Well I bought it this morning, and must say I'm really enjoying it so far.

I've never actually simmed a Concorde over the past 39 years or so(!), so this has been a good learning opportunity for me.

Got her up to 60,000 feet Mach 2 no problems, all by the book.

Successfully completed a "cross the pond flight" from EGLL to CYYT.

Admittedly, the pax were expecting EGLL to KJFK. But it's my first time as a Concorde captain, and I may need to work on my fuel planning.

Have never deadsticked an aircraft from 60,000 feet before! 🙂

There seem to be quite a lot of pilots reaching 60,000ft crossing the pond. That was rarely achieved with the real Concorde. Reason? The upper atmosphere is just too warm. You would have to be in the tropics where the troposphere is cold enough to allow the engines to generate the power.

FL580 would be the most I would expect and that only just before the decel point where you level off and reduce power in line with the decel / descent procedures.

Make sure each time you select MAX CLIMB / MAX CRUISE the reheats are not being engaged. They were switched off at Mach 1.7 and never used again.

With them engaged Concorde ate fuel at the rate of 52,000Kg per hour. Leaving them on and you'll not have enough to get to New York (or any other destination). And neither will you be able to get to FL600.

27 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

There seem to be quite a lot of pilots reaching 60,000ft crossing the pond. That was rarely achieved with the real Concorde. Reason? The upper atmosphere is just too warm. You would have to be in the tropics where the troposphere is cold enough to allow the engines to generate the power.

FL580 would be the most I would expect and that only just before the decel point where you level off and reduce power in line with the decel / descent procedures.

Make sure each time you select MAX CLIMB / MAX CRUISE the reheats are not being engaged. They were switched off at Mach 1.7 and never used again.

With them engaged Concorde ate fuel at the rate of 52,000Kg per hour. Leaving them on and you'll not have enough to get to New York (or any other destination). And neither will you be able to get to FL600.

I haven’t had any problems getting to FL600 no matter the climate. I’m not sure if it has to do with msfs not accurately depicting the temperature up there (I notice it seems like the temps are always slightly below ISA no matter what) or the modeling of the plane. This is with no reheats on and with the throttles back a small bit for very nominal fuel usage.

7 minutes ago, JasonPC said:

I haven’t had any problems getting to FL600 no matter the climate. I’m not sure if it has to do with msfs not accurately depicting the temperature up there (I notice it seems like the temps are always slightly below ISA no matter what) or the modeling of the plane. This is with no reheats on and with the throttles back a small bit for very nominal fuel usage.

Perhaps if you could report ISA values as you cross the pond and the time of your flight it may help. ISA below -5 was not common. Usually +2 to +7 was more likely. If you're always reaching FL600 the model may need tweaking.

I would expect the throttles to remain full forward once the transonic climb starts until the decel point. Concorde would always use full power and the AFCS would adjust the pitch to ensure Mach 2 was maintained even descending slightly if required.

51 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Perhaps if you could report ISA values as you cross the pond and the time of your flight it may help. ISA below -5 was not common. Usually +2 to +7 was more likely. If you're always reaching FL600 the model may need tweaking.

I would expect the throttles to remain full forward once the transonic climb starts until the decel point. Concorde would always use full power and the AFCS would adjust the pitch to ensure Mach 2 was maintained even descending slightly if required.

Yeah I tried full throttle but I was zooming to FL600 at a rate of about 2000fpm which I know is not realistic. This is with the engines in cruise mode as well. ISA values I’ve seen have been between 0 and -2.

Edited April 17, 20224 yr by JasonPC

12 minutes ago, JasonPC said:

Yeah I tried full throttle but I was zooming to FL600 at a rate of about 2000fpm which I know is not realistic. This is with the engines in cruise mode as well. ISA values I’ve seen have been between 0 and -2.

Wow! Up to 50fpm would be more realistic. And Mach 2 was maintained during that climb was it? Above 50,000ft and considering how much fuel was onboard I wouldn’t have expected anything above 500fpm given there’s still around 60T being carried.

Something for the developers to look at if they consider it something they can tweak especially as the ISA seems within the normal range.

@Ray Proudfoot  MSFS autopilot always uses the maximum available thrust ( therefore reheat ) so when in MAXCLIMB with AT on the reheats are used all the way up and Concorde easily exceeds the velocities and climb rates she would normally have seen in real life. It's possible I can find a way to code around this, but so far no joy.

The Interactive Checklists advises the standard climb method for Concorde, with reheats off at Mach 1.7 and then a super-cruise-climb to whichever operating Mach and altitude can be attained without loss of Mach, thus Concorde finding it's own natural maximum altitude. Done this way, Mach 1.97 and I think FL560 were the best I saw over the North Atlantic.

I think most folks are just dialling in FL600 and MAXCLIMB, and Concorde / MSFS is then doing it's best to achieve that using the autopilot.

5 minutes ago, DC1973 said:

@Ray Proudfoot  MSFS autopilot always uses the maximum available thrust ( therefore reheat ) so when in MAXCLIMB with AT on the reheats are used all the way up and Concorde easily exceeds the velocities and climb rates she would normally have seen in real life. It's possible I can find a way to code around this, but so far no joy.

The Interactive Checklists advises the standard climb method for Concorde, with reheats off at Mach 1.7 and then a super-cruise-climb to whichever operating Mach and altitude can be attained without loss of Mach, thus Concorde finding it's own natural maximum altitude. Done this way, Mach 1.97 and I think FL560 were the best I saw over the North Atlantic.

I think most folks are just dialling in FL600 and MAXCLIMB, and Concorde / MSFS is then doing it's best to achieve that using the autopilot.

That’s a pain. Hopefully you can find a way to turn them off once Mach 1.7 is achieved. Although AT1 was engaged at Mach 1.7 I have flown the FSL Concorde without it being engaged without any issue. So try it without AT1 engaged and reheats should stay off.

Once engaged MAX CLB was never disengaged until the decel point. Mach speed has priority over altitude. It’s a complex area but the speed and altitude would both increase with Mach 2 being reached at FL500 and not before.

Mark is an experienced Concorde sim pilot and his report here should be what everyone should use as a reference.

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/616989-dc-designs-concorde-on-sale/?do=findComment&comment=4752973

3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

There seem to be quite a lot of pilots reaching 60,000ft crossing the pond. That was rarely achieved with the real Concorde. Reason? The upper atmosphere is just too warm. You would have to be in the tropics where the troposphere is cold enough to allow the engines to generate the power.

FL580 would be the most I would expect and that only just before the decel point where you level off and reduce power in line with the decel / descent procedures.

Make sure each time you select MAX CLIMB / MAX CRUISE the reheats are not being engaged. They were switched off at Mach 1.7 and never used again.

With them engaged Concorde ate fuel at the rate of 52,000Kg per hour. Leaving them on and you'll not have enough to get to New York (or any other destination). And neither will you be able to get to FL600.

I've been flying a sim Cessna 414 the past few days, but someone handed me the keys to a Concorde so I couldn't say no.

Regarding the reheats:

Here's what my VoiceAttack co-pilot told me to do:

"Once we reach mach two during the climb, you can turn the reheats off. . You should also keep an eye on the the max cruise button on the AFCS panel. This should illuminate at around 53,000 feet. . Once this light is on, the aircraft will sit in a comfortable cruise climb somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000 feet, at a speed of around mach 2."

The DC designs manual agrees with you and recommends mach 1.7.

Either way, that's not why I almost ended up in the floating in the pond. It's just, for my very first Concorde flight ever, I was only planning to takeoff and climb to cruise altitude in a reasonably "by the book" fashion. I ended up having enough fun sitting in the cockpit in VR at 50-60,000 feet that I just continued with the flight and was then surprised by the engines spooling down just as northeast Canada was spotted.

Didn't do any fuel planning at all pre-flight, and I've noticed that the sim/plane loads you up with about 100,000 lbs of fuel, or about half the max allowable fuel, by default. I did spend a bit of time sitting at the FE's panel, looking at the fuel gauges and thinking "Hmmm...that doesn't sound like much." 

