[HN Gopher] There's a Concorde Engine Complete with Afterburner ...
___________________________________________________________________
There's a Concorde Engine Complete with Afterburner for Sale on
eBay
Author : iLoveOncall
Score : 136 points
Date : 2023-12-20 12:45 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (simpleflying.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (simpleflying.com)
| whalesalad wrote:
| "Hey can you move your car? I've got a package coming"
| martinclayton wrote:
| Missed it, darn.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Reported it as "junk" since it's not functioning. ;-)
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| Condition is actually set to "Used". So this technically
| violates eBay policies, as the seller should have explicitly
| mentioned "For parts only". Whoever bought it can now file a
| SNAD case with eBay and likely get his half million pounds
| back.
| qiine wrote:
| "According to the seller, the engine is "not able to fly" and
| "must only be used for static display."
|
| Hmmmm
| rovr138 wrote:
| > BA restriction of use, it must only be used for static
| display.
| DanAtC wrote:
| > Something went wrong. Please disable your blocker on
| SimpleFlying.com
|
| Yeah, nah.
| nottorp wrote:
| Interesting, because I didn't get that. Maybe my blocker
| disabled their blocker blocker?
|
| [It's either something in Firefox + uBlock Origin, or because
| I'm in the EU.]
| nelblu wrote:
| Same, I'm using Firefox and unlock and didn't get this
| message either. Btw it reads even better in reading mode. Can
| you imagine needing a mode for reading for stuff that's
| actually meant to be read?
| nottorp wrote:
| > Can you imagine needing a mode for reading for stuff
| that's actually meant to be read?
|
| Yes, because only in a discussion a few days ago on HN:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38681437
|
| ... someone was excited because the new web allows them to
| deliver 'experiences' instead of information. Gives some
| insight into some mindsets.
| bouk wrote:
| Link to eBay listing: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/116001533010
| ethbr1 wrote:
| "This item is no longer available."
|
| ITAR/DDTC works fast.
| beejiu wrote:
| It says to me it was sold for PS678,000.00. Perhaps only
| visible in the UK?
| ethbr1 wrote:
| I think it depends on some gymnastics of eBay cache.
| Thought I saw a sale number, then that disappeared on next
| load.
|
| Congrats to the lucky winner!
| FinnKuhn wrote:
| interestingly it shows as "Sold for: PS565,000.00" for me
| londons_explore wrote:
| If there is anything still covered by ITAR in a 50 year old
| engine, then it really reflects badly on humanities pace of
| innovation.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| There's probably a lot covered by ITAR in a 78-year-old
| atomic bomb. For better or for worse, ITAR isn't
| specifically about new technology secrets, it's about
| information and material with military application. You
| can't sell a US WWII tank without rendering its main gun
| inoperable to a civilian, much less a foreigner. That's not
| because ITAR is worried about foreign governments reverse-
| engineering that gun.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Afaik, there's surprisingly little about the atomic bomb
| construction that's covered by export restrictions.
|
| _Fissile materials_ , ofc.
|
| But the US government took the approach that "secret is
| better than banned" with the bomb, and just never stated
| any of the details (as they would have been required to,
| in order to prohibit them).
|
| MAD trade secrets, I guess.
| throwup238 wrote:
| _> You can 't sell a US WWII tank without rendering its
| main gun inoperable to a civilian, much less a
| foreigner._
|
| You actually can sell a tank with a working cannon (to a
| civilian in the US, foreign national or not) if you have
| at least a Type 09 license to deal in destructive devices
| and the buyer has a destructive device permit. To export
| it would be a lot harder (and getting the aforementioned
| permits is no joke either).
| adolph wrote:
| Hmm, seems like they missed licensing "Collector of
| 'Destructive Devices'." Maybe that's the invisible Type
| 93/4? Types of FFL: Type 01 -
| Firearm Dealer/Gunsmith Type 02 - Pawnbroker
| Type 03 - Collector Type 06 - Manufacture of
| Ammunition Type 07 - Manufacturer of Firearms
| Type 08 - Importer of Firearms Type 09 - Dealer of
| "Destructive Devices" Type 10 - Manufacturer of
| "Destructive Devices" Type 11 - Importer of
| "Destructive Devices"
|
| https://rocketffl.com/ffl-license-types/
| throwup238 wrote:
| There's basically two main classes of destructive
| devices: explosives and firearms with a bore over half an
| inch. The permits for the former are mostly issued to
| demolition and mining and it would be insane to allow
| anyone to "collect" explosives that degrade and become
| unstable.
