AF crews also have that same look on their faces in the few programmes I've seen them in.

I think that Concorde was a running love affair for a lot of people, especially for those that flew her, looked after the passengers and maintained her but the effect of a Concorde pass on just about anyone was noticeable. Every head turned and looked skyward, and kept looking even after the aircraft was out of sight. People who lived below the regular flight paths, who might have been expected to be upset by the noise, used to come outside and watch on every occasion. I've seen almost a whole street appear a few minutes before a departing Concorde that passed over Reading and be rewarded with a great view in brilliant sunshine.

Not many aircraft have that kind of following....

Feathers,

"If you watch some of the more recent Concorde programmes, such as "Concorde's Last Flight", you'll hear and see the reaction of the various people (including our very own Dude) from the BA side of things as they talk about their charge. The AF crews also have that same look on their faces in the few programmes I've seen them in."

Is this a different show from the discovery programme - if so, is it available on DVD or is it 'streamable' somewhere ?

cheers,

d

Mr Vortex
Not quite; remember that the N1s and N2s in the E SCHEDULE graph are non-dimentional. ie. they vary with temperature. As the temperature rises (with increasing Mach Number) the scheduled spool speeds increase. What really happens (I did not explain it correctly first time) is that the much lower N1 demanded by the use of E LOW at high speed results in a much further closed primary nozzle than normal, pushing up TET (and EGT) and we run hard into the EGT limiter, which claws fuel flow off, to the extent that the ramps and spill doors come down to their preset limits, almost as if there is a flame-out. The net result is a huge reduction in thrust. The condi was formed as the primary nozzle naturally took up a near fully open position in supersonic cruise and the wide open secondary nozzle buckets completed the picture. The schedule used here was E HIGH. I've noticed a couple of errors on the graph, the main one being that E HIGH is used with reheat off but with Vc > 220 KIAS
Apart from being set as a variable limit, EGT normally played no role in the control loops (there were 2 loops, the 'governor' and 'positioner' loops). P7 played no part whatsoever in any case, the main variables were; N2, throttle valve position, throttle transmitter position, T1, total pressure and static temperature..

Feathers McGraw
Oh nooooo... I've been outed
Best regards

Dude

QUOTE]I'm wonder if all 4 Olympus 593 all died in flight and unable to restart. Is it
possible to be able to land at the nearest airport[/QUOTE]

As CristiaanJ says , it depends on how far the nearest airfield was away, but given that there was one close enough then yes in theory it was possible.

On Concorde there were two checklist to cater for a four engine failure that assumes the engine have flamed out but not seized thus the system can be fed by windmilling engines. The two drills are

4 ENGINE FAILURE ABOVE MACH 1.2

4 ENGINE FAILURE BELOW MACH 1.2

When above M1.2 the windmilling speed of the engines should keep the engine generators on line and you should have good hyd pressure also.
Therefore the main point of the drill at this speed is to try and relight the engines, by selecting relight on all 4 engines at the same time. You normally got the chance to go through 2 and some times 3 relight sequences before the speed dropped to Mach 1.2

At mach 1.2 with no engines then the windmilling speed is reaching a point where it is not sufficent to hold the generators on line so the drill concentrates on switching as much of the systems onto essential electrics which will be supplied by the hydraulically driven emergency generator.
To help support the yellow and green hyd system below M1.2 the ram air turbine is lowered. Engine relights will continue to be attempted but as you are on essential electrics now they can only be attempted individually.

If no relights and below 10,000ft then the c/list tells you to prepare the aircraft for landing by lowering nose/visor and gear by emergency systems with speed reduced now to 270 kts. To conserve hyd pressure being mainly derived now from the RAT for the flying controls the emerg gen is switched off during the approach and approch speed is 250 kts with min landing speed
of 200kts

During this all this descent the aircraft had to be flown and navigated, radio calls made along with PA and cabin briefing and all the normall descent checklist complied with so you can imagine it was quite a busy time

This drill used to be practised on the sim ,but the crew would normally find the engines started to relight before 10,000ft so as to give the crew confidence that the drill worked.

However after many years of operation there was some talk about doing away eith the drill as no one could envisage it ever happening. then the BA 747 lost all 4 engines in the volcanic ash cloud and all such talk stopped

Just some notes on the side.

With the lack of comm from Airbus, of course we don't know the details, but I would have thought the problem is essentially the under-floor insulation, the same that causes the musty smell in the Fox-Charlie cockpit. If so, I doubt they'd bother to strip the cabin.

This is nothing new.
For "Filton", read "Filton airfield and the Airbus site".
At present, the 'permanent home' is planned to be at Cribb's Causeway, where land is already available.
Since this is only just on the other side of Filton airfield, so far there is no question of breaking up the airframe, or road transport.

I doubt this.... The "pressures" from these bodies and people consist only of noises on internet forums and in the press. As long as BA (as the owner), Airbus (as the current 'guardian' and legacy manufacturer) and the CAA (as the regulatory body) say "NO", Airbus knows perfectly well it'll never happen, pressures or no pressures.

My own take is simply, that they're fed up with a Concorde on their site, that their early 'enthusiasts' who campaigned for 'A Concorde at Filton' have now left, and that it's now Airbus exerting pressure on the Concorde Trust and other bodies to provide that 'permanent home' they've been talking about for years.