Hence why my flight was shorter than I and the pax were expecting. I may also have got to 60,000 feet because my aircraft was a lot lighter than normal! We'll see how the fully-laden Concorde cruises.

Was honestly pretty stokes that I not only found an airport close enough but also greased my first Concorde landing dead stick. My16-year-old daughter walked in just as I was rolling to a stop and I was like "Do you just know what I did?!?" Gimli Glider, just in a Concorde 🙂

Now at KJFK ready for the return hop, I won't blindly trust the ground crew with the fueling this time!

 

52 minutes ago, DC1973 said:

@Ray Proudfoot  MSFS autopilot always uses the maximum available thrust ( therefore reheat ) so when in MAXCLIMB with AT on the reheats are used all the way up and Concorde easily exceeds the velocities and climb rates she would normally have seen in real life. It's possible I can find a way to code around this, but so far no joy.

The Interactive Checklists advises the standard climb method for Concorde, with reheats off at Mach 1.7 and then a super-cruise-climb to whichever operating Mach and altitude can be attained without loss of Mach, thus Concorde finding it's own natural maximum altitude. Done this way, Mach 1.97 and I think FL560 were the best I saw over the North Atlantic.

I think most folks are just dialling in FL600 and MAXCLIMB, and Concorde / MSFS is then doing it's best to achieve that using the autopilot.

Enjoying your plane so far, DC, great fun in VR.

"I think most folks are just dialling in FL600 and MAXCLIMB, and Concorde / MSFS is then doing it's best to achieve that using the autopilot."

Yes, I found an online tutorial (that you'd commented on), and that was my frame of reference. I figured I was doing the right thing by turning the reheats off - I think that at least changes the sound? - but sounds like it may not change the power output or fuel burn? 

 

 

1 hour ago, DC1973 said:

@Ray Proudfoot  MSFS autopilot always uses the maximum available thrust ( therefore reheat ) so when in MAXCLIMB with AT on the reheats are used all the way up and Concorde easily exceeds the velocities and climb rates she would normally have seen in real life. It's possible I can find a way to code around this, but so far no joy.

The Interactive Checklists advises the standard climb method for Concorde, with reheats off at Mach 1.7 and then a super-cruise-climb to whichever operating Mach and altitude can be attained without loss of Mach, thus Concorde finding it's own natural maximum altitude. Done this way, Mach 1.97 and I think FL560 were the best I saw over the North Atlantic.

I think most folks are just dialling in FL600 and MAXCLIMB, and Concorde / MSFS is then doing it's best to achieve that using the autopilot.

Oh, also on a random note - I really like the FO and passengers in the cabin. It's a long-term tradition to have neither in flight sim aircraft, but it looks decidedly odd and I think new simmers are surprised by this omission.

Can I suggest the small addition of a flight attendant or two? (could be seated near the galley, I think your model has folding seats there). It's odd to have pax and no one to look after them.

Just a minor point that would increase immersion a little.

As a VR flier, I'd also love to have keybinds for the most important controls (AFCS buttons, nose angle, anti ice, fuel transfer automation and piano keys spring to mind).

Oh, and I notice the three ditching buttons over on the FE's panel. Do they work? Asking for a friend. 🙂

Keep up the great work, it's a product that I'd recommend to anyone who is sitting on the fence.  

Edited April 17, 20224 yr by OzWhitey

Reheats off will reduce power and fuel flow for sure. Generally, I have not gone in too deep on the various tutorial videos out there as most folks will gradually find their way toward operating Concorde most accurately, especially since we added the overspeed bell warnings which is "encouraging" people to fly Concorde more accurately  🙂

I'd love to force every user to operate the airplane the right way, but it's not my place to do that. The fact that so many are enjoying Concorde ( and the manual is being downloaded so often! ) is really awesome for me, people are embracing the airplane despite it being quite difficult to operate well.

Having an accurate interactive checklist is about all I can do really, it's down to all those users to decide if they want to follow it or not.

