Concorde Fuel Usage vs 744/777

Reply

Old Aug 20, 09, 8:17 am
  #16  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: FL350, seat 0k
Programs: SK*G, BA Silver, Flying Blue, VLM, VT Traveller, PC Platinum, BW Diamond
Posts: 3,544
Originally Posted by Seated in First View Post
Concorde cruised without reheat.

I seem to recall that the average fuel burn on Concorde was 1 ton per passenger (so 100 tons of fuel) across the pond. Additionally, I can't remember where I heard it now (could have been on here, I joined just around the time the retirement was announced) but Concorde burned more fuel taxiing from Terminal 4 to the north runway than an A320 did on a flight to Paris.
Not quite, i believe it burnt the same amount as a short ATP flight, although i cant remember where i heard that one...

Concorde did indeed cruise using non-reheat, however it required reheat for takeoff and also max climb once away from land, this was usually a climb from about 27k feet and pushed the aircraft up to mach 1.7. It actually only produced about 10klbs of thrust per engine at cruise so was highly reliant on its aerodynamics. The engines also required a variable ram intake to reduce the airflow to subsonic speeds which allowed the compressors to work efficiently. Mach 2.0 was achieved by the autopilot adjusting height rather than increasing power, so concorde had a tendancy to go up and down during flight, with an overall increase in height as fuel was burnt and it became lighter.

One of the many quirks of concorde was that the starboard outer engine had to be limited at speeds <60kts due to vibrations on the compressor blades.
globalste is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 09, 10:10 am
  #17  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 34,078
Originally Posted by globalste View Post
Mach 2.0 was achieved by the autopilot adjusting height rather than increasing power, so concorde had a tendancy to go up and down during flight, with an overall increase in height as fuel was burnt and it became lighter.
Aided, of course, by being given a block clearance across the Atlantic. None of this namby-pamby "stick to your assigned flight level" stuff that slower aircraft have to abide by. But then, it did help that she didn't exactly have a lot of other traffic competing for the airspace.
Globaliser is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 09, 10:00 pm
  #18  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: LHR
Programs: BA Exec Club - Lowly Blue
Posts: 133
Nicksta

I was looking at one of the Olympus engines and its placard noted that this engine burned 6,300+ gallons per hour at cruise.
As an average fuel consumption, per engine, per hour, calculated over the entire flight and measured in Imperial gallons, that figure is accurate.


Anyone
know if that is with or without reheat?
Without reheat. As others have already commented, Concorde did not use reheat in the cruise, but did use a cruise-climb technique.


I'd be curious how that compares to a modern 747-400 or 777 fully laden at cruise.
Approximate figures for illustrative purposes only.

  • Concorde standard taxi fuel 1,600 Kgs / 440 gallons.

  • Concorde fuel burn LHR-JFK 80,000 Kgs / 22,000 gallons.

  • B747-400 fuel burn LHR-JFK 65,000 Kgs / 17,800 gallons.

  • B777-200 fuel burn LHR-JFK 39,000 Kgs / 10,700 gallons.

Globaliser

a 777 could fly for 14+ hours
Yes, pretty accurate, but what a dismal thought!


Best Regards

Bellerophon
Bellerophon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 09, 11:27 pm
  #19  
sxc
Moderator, Cathay Pacific
Accor Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: CX MPC Silver, BAEC Gold (OWE), Hyatt
Posts: 9,148
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
Concorde always had exactly 100 seats. There were talks of 108, or 128, but those never realized. Oh, and a crew of 9 (3 in cockpit, IIRC 6 in cabin)

747-400 may carry 350 seats, but those are mostly coach. If you attempted to fill a 747-400 with first class seats... Well, SQ A340-500s are all business, and have exactly 100 seats. Maxjet and Silverjet 767-200s were all business and also had exactly 100 seats.

If you try to fill a 747-400 with BA First? Fully flat pitch? All beds with aisle access? On the upper deck you could find space for perhaps 8 seats. I do not think that a 747 is big enough for 100 first class seats.
But the Concorde didn't have what would considered acceptable First class seats. They were more like Club Europe seats, and probably even smaller than world traveller plus seats. A better apples to apples comparison is how many Concorde seats could fit in a 747 and I think you would get at least 300 of them in there.
sxc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 09, 3:32 am
  #20  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,452
Originally Posted by sxc View Post
But the Concorde didn't have what would considered acceptable First class seats. They were more like Club Europe seats, and probably even smaller than world traveller plus seats.
Indeed.
Originally Posted by sxc View Post
A better apples to apples comparison is how many Concorde seats could fit in a 747 and I think you would get at least 300 of them in there.
Probably.

And yet Concorde was a class beyond First.

If you have a choice between sitting 4 hours in a Concorde or 8 hours in a subsonic plane - how big a seat would give you the equivalent value to reaching the destination in 4 hours and getting out of the Concorde seat? World Traveller Plus, Club World or First?
chornedsnorkack is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 09, 4:34 am
  #21  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Programs: Mucci Grandee (Upgraded), BA Silver, AZ MilleMiglia
Posts: 3,091
Originally Posted by Bellerophon View Post
B747-400 fuel burn LHR-JFK 65,000 Kgs / 17,800 gallons.
B777-200 fuel burn LHR-JFK 39,000 Kgs / 10,700 gallons.
Wow. So a 772 can fly 90% (approx) of the number of pax carried by a 744 with 60% of the fuel. That's why the 744s are being parked
BAAZ is offline  
Reply With Quote

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: