Sylvie Willis
Concorde was a fuel-guzzling aircraft that burned an estimated two tons of fuel during taxiing alone. This is an astonishing amount, especially when compared to a Boeing 737, which requires less fuel to fly from London to Amsterdam. With a fuel consumption rate of 5,638 Imperial gallons (25,629 liters) per hour, it's no surprise that fuel was a significant concern for Concorde operators, contributing to high operating costs. The aircraft's fuel system was designed to address the challenges posed by high temperatures and low ambient pressures at cruising speeds, but it still faced issues with fuel efficiency, especially during the early stages of flight.
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Concorde used 2 tons of fuel while taxiing
Concorde used an estimated two tons of fuel during an average taxi. This is a staggering amount, especially when compared to other aircraft. For instance, the Concorde used more fuel taxiing to the end of the runway than a Boeing 737 needs for a London to Amsterdam flight.
Concorde's high fuel consumption during taxiing was due to several factors. Firstly, Concorde used afterburners during takeoff and when accelerating to break the sound barrier, resulting in a massive fuel consumption rate of 32.5 liters per second. Secondly, Concorde's unique design and high performance required a more complex fuel system than typical civil transport aircraft. The high temperatures and low ambient pressures at cruising altitudes of Mach 2.0 and 60,000 feet posed challenges, requiring measures to prevent fuel loss due to boiling-off and rapid de-aeration.
The fuel system played a critical role in maintaining trim and balance during flight. Concorde's lack of a full tail plane, common on subsonic flights, meant that fuel had to be transferred between tanks to ensure stability. Additionally, the weight distribution of the aircraft was optimized by moving fuel, counteracting the shift caused by aerodynamic changes at high speeds.
Concorde's fuel consumption was a significant contributor to its high operating costs. With a total fuel consumption rate of 5,638 Imperial gallons (25,629 liters) per hour, it used four times the amount of fuel as the Boeing 747 on a New York to Paris flight. This inefficiency, coupled with rising fuel prices, posed financial challenges for Concorde operators and contributed to its eventual retirement.
E85 Fuel Efficiency: Burning More, Going Farther
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Fuel distribution was critical for supersonic flight
Concorde used an estimated two tons of fuel during taxiing, which is more than a Boeing 737 needs for a London to Amsterdam flight. The Concorde was notably inefficient in the early stages of a flight, with a high fuel consumption rate of 32.5 liters per second during takeoff. Overall, Concorde used half of its total fuel load between leaving the gate and reaching its cruise speed of Mach 2.
The Concorde's fuel distribution was critical for its supersonic flight capabilities. The aircraft had a unique fuel system with several separate tanks, including trim tanks and main transfer tanks. The use of multiple tanks, along with internal bracing, helped to reduce the surging of stored fuel. The distribution of fuel along the aircraft was carefully managed to optimize the center of gravity at different stages of flight. During acceleration and deceleration, the fuel distribution was shifted to move the center of gravity forward or backward, effectively acting as an auxiliary trim control. This was particularly important at high speeds, as using traditional trim controls would have increased drag, which was unacceptable for supersonic flight.
The Concorde's high climb rate also presented fuel distribution challenges. The tanks used during the climb had to be de-aerated to prevent air in the solution from becoming a hazard. Only specific tanks could feed the four Olympus engines. The trim transfer system allowed for the redistribution of fuel between the trim tanks and main transfer tanks, optimizing the center of gravity for take-off, subsonic, and supersonic flight. The trim transfer was typically automated but could be overridden by pilots in abnormal circumstances requiring rapid fuel transfer.
The fuel system also played a role in managing the aircraft's temperature during supersonic flight. Concorde used the fuel as a heat sink to cool the air conditioning system and hydraulics. Additionally, the fuel contributed to the aircraft's weight and design considerations. The use of aluminum and high-temperature alloys in the aircraft's construction allowed for conventional manufacturing, but the weight and speed of the aircraft impacted its fuel efficiency.
In summary, the Concorde's fuel distribution system was critical for achieving and maintaining supersonic flight. The management of fuel loads and their distribution along the aircraft optimized the center of gravity, minimized drag, and ensured the safe operation of the engines during the various stages of flight, including the high-speed and high-altitude conditions that Concorde was designed to achieve.
Diesel Weight: Understanding Gallons to Pounds
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Fuel was moved to adjust Concorde's centre of gravity
Concorde was a fuel-guzzler, especially in the early stages of a flight. It is said that the aircraft used two tons of fuel during an average taxi. To put that in perspective, that's more fuel than a Boeing 737 uses for a London to Amsterdam flight.
