Concorde Project

[Tsuneyoshi]

Hello Friends!

I came through this post so we can discuss the Concorde, I hope you guys coment your opinions.
A lot of players could follow my journey with the Concordes, in which I was able to make them my most profitable aircraft in my company. An unexpected event even for me.
With that, I created the objective to use them for a while (for that reason I'm in LHR in GW2), to be able to use Concorde very effectively with the good routes there.
However, after a recent update, it underwent a major change in its data, in which more than 5,000kg/h were added to its average fuel consumption.
Obviously the Concorde is a plane that consumes a lot, and is not easy to operate, but during several surveys of supersonic performance, I did not find any data equivalent to that of the game.
Since the last update, we have also improved the winds in the game, making the transatlantic trip even more complicated for all airplanes, especially in the early eras of the game, Concorde was not out on that.
Therefore, it was even more difficult to operate the Concorde. Adding increased fuel consumption and the winds "reducing" their maximum range the Concorde will suffer a lot to be profitable.
I do not want to make it the best aircraft, but I want to make it an option for those who are Concorde lovers, I also do not want to look boring, but I'm just wanting a chance to use my favorite aircraft without too many problems.
Below are my research on the performance of Concorde, I found more, but I consider these more relevant:

Thank you for attention!

[MikeS]

Some info from the Flight International archives:

From te 1977 commercial aircraft of the world data:
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1977/1977%20-%203029.html
Concorde consumes 18.600 KG/HR fuel cruising at 2150 KM/HR

In an interersting comparison with the B747 of the time (1972) it shows Concorde's block fuel for a 3500nm 3.3 Hr flight to be:
140.000lb (63.700Kg) , so by a simple division we get 19.300 Kg/Hr (not very accurate but gives an idea)
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202714.html?search=concorde%20range

another article from 1972 states that Concorde has a guaranteed range for Paris-New York with 10900KG payload and taking into
consideration winter head winds
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202713.html?search=concorde%20range

Cheers!
Mike

[Sami]

I've rechecked the Concorde performance and it seems to be quite accurate.

A source quotes a total fuel burn on LHR-JFK route to be about 80 000 kg and flight time of approx 3h20mins, and AWS calculates fuel burn to be 3h15mins and fuel used about 82 tons.

There are some adjustments for the performance / wind model to support the supersonic aircraft in the next round of updates.

[MikeS]

I have checked more sources and the AWS data seems fine. Concorde used to uplift 90 to 95 Tons on the LHR-JFK flights (not using all of it, of course).
While consumption during cruise looks a lot lower than AWS figures, the Concorde used up much of it's fuel during take-off and acceleration to Mach 2. Considering the short flight times, the average gets heavily inflated by that.
I'd assume Concorde was less affected by winds due to it's higher altitude? but didn't verify that....

Mike

[DanDan]

I'd assume Concorde was less affected by winds due to it's higher altitude? but didn't verify that....

not sure, but it certainly always used the same jetways - not adapted for seasons etc.; so i assume either less wind up there, wind irrelevant due to speed or constant winds in stratosphere.

[Tsuneyoshi]

I've rechecked the Concorde performance and it seems to be quite accurate.

A source quotes a total fuel burn on LHR-JFK route to be about 80 000 kg and flight time of approx 3h20mins, and AWS calculates fuel burn to be 3h15mins and fuel used about 82 tons.

There are some adjustments for the performance / wind model to support the supersonic aircraft in the next round of updates.

Can you show me about your sources? I'd love to see an image to clarify my mind, because I really does not found something talking about this high fuel consuption.

not sure, but it certainly always used the same jetways - not adapted for seasons etc.; so i assume either less wind up there, wind irrelevant due to speed or constant winds in stratosphere.

I just hope to see that as an advantage to Concorde, because it's hardier to make it work properly.

I have checked more sources and the AWS data seems fine. Concorde used to uplift 90 to 95 Tons on the LHR-JFK flights (not using all of it, of course).
While consumption during cruise looks a lot lower than AWS figures, the Concorde used up much of it's fuel during take-off and acceleration to Mach 2. Considering the short flight times, the average gets heavily inflated by that.
I'd assume Concorde was less affected by winds due to it's higher altitude? but didn't verify that....

Mike

First of all, thank you for your researchs. I think my sources were kinda same of yours, but I still think 29k very abusive, that would be only to take off or something like this.

I'm really waiting for that update, I'm expecting to see some better stuffs to Concorde.

[knobbygb]

. I think my sources were kinda same of yours, but I still think 29k very abusive, that would be only to take off or something like this.

Well your own figures above suggest about 90K litres per hour on takeoff (full thrust with reheat).
1) Are you sure you're not getting units mixed up as the table you posted mixes them - quoting some stuff in Gallons (with litres in brackets after) and other stuff in kg (with gallons in brackets after). That's confusing. (And kg and litres aren't quite the same for Jet A1 anyway).
2) This may sound stupid, but I think your table is quoting figures PER ENGINE, isn't it? (otherwise the aircraft would have an endurance of around 8.5hrs at full power!)

I'm really waiting for that update, I'm expecting to see some better stuffs to Concorde.

I think the only improvements in Concorde realism could be:
1) Realistically modelling winds aloft at 65000ft. Sami has said that this might happen.
2) Taking into account that the Concorde was usually given preference on approach and departure. For example, I don't think most concorde flights into Heathrow spent 10 to 30 minutes circling in the "stacks" like many other flights do. Concorde was also allowed to jump the ques for taxiing and takeoff. This additional time is built into flight plans by default in AWS, I think, so would need to differ for Concorde flights.  I can't see that kind of special treatment being implemented in AWS.

[DanDan]

not a totally reliable source, BUT impressive: https://www.quora.com/How-much-fuel-did-Concorde-use

"2 tons of fuel to taxi"
"28800 liters of fuel in 15 minutes" [during transsonic afterburner-use]
...

[Tsuneyoshi]

I'm happy with the new update!

Thank you everyone that shared opinions here!

Thank you @Sami for your attention too, and sorry for been so annoying 

Already bought 20 Concordes!