Concorde question
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Southgate, Michigan
Age: 72
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel Burn
I have been reading these all night, and find all this information really helpful in learning more about this wonderful aircraft.. I do have a question, what was the fuel burn in Mach 2 cruise?? I did not find anything specific about that, and I was just curious..
Thanks
Mark M
Thanks
Mark M
I don't know the fuel flow figures but from the type certificate data the max fuel load was 210,000 lbs and the max take off weight was 410,000 lbs. More than half its weight at take off was fuel.
The figure of 18 tons per hour or about 40,000 lbs per hour in the cruise would be about right as the max duration of flight was about 4 hours.
The figure of 18 tons per hour or about 40,000 lbs per hour in the cruise would be about right as the max duration of flight was about 4 hours.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 88
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a mid-cruise weight of say 300,000 lb and a lift/drag ratio of 7.5 the thrust required would have been 40,000 lbf and the powerplant sfc was around 1 lb/hr/lbf, so 40,000 lb/hr is just about right.
CliveL
CliveL
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest with any successor to concorde, what lift/drag ratio is now technically possible, and likewise from more advanced powerplants that could be available now what lb/hr/lbf numbers could be achieved?
One other question if I may - how much of a compromise was concorde's wing with respect to the balance of supersonic vs sub-sonic efficiency? What I'm trying to ask is if the wing could be a variable geometry with no weight cost (impossible I know) how much more efficient could the supersonic wing have become - or was the compromise very much on the sub-sonic performance and not much to gain in terms of supersonic efficiency?
Once more - thanks for all the great answers to the really intriguing questions!! I'm fascinated by Concorde - and regret I never had the means to fly on her whilst she was still where she belongs!
One other question if I may - how much of a compromise was concorde's wing with respect to the balance of supersonic vs sub-sonic efficiency? What I'm trying to ask is if the wing could be a variable geometry with no weight cost (impossible I know) how much more efficient could the supersonic wing have become - or was the compromise very much on the sub-sonic performance and not much to gain in terms of supersonic efficiency?
Once more - thanks for all the great answers to the really intriguing questions!! I'm fascinated by Concorde - and regret I never had the means to fly on her whilst she was still where she belongs!
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 88
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest with any successor to concorde, what lift/drag ratio is now technically possible, and likewise from more advanced powerplants that could be available now what lb/hr/lbf numbers could be achieved?
One other question if I may - how much of a compromise was concorde's wing with respect to the balance of supersonic vs sub-sonic efficiency? What I'm trying to ask is if the wing could be a variable geometry with no weight cost (impossible I know) how much more efficient could the supersonic wing have become - or was the compromise very much on the sub-sonic performance and not much to gain in terms of supersonic efficiency?
One other question if I may - how much of a compromise was concorde's wing with respect to the balance of supersonic vs sub-sonic efficiency? What I'm trying to ask is if the wing could be a variable geometry with no weight cost (impossible I know) how much more efficient could the supersonic wing have become - or was the compromise very much on the sub-sonic performance and not much to gain in terms of supersonic efficiency?
The last time I had anything to do with it people were talking about L/Ds around 10.5 in cruise (up from 7.5).
There are technical issues why one cannot use high bypass engines for supersonic cruise, so the thermodynamic cycle would be much the same as the Olympus. That being so the only real gain would come from higher TETs today so the benefits would be limited - two or three percent sfc perhaps?
[Yes I know the USAF are flying supersonic cruise aircraft, but look at how much bypass their engines actually have and the supersonic cruise Mach Numbers]
Obviously the MOST IMPORTANT condition was supersonic cruise, so this dominated the compromise. OTOH, the reserve fuel was largely driven by subsonic performance, so one couldn't give too much away. It might surprise people, but the 0.93M specific range is much the same as the 2.0M value.
As for variable geometry wings (1970s style), the best I can offer is that Boeing started with a variable geometry design (with which they won the design competition), but as the design process progressed the amount of wing that varied got less and less until the Boeing aircraft looked very much like the Lockheed design that lost the original competition.
What do you think?
CiveL
Concorde Take-Off. MTOW, LHR, Calm, ISA day, Fuel SG 0.80
Concorde Cruise/Climb. 140,000 kgs, ISA, Still Air, Optimum altitude for her weight, speed and number of operating engines:
Concorde fuel usage.
Concorde Range reduction.
It was this last figure, the circa 30% loss of range following an engine shutdown and subsequent deceleration to subsonic cruise, that perhaps most occupied the minds of her operating crews.
Coupled with the change from a generally benign environment of low winds and low temperatures at FL550+, to the more hostile environment of high temperatures and much stronger (head)winds to be expected around FL290, this meant that on routes such as LHR-BGI, the greater challenge was often keeping the 3-engined diversion airfield (usually ANU) in range, rather than the destination airfield (BGI).