 

2 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

Oh, also on a random note - I really like the FO and passengers in the cabin. It's a long-term tradition to have neither in flight sim aircraft, but it looks decidedly odd and I think new simmers are surprised by this omission.

Can I suggest the small addition of a flight attendant or two? (could be seated near the galley, I think your model has folding seats there). It's odd to have pax and no one to look after them.

Just a minor point that would increase immersion a little.

As a VR flier, I'd also love to have keybinds for the most important controls (AFCS buttons, nose angle, anti ice, fuel transfer automation and piano keys spring to mind).

Keep up the great work, it's a product that I'd recommend to anyone who is sitting on the fence.  

I'd like to do this also and have a nice looking flight attendant there - once I can ensure that model sizes don't overwhelm the Xbox series consoles ( I had to remove the passengers for that version ) I will look at doing that.

Keybinds are more problematic as they only exist if they're stock to MSFS, so fuel transfer can't happen, but many of the others are already present in the sim for you, if you can find them in the menus ( nose angle is the flaps keys for instance ).

29 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

Didn't do any fuel planning at all pre-flight, and I've noticed that the sim/plane loads you up with about 100,000 lbs of fuel, or about half the max allowable fuel, by default. I did spend a bit of time sitting at the FE's panel, looking at the fuel gauges and thinking "Hmmm...that doesn't sound like much." 

For the LHR-JFK run the usual fuel load was 90T metric, (90,000Kg). You’ll need to convert that to lbs or switch to metric in MSFS.

26 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

I figured I was doing the right thing by turning the reheats off - I think that at least changes the sound? - but sounds like it may not change the power output or fuel burn? 

The fuel burn with reheats on is 52T/hr. So you wouldn’t even get half-way across with them on. Just watch the fuel gauges when you activate/ deactivate reheats.

It’s really important everyone sticks to the rules specific to Concorde if you want to have >10T of fuel when landing. That was the legal minimum. A real test is EGLL-TBPB but you’ll never get there with any more than 65 pax or so. It was right at its range limit.

I did once fly PHNL-NZAA but landed with under 10T so would have had my collar felt by the airline. But flying such a huge distance in 4 hours was fun.

Try PHNL-RJAA and work out what day and time you land. You cross the International Date Line. I wonder if that might confuse MSFS. 😁

35 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

For the LHR-JFK run the usual fuel load was 90T metric, (90,000Kg). You’ll need to convert that to lbs or switch to metric in MSFS.

The fuel burn with reheats on is 52T/hr. So you wouldn’t even get half-way across with them on. Just watch the fuel gauges when you activate/ deactivate reheats.

It’s really important everyone sticks to the rules specific to Concorde if you want to have >10T of fuel when landing. That was the legal minimum. A real test is EGLL-TBPB but you’ll never get there with any more than 65 pax or so. It was right at its range limit.

I did once fly PHNL-NZAA but landed with under 10T so would have had my collar felt by the airline. But flying such a huge distance in 4 hours was fun.

Try PHNL-RJAA and work out what day and time you land. You cross the International Date Line. I wonder if that might confuse MSFS. 😁

Here's what my current simbrief profile suggests I need, in pounds, for KJFK to EGLL.

                   *** ETOPS/ETP FLIGHT ***
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DISP RMKS   NIL

--------------------------------------------------------------------
         PLANNED FUEL
---------------------------------
FUEL           ARPT   FUEL   TIME
---------------------------------
TRIP            LHR  75195   0635
CONT 5%               3760   0020
ALTN            MAN   5774   0039
FINRES                4302   0030
ETOPS/ETP                0   0000
---------------------------------
MINIMUM T/OFF FUEL   89031   0804
---------------------------------
EXTRA                    0   0000
---------------------------------
T/OFF FUEL           89031   0804
TAXI            JFK   2200   0020
---------------------------------
BLOCK FUEL      JFK  91231

Sounds a little low to me. AVG FF LB/HR 11419

52 tons per hour is 114,000 lbs for a three-hour flight.