I suspect that, given the Concorde's rather unusual fuel consumption figures, the most efficient climb profile was also the fastest one, since pretty much anything other than the M2.0 cruise-climb was fairly inefficient. From way back in the thread (
here) the minimum time to hit M1.0 was about six minutes, and M2.0 came at 9 minutes (although a few posts later someone mentions that these figures may be wrong as the fuel transfer rate wouldn't allow such a fast climb).
Some questions from me, after reading through the thread:
- Someone mentioned that, as a result of Concorde's sustained supercruising across the Atlantic, the twenty-odd Concordes have more supersonic flight hours than all other aircraft combined. Does anyone know what the figures are?
- What was the minimum range for supersonic travel to be worthwhile? Obviously if you were only going a few hundred kilometres it'd make more sense to cruise at 29000ft an M0.95 rather than climbing all the way up to 40000ft+ and M2.0.
- What other aircraft are/were more efficient supersonic than subsonic? The modern supercruising fighter jets (eg. the F-22) are still more efficient at subsonic speeds. The original Tu-144 would certainly have been much more efficient subsonic (since it couldn't supercruise); I'm not sure about the later models. The SR-71 was more efficient at high supersonic speeds than at low supersonic speeds, but I can't find anything about subsonic fuel consumption. And that leaves the XB-70, which is just a big unknown.