top of page

G-BOAD (210) British Production

Current Registration Date - 11/08/1980

Registration Status & Reason - De-registered 04/05/2004 (Permanently withdrawn from use)

Manufacturer’s Serial Number – 210

Production Type – Concorde Type 1 Variant 100-102

Manufacturing Number - 


Assembled at - BAC Filton Bristol, UK

Year Built - 1976

Aircraft Class - Fixed-Wing Landplane

Engines - 4 x Rolls-Royce Olympus 593 MK 610-14-28

Max Take-off Weight - 185070kg


Registration history


  • First Registered as G-BOAD on 9th May 1975 to the British Aircraft Corporation Ltd

  • 5th January 1979 aircraft re-registered as G-N94AD / N94AD by British Airways / Braniff Airways


  • 19th June 1980 aircraft re-registered as G-BOAD by British Airways

  • De-Registered - 4th May 2004



Aircraft history

Concorde 210 was the only BA Concorde to have been painted in another Livery; it had a Singapore Airlines livery on one side as Singapore Airlines operated a joint service with BA in 1979. BA crews flew Concorde and the Cabin crews were a mix between the 2 airlines.


August 16th 2000: Grounded when it’s Certificate of Airworthiness is withdrawn as a result of the investigation into the Paris crash 3 weeks beforehand.


January 29th 2002: First test flight following the post Paris crash modification programme, having been the fourth British Airways aircraft to receive the upgrades.


February 10th 2002: Returns to service following the Paris crash, with a return flight to New York JFK.


June 4th 2002: Flying in close formation with the Red Arrows, G-BOAD along with other aircraft, takes part in the Queen’s Jubilee Flypast. At the controls of G-BOAD are Civil Aviation Authority Chief Test Pilot Jock Reid and British Airways Chief Concorde Pilot and aircraft Commander on the day – Captain Mike Bannister.


July 26th 2003: Returning from Barbados, having just started the final season of flights to the Caribbean, the crew of G-BOAD have to issue a Mayday call as bad weather around Heathrow prevents them landing and the aircraft becomes dangerously low on fuel.


October 8th 2003: With the retirement of Concorde confirmed, G-BOAD takes part in the Farewell Tour programme with a visit to Boston and at the same time sets the current East to West Atlantic crossing record with a time of 3 hours 5 minutes and 34 seconds. The aircraft was piloted by Chief Concorde Pilot Captain Mike Bannister.


November 10th 2003: Final flight from LHR to JFK and retirement to the Intrepid Museum, New York.

Click above to visit this Concorde

Aircraft Comments

Hours Flown - 23,397 Hrs 25mins

Landings - 8406

Supersonic Flights - 7010

Current Location - Retired from passenger service to Intrepid Museum, New York



G-BOAD (216) Condition


Concorde  G-BOAD departed from Heathrow for the final time on 10 November 2003, and flew to JFK airport in New York, from where it was then transferred (on a barge originally used to move Space Shuttle external fuel tanks), to the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum,  New York (USA), past the  Statue of Liberty and up the Hudson River.As with the rest of BA’s Concorde fleet which are all grounded, she has been drained of hydraulic fluid. Its engines were removed to reduce weight. Its temporary home was on a barge alongside the aircraft carrier Intrepid, pending the proposed creation of a quayside display hall; however, in December 2006, this Concorde was moved to Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn, where she was kept in poor conditions. G-BOAD’s nose cone was knocked off by a truck at the end in June 2008. The damage was repaired, but there have been reports that the repairs were not that good. She was subsequently moved back to Pier 86 in Manhattan (and placed on the pier, rather than on a barge) on 20 October 2008.



Above; A fully decommissioned G-BOAD, just before her boat trip to her final resting place at the museum 

Above; G-BOAD's 4 Engines, removed in preperation for her transit to Intrepid Museum., 

There have been further reports stating that she smells of mildew and damp, due to her location on a floating barge and we have seen some pictures of her interior, showing marks and damage to carpets, overhead lockers and so on. One big area for concern is that there have been comments concerning her fuel tanks. This would fit in with some reports that state that all the British Airways Concordes that were placed overseas, as a condition of the donation of the aircraft to their final resting places. 

