Branson's £1m for Concorde to fly again

Sir Richard Branson is supporting an ambitious project to return Concorde to the skies.
A group founded by former pilots and executives involved with the supersonic plane has identified one which they claim could fly again within three years.

If they succeed in buying it, Sir Richard will give £1million to the £10-£15million scheme.

The plan is the brainchild of Club Concorde, whose board members worked on the plane, which last flew in 2003 after 34 years of service.

Ben Lord of "Save Concorde", a partner in the project, said: "We have the backing of 30,000 supporters and are in talks with major investors.

"We have earmarked a Concorde which is at the French Air and Space Museum near Paris. It's just French bureaucracy that stands in our way."

A spokesman for Sir Richard's Virgin group said: "His desire for Concorde to fly again is well-known. He is passionate about it."

The spokesman added that getting Concorde in the air again may be 'unrealistic' because so much time had passed.

But Club Concorde president Jock Lowe said: "We have the high-level political and financial contacts whose combined strength will ensure the return of at least one Concorde to the air within three years."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... _a_source=

Give it up, Branson.

it will take a lot of time, money, and effort to bring it back

...so the "green-friendly" Sir Richard now wants to bring back an aircraft who although is arguably the best aircraft of our lifetime, is anything BUT green. Huge gas-guzzler, not of noise and smoke pollution...it's really amazing how, the keeping your name in the headlines sways your values.

how would they manage that? would they take the airplanes away from the musuems curretnly displaying them?

Hey, I am game for it. Lets see the concorde fly again.

I would love to see the Concorde fly again,

But this really does show how much of a hypocrite Branson is.

Branson admitts it though. He likes publicity and aviation and he does not give a shiz what anyone says because he is doing what he wants anyway.

The Concorde's time has come and gone. There's allot of things in history that we'd love to see resurrected but its called history for a reason.

It was a technological marvel and ahead of its time. It was good while it lasted, but I don't think it should be revived. While I'd love to see it again, flying it now for nostalgic reasons would be like starting up Apollo again.

Which would also be very cool :shock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

The Concorde's time has come and gone. There's allot of things in history that we'd love to see resurrected but its called history for a reason.

---

Like TWA, right ? :lol:

(ouch, just kidding;)


Seriously, I look at it two ways. We went through the time and effort to literally resurrect a warbird up in the ice, (was it Greenland, I forget) through pure fasication and love of the subject. Remember the bird I'm talking about? It fell away as part of a mission and froze up in a sheet of ice?

So why not put forth the same effort towards what was truly a one-off in aviation? Why, for the first time in history, are we making a backwards jump in technology (slower time in getting there)?

On the flip side, it's not green, but if we're talking green, let's all park our cars and ride a bike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uplander

It was a technological marvel and ahead of its time. It was good while it lasted, but I don't think it should be revived. While I'd love to see it again, flying it now for nostalgic reasons would be like starting up Apollo again.

---

Not really. The difference here is that better things have come since Apollo. Space travel still exists.

Why do we save Connies and let them fly around or spend the moolah to restore them is what I ask now. In my opinion if we can make connies fly why not put one or two concordes on the airshow circut or the special charter market?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mirrodie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

The Concorde's time has come and gone. There's allot of things in history that we'd love to see resurrected but its called history for a reason.

---

Like TWA, right ? :lol:

(ouch, just kidding;)


Seriously, I look at it two ways. We went through the time and effort to literally resurrect a warbird up in the ice, (was it Greenland, I forget) through pure fasication and love of the subject. Remember the bird I'm talking about? It fell away as part of a mission and froze up in a sheet of ice?

So why not put forth the same effort towards what was truly a one-off in aviation? Why, for the first time in history, are we making a backwards jump in technology (slower time in getting there)?

On the flip side, it's not green, but if we're talking green, let's all park our cars and ride a bike.

---

Yep TWA is history and while I'd love to see those birds again I'd hate to see it come back on the side of a box car like today's **** shop version of PanAm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hiss srq

Why do we save Connies and let them fly around or spend the moolah to restore them is what I ask now. In my opinion if we can make connies fly why not put one or two concordes on the airshow circut or the special charter market?

---

The technology behind a Connie is a hell of alot different compared to a Concord. There are alot of old warbirds still flying because that technology is a little "simpler" to restore, rebuild and maintain. Jets, on the other hand, are much more complicated and expensive to rebuild and maintain, not to mention a rare supersonic one, where it must be impossible to find spare parts too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mirrodie

Seriously, I look at it two ways. We went through the time and effort to literally resurrect a warbird up in the ice, (was it Greenland, I forget) through pure fasication and love of the subject. Remember the bird I'm talking about? It fell away as part of a mission and froze up in a sheet of ice?

---

Glacier Girl, a P-38 Lightning. It's going on tour this year across the globe with a P-51 flown by Ed Shipley. Check out ASB, they have alot of info on it. Dale Snodgrass wants to have a F-14 demo also, but as with Concorde, I'll beleive it when I see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrummanFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hiss srq

Why do we save Connies and let them fly around or spend the moolah to restore them is what I ask now. In my opinion if we can make connies fly why not put one or two concordes on the airshow circut or the special charter market?

---

The technology behind a Connie is a hell of alot different compared to a Concord. There are alot of old warbirds still flying because that technology is a little "simpler" to restore, rebuild and maintain. Jets, on the other hand, are much more complicated and expensive to rebuild and maintain, not to mention a rare supersonic one, where it must be impossible to find spare parts too.

---

First, it's Concorde.

Second, some truth there but not completely. There are at elast enough spares to re-build G-BBDG in Brooklands. And a whole host of support staff from BA that are willing to undertake the task.

I forget the specific $$ amount but It would cost well over $1 million to keep one Concorde flying for airshows and things of the sort.

But there is a Vulcan flying around just as well. Same basic powerplants at Concorde.