Rob, that’s less than half of what is required. 91231 lbs is 41.4T. You need 90T.

It doesn’t look like Simbrief is a suitable fuel planning tool for Concorde. Is there somewhere where it accepts hourly fuel burn? But how do you tell it part of the route requires reheat which eats an enormous amount even though it’s on for only 1m 15s for takeoff and no more than 10 mins for Mach 0.95 to 1.7.

A 3hr 20m flight will use around 75T. Use that as a yardstick.

36 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Rob, that’s less than half of what is required. 91231 lbs is 41.4T. You need 90T.

It doesn’t look like Simbrief is a suitable fuel planning tool for Concorde. Is there somewhere where it accepts hourly fuel burn? But how do you tell it part of the route requires reheat which eats an enormous amount even though it’s on for only 1m 15s for takeoff and no more than 10 mins for Mach 0.95 to 1.7.

A 3hr 20m flight will use around 75T. Use that as a yardstick.

Simbrief should be fine, but it doesn’t come with a Concorde profile as standard.

I had a quick search and found a Concorde-specific profile, but I agree that it seems to be way off.

I’m pretty sure someone will have an accurate profile out there, I just need to keep looking. Early days, and for now I’ll just be a bit conservative with my fuel loads.

1 minute ago, OzWhitey said:

Early days, and for now I’ll just be a bit conservative with my fuel loads.

Eer, no. You need to be the opposite - liberal. Take 90T for the JFK hop.

One of my regular flights is EGCC-LPPT, 1075nm. I load 43.6T. There’s around 14T left when I land 1h 25m later. It’s 104nm to the accel point.

In Simbrief aircraft profile, if I set the max fuel correction to P80 , it gives almost the correct fuel load.

Eg. for LPFG-KJFK, 80 PAX, I read now 90663 kg

Edited April 18, 20224 yr by roland_lfor

@roland_lfor, I think I know the answer to this question but I’ll ask anyway.

Can you enter the distance to the accel point in simbrief? That will vary enormously depending on the route. LAX to Honolulu will be a continuous climb with no accel point as it’s on the coast.

But London - Bahrain had to stay subsonic until just south of Venice where the Adriatic allowed supersonic climb.

Concorde is very inefficient at subsonic speeds which is why the distance to the accel point is critical in fuel calculations. You’re limited to FL280 - 320, Mach 0.95.

Have a look at Concorde Performance System-X in the AvSim library. You won’t be able to use it without P3D existing but it will give you an insight into the complexities of fuel planning for Concorde.

For flights of 3,000nm+ the safest method is to just fill her up. But I suspect you’ll soon tire of LHR-JFK-LHR all the time and will want to fly other routes.

If anyone wants to fly KLAX to PHNL (2229nm) here's a plan for a 25R departure.

LAX - DARRK - DINTY - 32N30 - 31N35 - 29N40 - 29N46 - 25N50 - CLUTS - SHARK - MAGGI - BANBO - CKH.

Accel point is abeam Santa Rosa Island but as you reach FL280 around 10-15nm before that the wait is minimal.

I'm flying it now with 88 pax and 66.2T of fuel. Vr is 162kts. I departed Sunday 17th 09:00 Local, 17:00Z.

You should aim to be subsonic at MAGGI. FL360, Mach 0.95.

Arrival routing depends on winds. I'm expecting 08L for my arrival. Expected flight time is 2h 30m.

At these latitudes the ISA Dev is -7 aiding a climb rate of 450fpm at Mach 2 with no reheats of course.

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Can you enter the distance to the accel point in simbrief?

No, Simbrief offers only generic and common parameter for all aircraft types.

15 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

If anyone wants to fly KLAX to PHNL (2229nm) here's a plan for a 25R departure.

LAX - DARRK - DINTY - 32N30 - 31N35 - 29N40 - 29N46 - 25N50 - CLUTS - SHARK - MAGGI - BANBO - CKH.

Accel point is abeam Santa Rosa Island but as you reach FL280 around 10-15nm before that the wait is minimal.

I'm flying it now with 88 pax and 66.2T of fuel. Vr is 162kts. I departed Sunday 17th 09:00 Local, 17:00Z.

You should aim to be subsonic at MAGGI. FL360, Mach 0.95.

Arrival routing depends on winds. I'm expecting 08L for my arrival. Expected flight time is 2h 30m.

At these latitudes the ISA Dev is -7 aiding a climb rate of 450fpm at Mach 2 with no reheats of course.

2:30 min. I love it!

6 minutes ago, roland_lfor said:

No, Simbrief offers only generic and common parameter for all aircraft types.

Simbrief sounds great for Boeing / Airbus but you need a specialist planner for a unique aircraft like Concorde.

15 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Simbrief sounds great for Boeing / Airbus but you need a specialist planner for a unique aircraft like Concorde.

Littlenavmap can do hourly fuel burn but cannot separate out the accel point. You can average it out I suppose but can’t seem to get it to be accurate but can get it to be conservative enough to estimate out a 15,000 kg+ reserve. But usually it ends up being 20-25k.

2 minutes ago, JasonPC said:

Littlenavmap can do hourly fuel burn but cannot separate out the accel point. You can average it out I suppose but can’t seem to get it to be accurate but can get it to be conservative enough to estimate out a 15,000 kg+ reserve. But usually it ends up being 20-25k.

That's definitely too high. It will impact on climb rates as well as V speeds.  If anyone has PFPX there is a good set of profiles for each of BA's fleet.

15 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

That's definitely too high. It will impact on climb rates as well as V speeds.  If anyone has PFPX there is a good set of profiles for each of BA's fleet.

Because it’s only an average I find shorter trips come out more accurate but the longer the cruise the more inaccurate it becomes since the cruise efficiency is so much higher than the rest of the phase of flight. It definitely resulted in coming in hot for some landings and using much of the runway. I may reinstall P3D just to get the Concorde fuel planning tool working. I owned the FSLabs Concorde-x but could never really enjoy it because how poorly the sim performed. While this is a much less authentic simulation it’s much more enjoyable to fly in as performance is stellar.

2 minutes ago, JasonPC said:

I may reinstall P3D just to get the Concorde fuel planning tool working. I owned the FSLabs Concorde-x but could never really enjoy it because how poorly the sim performed.

If you can install P3Dv3 that will be extremely helpful. A licence for AS16 will help too with CPS-X as the default wx option seems unreliable.

CPS-X is a fantastic tool. I've had situations where 100 pax meant the MTOW was breached. Take a few pax off and you're fine. 👍

It sounds like DCD Concorde has decent fuel burn so once you have some accurate fuel loads it will help a lot. Being able to stipulate the accel point and subsonic point in a plan makes sure everything is accurate.

I'm 550nm out of PHNL. FL574 with 19.5T remaining. Things will be getting busy shortly.

Just out of curiosity, Ray.....have you ever tried a transatlantic flight with no passengers on board? I would be curious to know the difference in performance (fuel burn/altitude reached etc).

On 4/16/2022 at 7:12 PM, DC1973 said:

This will be excessive fuselage temperature - as Ray says, you just need to slow down a little bit. Anything over 127 degrees Celsius will trigger that alarm, as it would in the real Concorde. An indicator on the right of the throttles displays external temps for you.

 

Hope it's going well on VATSIM - I wasn't sure Concorde would have the fidelity for that but it sounds like you're enjoying it! 🙂

Yes, really enjoying it, and its all on Vatsim. A few "workarounds" need to be watched each time, it reminds me of the early days of the A320, both the Asobo and early FBW. As others have noted, the route has to be loaded via the MS inhouse flight planning system using a saved file, works well, it's then possible to route via Lat/Longs which is great.

However, if you "mess" with the route once installed, it usually screws it all up. I dont program the approach until nearly there, as inputting the approach into the FMC earlier often results in setting off somewhere else. Its not then easy to clear issues. This was exactly what the early A320 FMC/MCDU did.

But, its all part of the challenge!!!

Yes, the siren/klaxon was an overspeed. This Forum is great!!!