Sylvie Willis
Concorde was a marvel of engineering, but its high fuel consumption was a significant factor in its eventual retirement. British Airways quotes a total fuel consumption rate of 5,638 Imperial gallons (25,629 litres) per hour, which is nearly four times that of the Boeing 747-400. The high fuel consumption led to high operating costs, with British Airways facing an annual bill of around £1 billion, equivalent to £1.75 billion ($2.2 billion) today. The rising cost of aviation fuel in the 1970s, coupled with the aircraft's limited range and low passenger capacity, made it challenging to justify Concorde's deployment. Despite its impressive speed and appearance, these economic factors, along with safety concerns and noise pollution restrictions, ultimately sealed the fate of this supersonic airliner.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Fuel Consumption | 32.5 litres per second, 20,500 kg per hour, or 5,638 Imperial gallons (25,629 litres) per hour |
| Fuel Tank Design | Multiple fuel tanks with fuel transferred between them to maintain trim and balance; a constantly pressurised fuel accumulator to prevent fuel boiling and maintain pressure and flow |
| Fuel Economy | Poor due to high thrust required for high speed |
| Operating Costs | High, with British Airways quoting a yearly operating bill of around £1 billion |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Fuel economy was sacrificed for high speed
The Concorde was an engineering marvel, but its high fuel consumption was a significant factor in its eventual retirement. The aircraft's design prioritised speed over fuel economy, resulting in high operating costs that were challenging to justify.
Concorde's fuel consumption was significantly higher than that of other aircraft. It consumed 32.5 litres of fuel per second, with a total fuel consumption rate of 5,638 Imperial gallons (25,629 litres) per hour. In comparison, the Boeing 747-400 averages 14,400 litres per hour, while more efficient modern aircraft like the 787-9 consumes only 5,400 kg per hour. The high thrust required for Concorde's supersonic speeds came at the cost of fuel efficiency.
The Concorde's unique design and operating conditions also contributed to its high fuel consumption. Its delta wing design and moveable nose portion were optimised for supersonic flight, but this made ground operations and takeoff particularly challenging and fuel-intensive. The aircraft's high fuel use during the early stages of flight, including taxiing, further impacted its overall fuel economy.
Additionally, the Concorde's fuel system was more complex than that of subsonic aircraft due to the need to manage fuel in a way that minimised temperature-related issues. The fuel system had multiple tanks and sub-systems for transferring fuel between tanks to maintain trim and balance. This complexity added to the overall cost and maintenance of the aircraft.
The high fuel consumption of the Concorde resulted in substantial operating costs for airlines. British Airways, one of the only two airlines to operate the Concorde, had a yearly operating bill of around £1 billion (equivalent to £1.75 billion or $2.2 billion in today's money) due to the Concorde's expenses. The high fares needed to cover these operating costs, along with the limited operation and seating capacity of the Concorde, made it challenging for airlines to justify its continued deployment.
The Massive Fuel Capacity of Boeing 747s
You may want to see also
Explore related products
British Airways' yearly operating costs were £1 billion
The Concorde was an engineering marvel, but its high fuel consumption undoubtedly contributed to its eventual retirement. Its fuel consumption was far from efficient, with a rate of 5,638 Imperial gallons (or 25,629 litres) per hour, according to British Airways. This compares to 14,400 litres per hour for a Boeing 747-400. The Concorde consumed 20,500 kg of fuel per hour, compared to 5,400 kg for the 787-9, 5,800 kg for the A350-900, and 12,000 kg for the A380.
The Concorde's fuel economy was sacrificed for high speed and thrust, requiring a high-power afterburner system during takeoff. The afterburners were used for a significant portion of the flight, and the aircraft used an estimated two tons of fuel during taxiing alone.
The complexity of the Concorde's fuel system also contributed to high operating costs. The system had multiple fuel tanks, and fuel had to be carefully managed to maintain trim and balance during flight. The fuel system was designed to minimise heat intake through the wing skin and keep temperatures low, but this required a lot of research and development. The risk of fuel vapour ignition, particularly from lightning strikes, also had to be addressed.
All these factors contributed to the high operating costs of the Concorde, which resulted in a yearly operating bill of around £1 billion for British Airways. When adjusted for inflation, this figure is equivalent to £1.75 billion in today's money. The high costs, along with limited operation and safety concerns, made it challenging to justify the continued deployment of the Concorde.
Fuel Economy: Save Money, Save the Planet
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Fuel transfer between tanks maintained trim and balance
The Concorde was an engineering marvel, but its high fuel consumption contributed to its eventual retirement. British Airways, one of only two airlines to operate the Concorde, had yearly operating costs of around £1 billion (approximately £1.75 billion or $2.2 billion in today's money) due to the aircraft's expenses.
The Concorde's fuel system played a crucial role in maintaining the aircraft's trim and balance during flight. Unlike other aircraft, the Concorde lacked a full tail plane, so it relied on transferring fuel between tanks to adjust its centre of gravity (CoG) and maintain stability.
