Greetings, I am working on a new configuration file for an aircraft for my own personal use, I would like to know if the fuel/range ratio sounds realistic. Aircraft Specs: Length: 95 FT, height 18.9 FT, overall wingspan: 55 FT, empty weight: 45,200 lbs, maximum takeoff: 109,775, maximum fuel 8900 gals/59,630 lbs, 2 Engines/Thrust: 30,000 lbs (each). I have the plane setup for an altitude of 40,000 FT, with a speed of Mach 2.25 with a range of 3,850 NM (ISA/SL/MTOW). Does this sound realistic, or a little far fetched? I'm not sure what other specifications that are needed, so let me know for more information. As I said earlier this is for my own personal use, and I don't have permission from the author of the plane to change the configuration to repost it in the library. Thanks J.R. Duda

We'd have to know what the fuel flow is during cruise...

Greetings, I am working on a new configuration file for an aircraft for my own personal use, I would like to know if the fuel/range ratio sounds realistic. Aircraft Specs: Length: 95 FT, height 18.9 FT, overall wingspan: 55 FT, empty weight: 45,200 lbs, maximum takeoff: 109,775, maximum fuel 8900 gals/59,630 lbs, 2 Engines/Thrust: 30,000 lbs (each). I have the plane setup for an altitude of 40,000 FT, with a speed of Mach 2.25 with a range of 3,850 NM (ISA/SL/MTOW). Does this sound realistic, or a little far fetched? I'm not sure what other specifications that are needed, so let me know for more information. As I said earlier this is for my own personal use, and I don't have permission from the author of the plane to change the configuration to repost it in the library. Thanks J.R. Duda

Thanks for the reply...but that's what I trying to figure out. :( If I change the fuel flow scalar in the aircraft configuration file...that would also change the fuel flow at cruise. If I change that...technically I can make the plane travel around the world five times without refueling...that would be unrealistic. What I'm trying to find out is...with all of the specifications that I gave...would it be realistic (or even possible) for a plane to travel 3,850 NM on 8,900 gals (59,630 lbs) of fuel at a flight level of 40,000, or even 50,000 maximum (ISA/SL/MTOW)? I guess the engine(s) would matter also...so let's give it two General Electric F110-GE-132's with a thrust of 32,000 lbs. I was looking at the Concorde which had a range of 3,900 NM (but had a fuel load of 210,940 lbs), and was traveling at a speed of Mach 2.02. It was also a lot heavier than the plane that I'm working on, and had four engines compared to my two. I'm in no way an Aircraft Engineer, but sort of just wanted to redo an original configuration file that I didn't think was realistic (weight/fuel load...etc)compared to other aircraft of it's size. Appreciate the help J.R. Duda

Well, your engine has a specific fuel consumption (SFC) of 2.09:http://www.geae.com/engines/military/comparison_turbofan.htmlAnd the similar airspeed Concorde has an SFC of 1.195.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_specific_fuel_consumptionSo if we can find range and fuel load values for the Concorde, you have them for your aircraft (if you want to be accurate shorten the range by 1.195/2.09).The Concorde held 210,940 lbs of fuel.http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_fuel_can_a_Concorde_carryAnd could travel about 3,500 NM with reserves and reasonable payload:Google BooksNow you should go twice as far as the Concorde because it had 4 engines and yours only has 2.So your plane could travel about 59,630 lbs / 210,940 lbs X 1.195 / 2.09 X 3500 X 2 = 1131 NM.So no, unless my numbers are way off you couldn't go 3900 NM.Hope this helps,

Ok, I think that is what I was looking for. A little disappointing...but at least it looks realistic. Thank you for the help. much appreciated it. J.R. Duda