Fortunately the fuel planning and monitoring on this route was eased greatly with the publication of some pilot-friendly "How-Goes-It" types of graphs and charts by one particularly bright Flight Engineer.
LHR-BGI, always a challenge, always enjoyable!
Best Regards
Bellerophon
Fuel Flow at Take Off, Reheat ON:
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
Concorde Cruise/Climb. 140,000 kgs, ISA, Still Air, Optimum altitude for her weight, speed and number of operating engines:
Fuel Flow in Cruise/Climb, Reheat OFF:
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
Concorde fuel usage.
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
Concorde Range reduction.
When we factor in the decel, descent, approach and landing (all of which had obviously been originally flight planned at subsonic speed anyway) and the actual decrease in range, following a speed reduction, was roughly:
- M2.00 to M0.95 (four engines) a range reduction of 20%
- M2.00 to M0.95 (three engines) a range reduction of 30%
It was this last figure, the circa 30% loss of range following an engine shutdown and subsequent deceleration to subsonic cruise, that perhaps most occupied the minds of her operating crews.
Coupled with the change from a generally benign environment of low winds and low temperatures at FL550+, to the more hostile environment of high temperatures and much stronger (head)winds to be expected around FL290, this meant that on routes such as LHR-BGI, the greater challenge was often keeping the 3-engined diversion airfield (usually ANU) in range, rather than the destination airfield (BGI).
Fortunately the fuel planning and monitoring on this route was eased greatly with the publication of some pilot-friendly "How-Goes-It" types of graphs and charts by one particularly bright Flight Engineer.
LHR-BGI, always a challenge, always enjoyable!
Best Regards
Bellerophon
CliveL
You got me a little worried there, so I've just checked the figures I quoted in case I'd slipped up! They were extracted from the Cruise Control Manual (rather than from observation on an actual flight) for a lecture some years ago.
I'm relieved to say they appear to be correct. By way of contrast, to show the variation in fuel flow there could be, the following is perhaps typical of Concorde approaching her decel/descent point into BGI.
Concorde Cruise/Climb. 110,000 kgs, FL600, ISA -15°C:
Best Regards
Bellerophon
You got me a little worried there, so I've just checked the figures I quoted in case I'd slipped up! They were extracted from the Cruise Control Manual (rather than from observation on an actual flight) for a lecture some years ago.
I'm relieved to say they appear to be correct. By way of contrast, to show the variation in fuel flow there could be, the following is perhaps typical of Concorde approaching her decel/descent point into BGI.
Concorde Cruise/Climb. 110,000 kgs, FL600, ISA -15°C:
Fuel Flow in Cruise/Climb, Reheat OFF:
- 4e...FL600...M2.00...1,107 kts...4,308 kg/eng/hr...17,232 kg/hr
Best Regards
Bellerophon
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 88
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bellerephon
Digging a little I see that your numbers correspond to an sfc of 1.23 where I was remembering a value around 1.0.
I forgot the installation losses
Best Regards
Clive
Digging a little I see that your numbers correspond to an sfc of 1.23 where I was remembering a value around 1.0.
I forgot the installation losses
Best Regards
Clive
None but a blockhead
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, uh, what's happening here?
Feòrag NicBhrìde - So, what's this then?
Some very odd activity around Concorde recently at LHR, or so the poster claims. No idea if the pic is genuine or how recent it is if so, but it can't be that old.
Feòrag NicBhrìde - So, what's this then?
Some very odd activity around Concorde recently at LHR, or so the poster claims. No idea if the pic is genuine or how recent it is if so, but it can't be that old.
None but a blockhead
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Leamington spa
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s a very out of date picture, even the structure hiding her has now been demolished, and there is a more up to date picture of her present location in the latest news section of Heritage Concorde
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Google was right....
G-BOAB has been moved around LHR repeatedly, and she was indeed parked for some time inside the old "detuner" (engine run-up silencer), which is what that recent "what's this then" post and picture are all about.
It's a pity, really.... All the other British Concordes have found a "home" one way or another (except G-BOAF, maybe,, but let's not go into that for the moment), and G-BOAB is slowly becoming the "forgotten" Concorde.
CJ
G-BOAB has been moved around LHR repeatedly, and she was indeed parked for some time inside the old "detuner" (engine run-up silencer), which is what that recent "what's this then" post and picture are all about.
It's a pity, really.... All the other British Concordes have found a "home" one way or another (except G-BOAF, maybe,, but let's not go into that for the moment), and G-BOAB is slowly becoming the "forgotten" Concorde.
CJ
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G-BOAB is slowly becoming the "forgotten" Concorde.