Concorde BOAC at Mancester(2006 Zombie) Update!

Brilliant!

G-BOAC is now under cover in her new home!
http://flickr.com/photos/31693696@N04/3191008759/

Firebird,

The AICUs controlled the inlet ramps…if you recall the initial test flights were done with out this system being activated..and IIRC speeds up to M1+ were possible with the inlet ramps fixed..

So whilst they are essential for M2+ flights and the best efficiency of all flights; they are not essential for flight per se and certainly not for ground runs….

I think originally they were going to remove the AICUs but in the eventuality they didnt bother. They are digital computers believe-it-or-not and more successful at their job than other efforts on other supersonic aircraft, but certainly several were sold through the Dovebid auctions as I know someone who bought a couple.

BA did nothing to ‘actively’ prevent reactivation.. such as altering or damaging any of the airframe or systems.

Didn’t they remove certain items though to prevent the engines being ground run…??

Or was it just the computer kit to do with the intakes that was removed because it was still on the secret list. Would the engine systems run without that in place..?

The last time she used her native electrical system would have been during the decomissioning…..

As for restoration work.. the question is not when, but why? Her native systems are not needed for display purposes..even if one wanted to move the nose up and down the use of her native hydraulic system is unnecessarily complicated and difficult. An electrical system allied to permanent hardware changes (screwjacks) would be far more economical and reliable within a display environment..not good for originality or the purists but more than sufficient for the vast majority of visitors to such a display and far more acceptable to H+S…..

OK so am i right in thinking that when she is hangared the work will begin on restoration to somewhat operable? How long since she was last lit up electrically?

Peter,

She is no longer an aircraft…she is a visitor attraction.. and so none of her native systems comply with the basic H and S regs governing that side of things…regardless of the real saefty issues or BA’s conditions…

If H+S learnt her native systems were being used then they would be within their rights to close her, until such time as a system that conforms was avaliable…sounds stupid but its horse for course I’m afraid.

As for the hanger…I’m pretty certain that somebody has drawn one up.. all in preparation of the business case to take around the HLF and other funding bodies to bring the money together.

Would it be an appropriate idea to relocate the Museum of Science & Industry aviation gallery and make one larger attraction in the airport area . Surely the way to make it pay would be to sell the current Castlegate site of the Museum and join together for a bigger and better venue.

Providing a hangar in the medium-to-long term, the non-operation of any of the aircraft’s own electrics or hydraulics and the prohibition of movement of the droop-nose except with specific BA permission for cleaning purposes, are all conditions of the aircrafts’ loan to their various museums.

When I was up at Manchester the first time I went to see round BOAC with the then Airfield Manager, I was given a rough figure for the cost of the hangar, and it aint cheap, but then again, its not totally impossible either, so watch and wait, I’d say.

My dear late father “had” Concorde 002 as his responsibility for preservation when it arrived at Yeovilton in the mid 70’s. With an enthusiatic group of volunteers (002 Squadron R.I.P.) plus a lot of begged, borrowed and stolen help from the aircraft industry it was put into a state for conservation and ,thank God,got its hangarage. The real cost and effort was pretty exorbitant (and well hidden from bean counters I suspect) even then. Looking at the above posting by CKing, I cannot but agree with the “hangarage” sentiment. But is it realistic for all the Concordes currently extant? I think not.
Once again the problem surely begs the establishment of a national policy on historic aircraft preservation – a point which I know many members of this forum appreciate. Any comments?

What a load of cobblers.
What on earth do they think will happen? she is going to explode into tiny bits if they power her up electrically.

Not cobblers at all, from what I have heard some problems had previously been identified with the electrics anyway. And if you arent insured for anything that could go wrong H&S wise, then you dont do it – because if it does go wrong and you arent covered, you get sued! Taken at face value, then yes the risk is probably very low, and for a couple of private individuals with a piece of equipment that hasnt been used for some while then I’m sure they’d take their chances and probably be fine, but these isn’t, its a large and well known aircraft in an (almost) public place, so different situation entirely.

One word Peter, Fire. The aircraft has been sitting outside in the wind and rain with non of it’s systems powered up. They will be all damp sothere is a risk of fire. The aircraft’s interior is now lit with “Household” type lighting installed after the aircraft was de commisioned has to conform to comercial electrical regulations BTW.
What all the Concords need is hangarage. MAPLC made solemn promises about putting OAC indoor but they were hollow words.Three years down the line and there is no signs of it, not eaven plans of a proposed home for the aircraft. Meanwhile they are still charging a tenner for a quick look. Tridentman does his best though! Cheers Neil!!!

Rgds Cking

no-one is allowed to power up the electrics for H&S/insurance reasons

What a load of cobblers.
What on earth do they think will happen? she is going to explode into tiny bits if they power her up electrically.

BA did nothing to ‘actively’ prevent reactivation.. such as altering or damaging any of the airframe or systems.

However unless something is actively done to preserve the systems, such as flushing and sealing fuel systems, flushing and refilling the hydraulics with a light oil, then time (very little needed) will degrade the systems to an extent that they would need complete refurbishment and re-testing prior to any reactivation.

In the case of Concorde this is possible but improbable…many of these ‘consumables’ (mainly seals) are not longer avaliable as ‘active’ components, not having been stored and traced since BA retired the fleet and dispersed (and sold and or scrapped) the spares holding. This is to say nothing of the money, skills and time required for any work to be done on any of the airframes to bring them back to life (not even to flight status).

So even before ‘big and obvious’ items, such as engines etc are considered; the sheer scale of refurbishing the hyraulic and fuel systems place a very high hurdle to any reactivation.

Thanks for the link 🙂

Hope this link will help

http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/web.nsf/Content/ViewingParkVisitorInformation

theres a few bits and pieces

That hanger will make all the difference when it gets built, sorry to be ignorant but are there any other airframes on display at the Manchester viewing area ?

not the best, but here you go