Concorde rotting away

Mogster – pull the pin and lob the LOCK grenade please!

TT

Tempted

Moggy

I even offered money – silence

Bruce

Bruce – see the thing is, I got these magic beans on the way to market the other day (traded a cow for them) and they lead to this golden goose – I’m not promising anything, but comparing an invest in my scheme with Speedbirds I’m pretty sure you’ll have more chance of enjoying a goose ommelette than cruising at Mach 2….

:diablo:

Mogster – pull the pin and lob the LOCK grenade please!

TT

T-bird,

Go to the SST forum.. not the SCG one..and you will get an answer very quickly..

Now here is something for the Concorde experts to crack. Is anyone able to tell me the registration of the Concorde that flew on 2nd November 1978 Bahrain-London?!

Best regards

Pete

Ian,

Quite…

Some people need to get a life before they find there isnt much time left….

Bruce

Bruce

I came across the site a few nights ago, nothing had changed in 30 days according to their forum. Not exactly a hive of activity.

Hell, I wrote that months ago. I saw an article in the Times last week, which still said nothing. I challenged you to provide us with a factual update – you havent.

I even offered money – silence.

Come on, change the record, this one’s scratched.

Ta Ta

Bruce

You need specs I think!
Go over there and actually spend time looking over things!

Gee – just because you people can’t see nothing you think that nothing is happening!

Incorrect I think, Speedbird.
We know nothing is happening.

On the 18th March this year, I wrote this:-

I’ll tell you what.
I’ll bet you £100.00 now–tonight, that it’ll never fly.
You in for that?–I know make it a thousand and you can set the date on when the bet expires.
Have you got a thousand quid between you?
Andy

I’ll stand by it but your silence on a real offer remains.
Andy

and this topic isn’t locked yet because?…..

Just for fun, I made a point of looking at the Save Concorde website and forums.

Nothing but a very basic statement of intent there. The forums give very little information, and are rarely updated – or even visited.

So, BASpeedbird001 – I think we can draw a line under the whole thing – unless you really can tell us otherwise?

Bruce

You need specs I think!
Go over there and actually spend time looking over things!

Gee – just because you people can’t see nothing you think that nothing is happening!

Just for fun, I made a point of looking at the Save Concorde website and forums.

Nothing but a very basic statement of intent there. The forums give very little information, and are rarely updated – or even visited.

So, BASpeedbird001 – I think we can draw a line under the whole thing – unless you really can tell us otherwise?

Bruce

David,

The a/c in Switzerland were prepared to be outside, with the technical and man power to achieve that aim…

The choice however was to allow them to be seen outside, in context as it were…thus expenditure was focussed to that aim as opposed to a building…

Different approaches, lead to different solutions…

I used it more as an illustration that keeping aircraft outside is possible and achievable…just not as widely done as covering them..

michef – Thirty years is the same amount of time that the Shackleton has been outside at Duxford -maybe the climate is better in Switzerland or the cash is there to maintain them.

tommyinyork – I guess because it would be of no relevance to a site that set out to be a memorial to the Bomber Command crews who operated from Yorkshire.

Why didnt elvington get one, im sure they could of treated it better than some other places have.

Springbok,

I think a hanger capable of housing a B-52, plus B-29 , B-24, B-17, C-47, B-25, F-111 oh and an SR is certainly suited to housing large aircraft,

Similarly one which will house a Vulcan, Vicot and Valiant is also suited to housing large aircraft….

..designer or not..

Certainly we could do with more of the same to house the remaining large airframes..especially the civil ones..

And keeping airframes outside I guess nobody told the Coronado and DC-3 in Switzerland that they would not survive outside… its only been 30 years after all..

The real point is that the focus is not on civil airliners nor providing basic cover….the money is being spent on projects which have a tightly focused historical programme and a consequent high profile. There is not a fund allocated to the overall needs of the wider artefact pool…like the VC-10s in vaious locations… there are none under cover, or BAC 1-11s and so forth.. (note there is Trident and Comet under cover at Wroughton..).. however at the moment the momentum for a civil project is simply not there….

Aircraft outside do not last!

Exactly.

Fortunately for Concorde, BA gave them to Museum with medium term plans for buildings to house them inside.

When the aircraft long agreementrs come up for renewal in the next decade then the status of such undertakings can been looked into deeper. If the establishments wish to continue housing the aircraft, but have not yet got them undercover then changes might be made.

Finally someone who understands what it is about!

You guys are arguing about flying Concorde and all the other aircraft, while your nation’s aviation history is rotting away.
The Concordes will look like the BA collection in a few years.
Your national museums are building expensive, hardly useable (for the display of large aircraft) designer buildings, while important aircraft and archives are being lost! Not to mention the historic sites.

Aircraft outside do not last!

Wake up ladies.

Are you guys still arguing about this?
Come over to the RAF Museum Cosford thread while we post photos of BA hacking apart their last Trident 1, their last Standard VC10 and their last Conway 707.
Then you can get back to your argument.
Unless, of course, it makes you understand that if you can’t get the project under cover and get it away from BA – there is no project….
…..and no point in arguing.

Ahh, BAS001. You are back. And you’ve responded to everybodies questio….oh, no you haven’t. OKaaaay.

How is this for positiveness. I’m positive you haven’t given any satisfactory answers to straightforward and extremely relevant questions.

With regard to scrapheap, at least Gordo would have something. You don’t appear to.

I have checked up on my facts. The minimum requirements in post 92 are factual. Does this mean that the ‘category b’ references are also fact?

Over to you (once again) BASpeedbird001.

Oh, by the way, I don’t get offended, so calling me names etc would be wasted effort.