Not in correct English it isn't.

If that were true, the term "Rate of consumption" would be a tautology.

It isn't.

Well, I gave you a link to Merriam-Webster dictionary 2 post back. They list is as a noun. Of course you can be stubborn, and continue to claim that is is a verb.

Just for the humor of it... if it was a verb, please tell me which conjugation of "to consume" would "consumption" be? :)

To consume
I consumed
he consumes
they were consuming
I will be consuming

Who consumption? :hmm:

And where did that definition say the word meant how fast something was consumed?

Here's the definition:-

Was that food eaten in a week, or a month? Did we use those reasources in a day or a decade?

YOU said this:-

Which was an unfounded assertion not included in the definition you posted.

This is getting ridiculous. First you don't know the difference between a verb and a noun. And now you try to twist my words by not quoting me in full. I posted the exact definition from M-W. Included a bold highlighted "process of". Part of being a good pilot is to admit when you are wrong. :ok:


"Process of" is the keyword, implying a rate because it's present tense = something happening right now, in non grammatical terms.

To measure something happing in the present, right now, you need to add a quantifier to make it measurable.
E.g. "The consumption is 3 tons", doesn't make any sense alone, because you don't know if it's pr. minute, hours, miles, kilometer.

If you want to use "consumption" in past tense sentence (something that has happened / knowing what was consumed (verb) already) you have to add something to define it against as well. E.g. "The consumption was 8 tons for the trip" or "The total consumption was 8 tons".

Frankly I don't think anyone else cares for this discussion and I don't believe I would get you to change your mind, despite you being wrong now several times. As such, if the arguments continue to be of subjective nature or being repetitive, I may opt not to reply further.

There are two aircraft.

One burns two tonnes per hour and has a ground speed of 250 knots.
One burns four tonnes per hour and has a ground speed of 750 knots.

What is the diffenerce in their fuel consumption over a 1000NM sector?


Is there anything grammatically wrong with that sentence?

Is the answer a rate, or a mass?

2,67 ton fuel pr. 1000 NM sector.

A rate pr. 1000 Nm, you set the premise in the question. Since we both know that it's over a 1000 Nm sector, I wouldn't have to mention it in my answer in colloquial language, but the underlying premise is still pr. 1000 Nm.

Let's define rate as well:

No,

As the 1000NM was included in the question, your answer was a tautology.

You are really clutching at straws here- even admitting that "Colloquial" (meaning commonly used) definitions would agree with me.

Your quote about ratios is meaningless- we are talking about the comsumption of one thing.

An aircraft that comsumes one tonne of fuel has a consumption of one tonne. How long that takes or what distance it travels are two seperate things, neither defined by the term alone.

The very fact that you say you must define comsumtion PER anothe unit shows that comsumption refers to the mass or volume, the OTHER term defines a rate or distance.

"A comsumption of one tonne" is a grammatically complete statement, and "Minimum consumption" means using as little as possible for the task in hand- even YOU now seem to agree it can apply to distance just as easily as time.