Before takeoff and during acceleration, fuel is transferred from the forward trim tanks to the rear trim and collection tanks, shifting the CoG rearward by approximately 6 feet (2 meters). This transfer process involves moving around 20 tons of fuel and is necessary to balance the change in the centre of lift as the aircraft accelerates through Mach 1 to Mach 2.
During the flight, the trim transfer system redistributes fuel between the trim tanks and main transfer tanks to optimise the aircraft's centre of gravity for different phases of flight, including takeoff, subsonic, and supersonic flight. The trim transfer is typically automated and controlled from the Flight Engineer's Panel, but pilots can override this in abnormal situations requiring rapid fuel transfer.
At the end of the cruise, during deceleration, fuel is pumped forward to the wing transfer and even the forward trim tanks, shifting the CofG forward as the centre of lift moves rearward. Once the aircraft is on the ground, it is standard practice to pump additional fuel into the forward trim tanks to correctly balance the aircraft for unloading.
Cost of Replacing a Fuel Pump: Mechanic's Charges
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Fuel tank pumps were complex and challenging to design
The Concorde was an engineering marvel, but its high fuel consumption and associated costs were significant factors in its eventual retirement. The aircraft's fuel system was complex and challenging to design, particularly the fuel tank pumps.
The Concorde's fuel system also had to address the issue of thermal stability. High temperatures caused certain elements in the fuel to become unstable, forming gum deposits in pipes, heat exchangers, and filters. This issue required extensive laboratory research by oil companies to gather data and establish maximum temperature thresholds. The risk of ignition by lightning strike of fuel vapours emitted from vent outlets also needed to be considered.
The overall complexity of the Concorde's fuel system, with its multiple sub-systems for fuel transfer between tanks and their interdependence, further added to the challenge of designing the fuel tank pumps. The entire system had to be rigorously tested to ensure its satisfactory functioning under various conditions, including different attitudes, pressures (altitudes), temperatures, and rates of temperature change experienced during flight.
The Concorde's fuel tank pumps were critical to maintaining the aircraft's performance and safety. The unique challenges posed by its fuel system required significant research, development, and testing to ensure the pumps' effectiveness and reliability under demanding conditions.
Fuel System Cleaning: Service Cost Explained
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Concorde used afterburners for a large portion of the flight
The Concorde was a British-French supersonic passenger jet airliner that entered service in 1976 and flew for the next 27 years. It was an engineering marvel, but its high fuel consumption was a significant factor in its eventual retirement.
Concorde's afterburner use was distinct from that of other commercial supersonic aircraft, such as the Tupolev Tu-144. The afterburners were employed for a more significant portion of the flight, contributing to high operating costs and limited range. During the early stages of a flight, Concorde was notably inefficient in its fuel consumption, using an estimated two tons of fuel during an average taxi.
Concorde's afterburners were primarily utilized during take-off and transonic acceleration. They were engaged for 90 seconds during take-off, providing a 20% increase in thrust, and then briefly between Mach 0.95 and 1.5 or 1.7. The afterburners were then switched off, and the throttles were maintained at 100% dry power until the top of descent.
The afterburners played a crucial role in Concorde's ability to achieve and sustain supersonic flight. By utilizing hot exhaust gases and injecting additional fuel, the afterburners significantly boosted the aircraft's thrust, enabling it to break the sound barrier and cruise at over twice the speed of sound. However, this came at a cost of high fuel consumption, with nearly a ton of fuel burned between the start of a heavyweight take-off and climbing to 1,000 feet.
Concorde's fuel consumption was approximately 5,638 Imperial gallons (25,629 liters) per hour, according to British Airways. In comparison, more efficient modern aircraft, such as the 787-9 and the A350-900, consume significantly less fuel, with rates of 5,400 kg and 5,800 kg per hour, respectively. Concorde's high fuel consumption and the resulting high operating costs contributed to the challenges airlines faced in justifying its deployment, ultimately leading to its retirement.
Hydrogen Fuel Cost in the UK: Expensive Energy Source?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Concorde consumed 32.5 litres of fuel per second, or 5,638 Imperial gallons (25,629 litres) per hour.
The Concorde was far less fuel-efficient than other aircraft. For example, the 787-9 consumes 5,400 kg of fuel per hour, the A350-900 consumes 5,800 kg per hour, and the A380 consumes 12,000 kg per hour.
Concorde required high thrust for high speed, which resulted in low fuel economy. Additionally, it used afterburners for a significant portion of the flight, and its fuel system was more complex than that of subsonic aircraft, requiring multiple subsystems for fuel transfer between tanks.
British Airways, the operator of Concorde, had a yearly operating bill of around £1 billion due to the aircraft's expenses, including fuel costs. Adjusted for inflation, this is equivalent to approximately £1.75 billion ($2.2 billion) in modern times.
Yes, Concorde's high fuel consumption and associated costs were significant factors in its eventual retirement. The high operating costs, along with limited range and safety concerns, hampered the success and longevity of the aircraft.