|
| You don't actually need either the FFL or the permit if
| you just decommission the main gun, which is how most
| tank and artillery collectors get theirs. DD permits are
| rarely issued for explosives without a good reason (like
| construction or mining) so even if you get the permit for
| the gun, you'll struggle to get one for the shells.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Sure, but one would expect that any country whose
| military was a credible threat wouldn't be 50 years
| behind on any technology, and therefore would have
| independently invented something equivalent, or at least
| have all the knowledge/technology to be able to.
| staticautomatic wrote:
| So...I can buy an X-15?
| brookst wrote:
| Sure, Venmo me and I'll get it shipped today.
| henvic wrote:
| If you haven't seen the listing, scroll down.
| sofixa wrote:
| The engines on the Concorde were Anglo-French Rolls-
| Royce/Snecma Olympus 593, based on Bristol B.E.10 Olympus, an
| entirely British project, the second jet engine of its type
| in the world (preceded by a Pratt and Whitney).
|
| Why would it be covered under _American_ export restrictions?
| arethuza wrote:
| I think that was the same engine as the Vulcan bomber - I
| can remember when I was 12 or so watching a Vulcan doing
| aerobatics above the small Scottish village where I grew
| up.
|
| A Vulcan being thrown about the sky is quite an impressive
| sight, but what I really remember was the _noise_....
|
| Many years later I was sitting in the BA lounge at Heathrow
| waiting for a flight to Edinburgh and pretty much the whole
| room started shaking and a loud rumbling could be heard.
| Someone commented it was Concorde taking off... :-)
| sofixa wrote:
| Yep, it was the original use case, the Vulcan bomber's
| engine.
|
| > Many years later I was sitting in the BA lounge at
| Heathrow waiting for a flight to Edinburgh and pretty
| much the whole room started shaking and a loud rumbling
| could be heard. Someone commented it was Concorde taking
| off... :-)
|
| Unfortunately there was a v2 revision/refresh of the
| Concorde that implemented many small improvements,
| including reduced noise, but it never got off the drawing
| board due to poor sales of the original model, which
| itself was in part due to the Concorde world wide tour to
| prop up sales, which used an even louder pre-production
| model and left a bad impression.
| arethuza wrote:
| There was also the ear splitting noise of the engines but
| also what I have since learned was the Vulcan's
| characteristic "howl"...
|
| I have no idea what the aircrew were doing, apart from
| having some fun, possibly waiting to land at Lossiemouth
| or Kinloss...
| ethbr1 wrote:
| This seems to be a decent approximation, absent the bone
| shaking that mics can't capture:
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xJlsDiC9TBI&t=12s
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Because I'm still having my morning coffee and was too lazy
| to thresh through the morass of (EU + national + whatever
| the UK falls under now) regulations to see what the ITAR-
| equivalent would be.
|
| And so used it as a shorthand. Mea culpa.
|
| But I understand that the UK, France, and EU as a whole do
| regulate arms exports to some degree (at the very least,
| with sanctions).
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Can you link the regulation then?
|
| As far as I'm aware of UK laws there is nothing
| preventing the export this engine.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| You'd have to go through it with a fine toothed comb and
| technical spec sheet on the engine, but the consolidated
| UK Strategic Export Control Lists.
|
| Dual Use List / Annex I, CATEGORY 9 - AEROSPACE AND
| PROPULSION
|
| https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploa
| ds/...
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Why do you believe there is one, if you haven't done the
| 'fine toothed combing' yet?
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Because supersonic jet engines are on the list.
|
| Never said I didn't do the combing.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| It's unclear what your reason is for believing there's an
| actual, specific, restriction, in force against these
| specific engines.
|
| If you haven't read many of these types of regulations
| before, a general category that matches means very
| little.
|
| So is there some reason why you believe there is one?
