Concorde Fuel Usage vs 744/777
Aug 20, 09, 7:17 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: 3,545
Originally Posted by Seated in First
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.
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.
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.
Aug 20, 09, 9:10 am
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,636
Originally Posted by globalste
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.
Aug 20, 09, 9:00 pm
#18
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: LHR
Programs: BA Exec Club - Lowly Blue
Posts: 158
Nicksta
As an average fuel consumption, per engine, per hour, calculated over the entire flight and measured in Imperial gallons, that figure is accurate.
Without reheat. As others have already commented, Concorde did not use reheat in the cruise, but did use a cruise-climb technique.
Approximate figures for illustrative purposes only.
Globaliser
Yes, pretty accurate, but what a dismal thought! 
Best Regards
Bellerophon
I was looking at one of the Olympus engines and its placard noted that this engine burned 6,300+ gallons per hour at cruise.
Anyone
know if that is with or without reheat?
know if that is with or without reheat?
I'd be curious how that compares to a modern 747-400 or 777 fully laden at cruise.
- 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
Best Regards
Bellerophon
Aug 20, 09, 10:27 pm
#19
Moderator, Cathay Pacific
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: CX Green, QF Platinum, BAEC Silver, Hyatt Glob
Posts: 10,701
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack
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.
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.
Aug 21, 09, 2:32 am
#20
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,452
Originally Posted by sxc
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.
Originally Posted by sxc
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.
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?
Aug 21, 09, 3:34 am
#21
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Programs: Mucci Grandee (Upgraded), BA Silver, AZ MilleMiglia
Posts: 3,105
Originally Posted by Bellerophon
B747-400 fuel burn LHR-JFK 65,000 Kgs / 17,800 gallons.
B777-200 fuel burn LHR-JFK 39,000 Kgs / 10,700 gallons.
B777-200 fuel burn LHR-JFK 39,000 Kgs / 10,700 gallons.