Most of Concorde weight is at the rear, mainly due to the location of her engines, therefore a Concorde needs some weight located in the front, while parked up on the ground. Many believe that Concorde G-BOAD has had her forward fuel tanks filled with concrete.While I wouldn’t put this past BA at the time, I doubt it is true for a number of reasons as follows…

The museums would have strongly objected, on the basis that pouring wet concrete into the fuel tanks is likely to start corrosion at short notice, a layer of concrete at the bottom of a tank would make it impossible to check for corrosion over the longer term, and precisely in those locations where it would be most likely to occur, because of humidity accumulating in the bottom of the fuselage. It would also be a complicated and very messy procedure.

For a completely empty Concorde, the centre of gravity is located only just in front of the main landing gear, and very little weight rests on the nose gear.

Hence, with very strong side winds, the nose gear can start slipping sideways as the aircraft ‘weathervanes’ into the wind, or the aircraft could even be blown backwards and sit on its tail. With enough visitors in the rear cabin and none up front, the aircraft will also tilt backwards and become a ‘tail-sitter’ (this did happen a few times during Concorde’s in-service history).

The solution is to put enough ballast at the front of the plane, either in the number 9 and number 10 forward fuel tanks or in the forward baggage hold. This could be sandbags, or concrete blocks (both far easier to handle, and weigh, than wet concrete) and this is what is likely to have been done. For example G-BOAF at Filton has lead as ballast forward baggage hold.

Other then that, there have been reports that the aircraft has paint peeling.

It certainly can’t be a very kind environment to store it long-term out of doors on the Hudson River. 

A message from: Eric Boehm

Curator, Aviation and Aircraft Restoration, Intrepid Sea, Air, & Space Museum

This  answers all the  questions and spells out the truth concerning G-BOAD

Thanks for contacting me directly in regards to AD. I have seen a lot reports on the internet regarding this airplane and some of it is not exactly true and others are just false.


Yes, AD is one challenging object to have in our collection. I have 29 other aircraft here but Concorde is usually takes more than half of my upkeep budget.


Some things that are not accurate include the notion that there is wet cement in the fuel tanks. This is not the case for reasons as you point out on your site. With the engines removed it seems that the balance is fine. We have never seen a tendency for the tail to tip.


The damage that occurred at Floyd Bennett Field was indeed unfortunate and was caused by the oversight of the temporary caretakers. I should start with a brief history about this period in AD’s life. We had to store her for the 2 year period while our pier was being rebuilt. Intrepid herself had to be placed in a temporary home at a little used Navy pier across from Manhattan on Staten Island. I had always assumed British Airways would take the aircraft back to JFK and store her either in a hangar or off to the side of their area at the airport. BA was searching for a public display location in the NYC area so that they could keep their name and logo in the forefront of the public eye, which is understandable. At essentially the 11th hour, this private enterprise popped up and agreed to display her at Floyd Bennett. They had taken over a block of the historic Hangars and converted them into a state of the art sports complex with hockey and basketball arenas and a gymnastics training area. When the aircraft was placed at FB it was surrounded by a 10 foot tail chain link fence. Many things happened involving this caretaker over the two years AD was on their property including a change of ownership. They grounds keepers had moved the fence that surrounded the nose so as to use a small access road which was directly under her radome. After a large outside event had been dismantled a tall truck attempted to take a short cut off the property in the middle of the night. That’s when the accident happened. The repair was fully paid for by the insurance company and is absolutely perfect. We attempted to locate a replacement nose but apparently all the spares had been sold off to private collectors. A few private collectors were contacted but asked for tremendous amounts of money for the radomes. Repair was the only option. As I said, it is structurally perfect but I do have an issue with the paint. The company that carried out the repair had matched the paint perfectly. In the two years since the accident the paint has changed shades a bit. Not horribly but enough to make me notice. I went back to the original company and they inspected and investigated the product they used. Apparently they believe they had a bad batch, as the color sustainability for this product is guaranteed for 25 years. They have agreed to repaint the nose sometime after our busy summer season. I insist that it be accomplished in place. The removal and reinstallation is a major undertaking without the proper equipment….which no longer exist. Once was enough for me as well. We made our own devices for this process and it was a real job. I hope I never have to take a Concorde radome off ever again.


I mentioned the budget earlier. This is a constant fight because as you may or may not know, we are a not-for-profit foundation. Our income is funnelled directly into our Foundation which supports wounded soldiers from the Middle East conflicts. This includes British and other allied soldiers as well. (We recently started collaboration with a like entity in Great Britain headed by your Prince Harry. The prince was here a few months ago to sort details and make a general announcement)


I do a complete wash at least twice a year and more if I the budget allows. I have to change the aisle carpet at least once a year and sometimes twice. We get over 700,000 visitors a year and large majorities do the walk through tour of AD. All that foot traffic takes it toll. There is a plastic barrier erected inside the forward cabin to keep visitors off the seats. They are also restricted from the cockpit area. If I had my way, the interior would be closed all together. It’s just too popular with the visitors to consider that right now. Someday I may win this argument. I have done numerous inspections and we are constantly chasing corrosion. There is surprisingly no corrosion on the external skin areas. I know of other Concordes, mainly the earlier test versions that have experienced surface skin corrosion problems. This is most certainly due to the treatments applied during manufacture. The test models would have had a definitive life expectancy while the production models would be flown many more hours over a much longer period of time. My corrosion issues appear under the floor areas. I have repaired a few minor areas and there is another area needing attention after the summer. Some of these areas of corrosion can be attributed to the current display environment but some is just due to the age of the aircraft. This is a very tired airframe. I’m sure the engineers have figured out how many cycles the airframe could safely endure even before it went into service. I have very little issues with birds and other vermin. The one area that was most attractive to the birds was the tail cone area, access through the extended tail bumper wheel well.  This has bird netting stretched across it and we check its security regularly.


I have BA VIPs and former Concorde engineers visit all the time. I have even met three former pilots as well. Keeping them happy is my primary concern.


As for putting her in an enclosure, well that’s just a cost issue. In 2006 we had to close and build a new pier. I started here in 2005 and closing for 2 years was never even thought of. It sort of surprised everyone when they condemned our pier for structural reasons. It just was not in the plans. The logistics and cost of that pier reconstruction, and all the associated costs of moving the Intrepid, the Growler submarine, and Concorde were just staggering. An enclosure is not ruled out, just not on the near horizon until we catch up. We had no income between 2006 and 2008 either, exacerbating the problem. Will she end up in an enclosure someday? I can only say, yes….someday. Adding to the mix is the desire to place a retired Space Shuttle here on our pier! This will require a vast influx of federal, state, and city funds to pull off. The Shuttle has to be indoors. This may be a good thing for AD…if we have to put a building on the pier for Shuttle, it may be a good time to just make it longer and encompass AD. These decisions have yet to made and NASA has not even hinted where the 3 retired space craft will go. We figure our odds are 50-50 at best. If we don’t get the Shuttle, its still plan-A for Concorde….someday we can afford a building.


I hope this is enough information for you. Please write back if you need more or if there are specific areas you need more detail on.

Thanks for all you do and endeavouring to get the info straight from the sources. I deal with many enthusiasts as you can imagine and all have a different agenda and all think there’s is the most worthy cause. (I have a Lockheed A-12 Blackbird, forerunner of the SR-71, this group is nearly as rabid as the Concorde folks…..nearly)

Anything can be done if you throw (properly) enough money at it. The problem is finding the money!

Until then, we do the best we can



bottom of page