To be exact, 18,257 hours and 5,639 supersonic cycles
As noted in another post, not the lowest, but a lot less than the 23,000+ hours of G-BOAD and G-BOAE.

In 2003, the issue with G-BOAF was that she was almost 'out of hours', with only a few hours left until the next big overhaul (an 'Inter', IIRC).
At the time, this was the reason why G-BOAF did not partake to the full extent in the flying during the last months, so as to have a few hours 'spare' for the last few flights, and of course the final flight.

Nowadays of course this is pretty irrelevant since any aircraft after seven years outside would need a 'Major' overhaul at the very least .
And that's another reason why Airbus wouldn't be bothered by those "pressures" mentioned earlier... they know perfectly well nobody is going to come up with the \xa3100M +++ to re-create the necessary infrastructure.

CJ

ChristiaanJ
With respect my friend that is utter codswallop. You can doubt things all you want, they've already said that they would remove it all; that by definition means all the cabin side-walls, galleys and roof panels, as well as the underfloor areas. When G-BBDG (202) was cocooned at Filton they did just that, and the only intact part of the interior left was the flight deck!!

Quote:

At present, the 'permanent home' is planned to be at Cribb's Causeway, where land is already available. Since this is only just on the other side of Filton airfield, so far there is no question of breaking up the airframe, or road transport.

Unfortunately, this lot have a habit of talking with forked tongue as far as Concorde goes; you can not in any way be sure about this, and we should really stop believing everything that this lot in Toulouse tell us . (Recent history here has taught us this all too well, and nothing would please scarebus more than there to be no reminders of Concorde at all on the airfield at Filton). More to the point, there is absolutely no certainty that the Cribb's Causeway site will ever be built anyway, you just can NOT say that the airframe will not ne broken up for road transportation, because if she does go to another museum in the absence of the Cribb's Causeway site being built, that will DEFINATELY happen. But at least we now have another 'written off' British Concorde; I guess this fact obviously pleases some people

Quote:

I doubt this.... The "pressures" from these bodies and people consist only of noises on internet forums and in the press. As long as BA (as the owner), Airbus (as the current 'guardian' and legacy manufacturer) and the CAA (as the regulatory body) say "NO", Airbus knows perfectly well it'll never happen, pressures or no pressures. My own take is simply, that they're fed up with a Concorde on their site, that their early 'enthusiasts' who campaigned for 'A Concorde at Filton' have now left, and that it's now Airbus exerting pressure on the Concorde Trust and other bodies to provide that 'permanent home' they've been talking about for years.

Total crap I'm afraid Christian. You can doubt it all you want; you're entitled to your opinions as we all are here. But the fact remains that there is a certain producer of airframes in Europe that has come out with nothing but lies and deceit with regard to Concorde, since early 2003, and it continues to do so to this day. (Guesses anyone?) You conveniently seem to forget that it was scarebus themselves who unilaterally closed the Concorde Filton exhibit...'for maintenace' .. YET ANOTHER TOTAL PACK OF LIES!!
And as far as responding to pressures; They could not give a flying about Concorde pressures, they JUST DO NOT WANT TO KNOW!! And yes they are fed up with Concorde.. poor dears. Perhaps OAF should never have gone to Filton in the first place; The continuing thought of Filton bending over backwards to please it's French masters makes one want to throw up. The basic fact remains that any British Concorde anywhere NEAR an Airbus plant is nothing more than an embarassment to them, and is fundimantally always in jeapordy.

Quote:

In 2003, the issue with G-BOAF was that she was almost 'out of hours', with only a few hours left until the next big overhaul (an 'Inter', IIRC). At the time, this was the reason why G-BOAF did not partake to the full extent in the flying during the last months, so as to have a few hours 'spare' for the last few flights, and of course the final flight.

Big deal, she needed a C Check. Unlike in France, a Concorde major (D check) here did not take over a year to complete, and an inter could be in and out of the shed in a couple of months. Oh, and the check was completed correctly and thoroughly.

Quote:

And that's another reason why Airbus wouldn't be bothered by those "pressures" mentioned earlier... they know perfectly well nobody is going to come up with the \xa3100M +++ to re-create the necessary infrastructure.

I tend to agree with the RTF point, the \xa3\xa3\xa3\xa3\xa3's involved are generally prohibitive and it will probably never happen, but you and I have been in aviation long enough to realise that nothing is impossible. (At least not this side of the Channel). All aircraft left outside in the elements are obviously going to suffer, and it is irony of ironies that the FRENCH aircraft are generally stored indoors in the dry and warm, where the British were ALL intitially stored outside, exposed to the elements. (Only OAC in Manchester and OAE in BGI are now finally cared for under cover, the poor old 'wing clipped' OAA in Edinburgh does not really count). This ridiculous fact is is a source of both wonder and ANGER in the minds of most Concorde people in the UK. (Makes me sick personally!!).

Dude

Thanks Dude for your clear answer.

Now am not sure if the following has been discussed earlier on this thread, so please accept my apologies if it has.

Dude in your answer you mentioned putting an overhauled engine onto the wing. Therefore how many engines were available to BA? I guess production of the engines stopped many years ago. Am I correct to assume that? and if so when was the last engine produced? How long normally would an engine be on Concorde before it would need servicing? Would it have been possible to keep on overhauling the engines? and if not would the lack of engines have resulted in the grounding of Concorde before grounding due to air frame considerations?
Regards
Nick