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Because the exclusions are written around civil air
| certification, of which there are many subsonic examples
| but few (any?) supersonic examples.
|
| Consequently, it's likely other clauses otherwise
| targeted to military-only powerplants might apply to the
| Olympus 593, despite being a civil certified engine,
| simply by virtue of also being supersonic.
| sofixa wrote:
| > But I understand that the UK, France, and EU as a whole
| do regulate arms exports to some degree (at the very
| least, with sanctions).
|
| Each country has its own rules, but AFAIK they're all on
| a case per case basis. Which adds complexity in multi-
| national programmes, like the Eurofighter, which the UK
| wants to sell to whatever regime regardless of war
| crimes, but Germany opposes certain sales.
| qubex wrote:
| Fun fact my mother was a teen in the 1860s and lived on a
| farm adjacent to the BAC facility where they were
| assembling and/or testing components and fondly remembers
| the time they powered up one of the Olympus engines "and
| blew out chicken hutch to smithereens and spread parts of
| it all over the field". Apparently apologetic staff then
| helped collect the wreckage and round up the scattered
| birds (which, as I understand it, were unhurt by the
| event).
| dylan604 wrote:
| that's an interesting typo on that date. kind of rewrites
| a lot of history
| creer wrote:
| American export restrictions rarely care about source and
| rarely care about how old something is. See for example
| shenanigans between Japanese and German machine makers and
| exporters about equipment useful to make submarine
| propellers. Technically it might not be "ITAR" - same
| result.
|
| The "why" is because they can.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Well-rated seller, too: " _GOOD PRODUCT - CAN 'T GO WRONG -
| QUICK DELIVERY - AAAAA+++++_"
| vinni2 wrote:
| already sold!
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Damn, no Concorde flying for me this xmas then. Gotta wait
| for another one.
| jejones3141 wrote:
| Darn. Now nobody can attach it to a car, like in the urban
| legend.
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| I'm fairly skeptical of the "frequently bought together"
| section
| intrasight wrote:
| Funny that "compare to similar item" is a "British Airways
| Concorde Silver Letter Opener"
| LightBug1 wrote:
| "Not able to fly but perfect to dismantle and repurpose into
| collectable pieces of furniture or art"
|
| I mean ... what a tragedy if that will be it's end result!
| jfk13 wrote:
| Interesting that they're a "private seller" on eBay, although
| seem to actually have quite a business going...
| https://www.concordemem.com
| bluesounddirect wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20231220131012/https://simplefly...
| tgv wrote:
| Spare parts for the Apollo Lunar Module get auctioned too. NASA
| apparently just sold the lot when they shut down the Apollo
| program. Put it in a museum? Nah, we can totally get a fiver for
| this thing.
| lnsru wrote:
| I work in aerospace industry now. Trust me, the amount of
| hardware stored for decades ongoing projects is shocking.
| Storages are full, basements are full. Labs and offices slowly
| turn to storages too. Once you throw it away, there is no way
| to buy a replacement. So if one can get rid of parts for some
| finished/discontinued project everything gets disposed asap.
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| _Reinstating the pipework caused the first major headache;
| most parts had been discarded and engineers had to scour
| scrap yards and museums to find them. One vital piece was
| discovered being used as an ashtray._
|
| https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9664538.the-falklands-
| raid-...
| hef19898 wrote:
| There are no better souvenirs than those! I have a part of
| a helicopter tail rotor as a very decorativr paper weight,
| titanium part sure look sexy if you ask me!
| snakeyjake wrote:
| >Labs and offices slowly turn to storages too.
|
| There may or may not be six pelican cases full of junk, I
| mean totally useful equipment, next to me in my office right
| now.
| kortilla wrote:
| Nobody cares about spare parts in a museum unless they add up
| to a full replica of something recognizable. Selling to people
| who care is likely much better in the long term.
|
| If they turn out to be valuable our grandkids can read about
| how someone donated them from their private collection.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Which is why 5000 year old shards of pottery dug up at some
| site displayed in a museum are so boring. Having the full
| thing (even a non-original mock up) with the authentic pieces
| presented as an exploded view of the individual parts would
| be more interesting.
| _the_inflator wrote:
| This is what I like about USA. History? Who gives a damn. ;)
|
| (I don't mean it in a demeaning way. It is just an observation
| and I think it has some advantages, too, if you do not preserve
| every building there is for example.)
| Ryoung27 wrote:
| I believe people in the US care about history, but it's
| around the person, legend, myth, not around objects.
| passivegains wrote:
| Firearm auctions are pretty common. High bids are
| definitely often about person/legend/myth, like being at a
| famous battle, but many others are pretty much just the
| gun. I think that's because they're relatively common,
| affordable, usable, and easy to preserve. There's one Girl
| with a Pearl Earring made of canvas but millions of wood
| and metal Lee-Enfield rifles.
