5 minutes ago, Sesquashtoo said:

Oh man Ray, you with this post have me so hooked through the mouth...sold.....wow.

When the BA Concorde departed Barbados for the 4 hour flight back to London (10 hrs in a 747) the throttles were advanced full forward for takeoff and weren’t touched again until the slowdown started around 150nm off the coast of SW England. It’s a lot of fun to fly and I’m pleased I’ve whetted your appetite. 😉

 

6 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

When the BA Concorde departed Barbados for the 4 hour flight back to London (10 hrs in a 747) the throttles were advanced full forward for takeoff and weren’t touched again until the slowdown started around 150nm off the coast of SW England. It’s a lot of fun to fly and I’m pleased I’ve whetted your appetite. 😉

 

What's is its fuel burn (in gallons, not pounds) per hour at established cruise? Just wondering...

1 minute ago, Sesquashtoo said:

What's is its fuel burn (in gallons, not pounds) per hour at established cruise? Just wondering...

I can only give fuel in metric, sorry. 95,000Kg = 25,100 Gals.

Brace yourself. With 100 pax on the London-JFK route it loaded 95,000Kg. When the reheats were used from Mach 0.95 to 1.7 it ate 52,000Kg per hour or 13T per engine per hour.

Reheats stayed on for around 8-10 mins depending on air temp. Once reheats were turned off at Mach 1.7 (FL430) fuel consumption dropped to less than half that and as the aircraft climbed and got lighter fuel burn decreased.

Concorde didn’t have a cruise phase. It just carried on climbing (or descending) in order to maintain Mach 2. No other aircraft in that block from FL500-600.

It landed with around 15T of fuel so an average would be 80T for a 3h 20m flight or 24.3T per hour.

Not to be too picky, but when it comes to Concorde, I think that the typical fuel load for the LHR-JFK flight was 92,000 kg rather than the full capacity of 95 tons, which was used on the London-Barbados flight. I would have loved to fly the latter route in the real-world because you were almost guaranteed to reach FL600 due to the cold upper temperatures near equator, and you could get from cold winter in Europe to the tropical heat of Barbados in less than four hours. This route was actually quite fuel efficient for Concorde because with three more tons of fuel, it flew 1000 km farther than the LHR-JFK route. In fairness, it has to be added that the Barbados route was restricted to maximum 80 passengers, and the airplane landed with less fuel than average (around 10 tons).

1 hour ago, Afterburner said:

Not to be too picky, but when it comes to Concorde, I think that the typical fuel load for the LHR-JFK flight was 92,000 kg rather than the full capacity of 95 tons, which was used on the London-Barbados flight.

Point accepted. 😉

I believe on the Barbados service depending on the weather and pax load a stop over in Shannon was required to get to there with the legal minimum of fuel.

Alternatively they would use a second Concorde to make sure everyone who booked got there.

4 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Alternatively they would use a second Concorde to make sure everyone who booked got there.

First time I've heard of mid-air passenger transfers.😏

4 minutes ago, IanHarrison said:

First time I've heard of mid-air passenger transfers.😏

Que? 🤔 A second Concorde was used at Heathrow.

Is this a thread about Concorde or P3D?

On 8/5/2021 at 6:17 PM, Ray Proudfoot said:

I can only give fuel in metric, sorry. 95,000Kg = 25,100 Gals.

Brace yourself. With 100 pax on the London-JFK route it loaded 95,000Kg. When the reheats were used from Mach 0.95 to 1.7 it ate 52,000Kg per hour or 13T per engine per hour.

Reheats stayed on for around 8-10 mins depending on air temp. Once reheats were turned off at Mach 1.7 (FL430) fuel consumption dropped to less than half that and as the aircraft climbed and got lighter fuel burn decreased.

Concorde didn’t have a cruise phase. It just carried on climbing (or descending) in order to maintain Mach 2. No other aircraft in that block from FL500-600.

It landed with around 15T of fuel so an average would be 80T for a 3h 20m flight or 24.3T per hour.

"My gawd!"  No wonder tickets were a couple or more thousand per passenger!  Wow.......  Lucky for them they thought there was a social class that would pay that!

16 hours ago, pgde said:

Is this a thread about Concorde or P3D?

Its a question about a product that is USED in P3D. so I feel a legitimate side spur to the thread.

23 minutes ago, Sesquashtoo said:

"My gawd!"  No wonder tickets were a couple or more thousand per passenger!  Wow.......  Lucky for them they thought there was a social class that would pay that!

Tickets were bought by high flying executives and the company paid for them. Plus many film and music stars used the service.

The cost saving by not needing to stay overnight offset the price plus the fact you could go to New York, have a meeting for a couple of hours and be back in London for bed. No jet lag and efficient use of people's time.

Concorde made a lot of money for BA despite the high prices. 9/11 and the increase in fuel prices changed everything. A lot of Concorde regulars were lost on 9/11.

Fortunately in P3D fuel is free. 😁

21 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Que? 🤔 A second Concorde was used at Heathrow.

Just a joke. Ray. I understood what you meant perfectly.

3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Tickets were bought by high flying executives and the company paid for them. Plus many film and music stars used the service.

The cost saving by not needing to stay overnight offset the price plus the fact you could go to New York, have a meeting for a couple of hours and be back in London for bed. No jet lag and efficient use of people's time.

Concorde made a lot of money for BA despite the high prices. 9/11 and the increase in fuel prices changed everything. A lot of Concorde regulars were lost on 9/11.

Fortunately in P3D fuel is free. 😁

Just curious Ray, you’re such a fan did you ever get to ride on a Concord?

8 minutes ago, PATCO LCH said:

Just curious Ray, you’re such a fan did you ever get to ride on a Concord?

Sadly not. Too expensive for me even the 500GBP Round-The-Bay trips that went west from Heathrow to south of Ireland and then a big left turn at Mach 2 before slowing to be subsonic 50nm before Guernsey and then turning north towards London and landing back at EGLL.

But I have sat in G-BOAC at Manchester and also 'flown' the Concorde simulator at Brooklands museum. That was fun!

7 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Tickets were bought by high flying executives and the company paid for them. Plus many film and music stars used the service.

The cost saving by not needing to stay overnight offset the price plus the fact you could go to New York, have a meeting for a couple of hours and be back in London for bed. No jet lag and efficient use of people's time.

Concorde made a lot of money for BA despite the high prices. 9/11 and the increase in fuel prices changed everything. A lot of Concorde regulars were lost on 9/11.

Fortunately in P3D fuel is free. 😁

That 'passenger list' made perfect sense, Ray.  As you say...L.M. better not send me a fuel bill.....(smile).