|
| Cars seem like they'd be similar but I don't know any car
| collectors. I've also heard of antique furniture auctions,
| very curious what those collectors are like.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| "History? Who gives a damn" has been the default behavior of
| humanity until very recently
| furyofantares wrote:
| You could probably say the same about almost any criticism
| of a modern country.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Not preserving buildings is typically developers thinking
| their new shiny would be better (mainly because they get paid
| for it) are always keen to getting rid of the existing
| building. If the building is lost to a fire, probably an
| insurance thing. It gets really intriguing when a building
| owner really really wants a new building but the existing
| vacant building has been marked historic and cannot be
| demolished suddenly is lost in a fire.
| Moto7451 wrote:
| My cousin worked on the Apollo 13 movie in the prop department.
| All that extra hardware made his life much easier. He said they
| didn't really track what happened to non-flown equipment. A
| couple things from the Smithsonian had guards.
| Aardwolf wrote:
| I was looking for some nice heavy object for cable management on
| my desk, but this one may be a bit too bulky
| vandamd wrote:
| At Dyson HQ, there is a Concorde engine!
| (https://www.laurenfleishman.com/industry/ayv6iuo4va6yo3xuuv4...)
| epolanski wrote:
| I skimmed it quickly, but I can't see how the seller got his
| hands on this engine.
|
| Why isn't it being auctioned by British Airways themselves?
| RajT88 wrote:
| If it's a case of sticky fingers, I would love to see how that
| heist went down.
| notahacker wrote:
| BA probably disposed of it years ago, possibly as part of a
| consignment of other unneeded spares
| philk10 wrote:
| I used to live near Heathrow and its flight path when it was
| flying and never got tired of seeing (and hearing) it
| dcminter wrote:
| I used to live out at Reading (about 30 miles away) and we
| still had to pause conversations and phone calls when it went
| past. It was VERY LOUD.
|
| I also worked at BA for a while. Everyone who worked for BA
| would glance at their watch when they heard it take off - the
| BA001 flight to NYC at 10am (I think? Or was it 11am?) was a
| good indicator of how smoothly our systems & the airport's were
| running - if it was late we probably had a problem.
|
| Finally... coming in to land at the north runway you could see
| it directly overhead from the staff car park for Viscount House
| (where most of IT was based). The noise of it usually set off
| half the car alarms and you could see a huuuuge trail of dirty
| brown imperfectly burnt fuel with the engines throttled back.
|
| Good times!
| hydrogen7800 wrote:
| And I lived on the other end, about 5 miles from the approach
| end of runways 22R and 22L at JFK. I always ran to the window
| when it came by. Big planes would sometimes rattle the dishes
| in the kitchen.
|
| I now live ~10 miles from a relatively busy airport with
| business/charter jet traffic, and its barely noticeable to me.
| But lots of noise complaints in my town and neighboring towns.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Also 10 miles from a main airport and on flight path.
| Sometimes get plane shadows! Not too bad noise wise as they
| are at 3000ft I think. And either I got used to it but swear
| they have got quieter over time.
| Marsymars wrote:
| > I now live ~10 miles from a relatively busy airport with
| business/charter jet traffic, and its barely noticeable to
| me. But lots of noise complaints in my town and neighboring
| towns.
|
| Direction of the runways matters a lot. I live fairly close
| to an airport, but was paying attention to the relevant info
| when house-hunting. The map for my city (Calgary):
| https://maps.calgary.ca/AVPA/
| LightBug1 wrote:
| Same ... I remember being in awe, seeing it high up above our
| school ...
| rwmj wrote:
| Anyone know how _" BA restriction of use, it must only be used
| for static display"_ works? The buyer must agree to an additional
| covenant?
| gosub100 wrote:
| It's probably a clause to protect the seller so the buyer can't
| try to return it (or refuse to pay) on the grounds that "I
| planned on buying this as an investment, but found out nobody
| in the industry will buy the parts and you didn't tell me about
| this first". edit: or cuts their finger off trying to play
| around with it.
| I_Am_Nous wrote:
| Or "No you can't put this in a plane and expect it to works
| safely and within regulations so if you do and it explodes,
| not our problem"
| INGSOCIALITE wrote:
| Forced adblocker disabling message on link
| nemo wrote:
| It's sold already: https://jalopnik.com/concorde-engine-finally-
| sold-on-ebay-af...
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| And how will they deliver this 3,5 ton, 5,5 meter long package?
| EGreg wrote:
| Probably on a train!
| wongarsu wrote:
| The ebay listing is for collection only. But you can just hire
| DHL or whoever to ship it, even if a 5 ton pallet (once you
| include the stand) is a bit heavier than normal.
| zokier wrote:
| Should fit well into standard box truck?
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| The late Jacques Littlefield used to tell visitors that, in
| some cases, transporting a given armored vehicle from the dock
| up to his barns in Portola Valley was the most expensive part
| of the vehicle's acquisition process.
|
| Specialty haulers charge a pretty penny.
| gernt wrote:
| One of the strangest sightings in Kansas City, MO is a Concorde
| nose cone encased in glass in someone's back yard easily seen
| when driving down the street.
|
| https://flatlandkc.org/curiouskc/question-everything/questio...
| move-on-by wrote:
| Wow, I'm glad I read the entire article. I did not anticipate
| the answer to: "Why did you buy this?". Thank you for sharing.
| jessriedel wrote:
| Spoiler for others because I don't like being teased:
|
| > "People come and look at it all the time," Azima said.
| "They ask me, 'Why'd you buy this?' [I say] 'I want to be
| buried in it.'"
| hcrisp wrote:
| Does "Nil hours" in the photo mean it was never used?
| hcrisp wrote:
| Article says the plane it came from flew 16,239 hours so I'm
| guessing the photo was from initial certification if it was
| actually used.
|
| Now that the plane is in Seattle and the engine is in the UK,
| does that mean it was shipped back after the plane landed? What
| is on display in a Seattle, dummy engines? So many questions.
| cjrp wrote:
| The logbook says "at commencement" (i.e. at the time this
| logbook starts from, the engine has 0 hours). It's because
| there might be multiple logbooks for an engine, so if you
| reached the end of logbook1 and it had 5000 hours accounted
| for, logbook2 would say 5000 hours at commencement.
| ChicagoDave wrote:
| Harold and Kumar buy a Concord Jet Engine.
| mannykannot wrote:
| It has the afterburner, but it is arguably not complete without
| the variable geometry nozzles (yes, there were two) and intake.
|
| There's lots more information on the nozzles here:
| https://www.heritageconcorde.com/variable-exhaust-nozzles
|
| Takeaway quote:
|
| _The intake and variable exhaust system are together responsible
| for a good deal of Concorde's thrust development: about half of
| the thrust at Mach 2 is due to their combined effect._
| sgt101 wrote:
| Now hang on, reading Russian propaganda makes me completely
| certain that variable geometry nozzles were invented by the
| USSR for the SU-37.
|
| So I think it's clear that the information presented by you is
| hallucinated by a recent large language model.
|
| Just wanted to clear that up.
| mhandley wrote:
| Interesting from that link that concorde could use in-flight
| reverse thrust to achieve an increased rate of descent. I
| wonder if this was regularly used, or only so concorde could
| descend rapidly enough from cruise altitude if they lost cabin
| pressure? The oxygen masks aren't effective at cruise altitude,
| which is one reason the windows are so small - if one fails,
| they needed to descend quickly before cabin pressure was fully
| lost.
| teeray wrote:
| Some kids' school bus is about to get a serious upgrade
| nxobject wrote:
| Seatbelts everyone!
| WalterBright wrote:
| The obvious use for it is to mount it in a VW Bug.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The VW Van would be a bit more appropriate I think
| jhallenworld wrote:
| Some ham radio guys with a jet engine in the backyard:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsR8pCkSFW4
| RCitronsBroker wrote:
| shit, what a pity it's not in working order, would've swapped it
| into my Miata in a heartbeat
| csteubs wrote:
| I grew up in northern Virginia and very fondly remember going to
| Dulles with my dad as a kid to watch the Concorde take off for
| the last time. That this is the engine off the same plane I saw
| 20 years ago is really cool. Our old house was directly under the
| approach path; the windows would shake at 2:30PM almost every
| day.
| smegsicle wrote:
| why would a passenger jet even have an afterburner you may ask?
|
| apparently it was needed for takeoff, and since it was there,
| also used to more quickly cross over the sound barrier
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-20 23:02 UTC)