The Concorde's fuel inefficiency was due, in part, to its use of afterburners during takeoff and when accelerating to break the sound barrier. This resulted in a fuel consumption rate of 32.5 liters per second.
The high fuel consumption of the Concorde was a significant concern, contributing to high operating costs and limited range. For example, in February 2003, an Air France Concorde lost 16 tons of fuel due to an engine fault and had to divert to Halifax, Canada, with 56 people on board.
To optimise fuel efficiency, Concorde employed a trim transfer system to redistribute fuel across its tanks and adjust the aircraft's centre of gravity. This system was controlled from the Flight Engineer's Panel and could be overridden by pilots in abnormal circumstances requiring rapid fuel transfer.
The trim transfer system worked by pumping fuel between specific tanks to achieve either a forward or rearward centre of gravity shift. For a rearward shift, fuel was pumped from tanks 9 and 10 into tanks 11, 5, and 7. For a forward shift, fuel was pumped from tank 11 into tanks 9, 5, and 7. The load limit control channels were designed with redundancy, ensuring that if one channel failed, the other could continue controlling the fuel transfer process.
By optimising the centre of gravity, the trim transfer system helped minimise drag during supersonic cruise, improving Concorde's overall fuel efficiency.
The True Cost of Fueling Flight
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Fuel contributed to Concorde's high operating costs
Concorde's high fuel consumption contributed significantly to its high operating costs. It is estimated that Concorde used an average of two tons of fuel during taxiing, which is more than the amount of fuel a Boeing 737 would use for a flight from London to Amsterdam. This high fuel consumption during taxiing, combined with its overall fuel usage, resulted in substantial costs for Concorde operators.
Concorde's total fuel consumption was notably high compared to other aircraft. British Airways quoted a total fuel consumption rate of 5,638 Imperial gallons (25,629 liters) per hour. In comparison, the Boeing 747-400 averages 14,400 liters per hour. The New York Times compared the fuel consumption of Concorde and the 747 on a New York to Paris flight, finding that Concorde used four times as much fuel.
The high fuel consumption of Concorde was due in part to its unique design and performance requirements. Concorde's fuel system had to not only supply fuel to the engines but also perform additional functions of controlling and absorbing surplus. The aircraft's high speed and altitude resulted in high temperatures and low ambient pressures, which posed challenges for fuel system design. To prevent issues like fuel boiling off or rapid de-aeration, significant research and development were required, contributing to the overall complexity and cost of the fuel system.
Additionally, Concorde's wing design and high speed resulted in a shift in the center of lift. To maintain trim and balance during flight, fuel was moved between tanks to adjust the internal weight distribution and center of gravity. This complex fuel management system was necessary to ensure stable flight at supersonic speeds but added to the overall fuel consumption and operational costs.
The high fuel consumption and associated costs were contributing factors in the demise and retirement of Concorde. Despite its impressive speed and performance, the high fares needed to cover operating costs, along with limited operations, ultimately made Concorde less viable for commercial use.
The 787's Fuel Capacity: Understanding its Limits and Efficiency
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Concorde's fuel system was designed to minimise heat intake
The Concorde used an estimated two tons of fuel during taxiing, and its fuel consumption during flight was also notably high. The aircraft's fuel system was designed to minimise heat intake, performing the additional functions of controlling and absorbing surplus heat rejected by other aircraft and engine systems.
At high temperatures and low ambient pressures, such as those experienced by Concorde when cruising at Mach 2.0 at 60,000 feet, conventional kerosene may be highly supersaturated with dissolved air and near its boiling point. To prevent fuel loss due to boiling off, high transient pressures in the tank, and loss of fuel due to rapid de-aeration, measures were implemented to keep temperatures low. The fuel system usage sequence was arranged to minimise the intake of heat through the wing skin, and the fuel was used as a heat sink for cooling purposes.
The thermal stability of the fuel was another important consideration. High temperatures caused certain elements in the fuel to become unstable, forming gum deposits in pipes, heat exchangers, and filters. To address this, laboratory research was conducted to determine the maximum temperatures for the fuel in the tanks and throughout the aircraft and engine systems. Over 3,000 hours of testing were carried out at the Shell Thornton Laboratories to validate the decisions made based on this research.
The Concorde's fuel system was more complex than that of subsonic aircraft due to the additional functions it had to perform and the need to manage temperature-related issues. The aircraft's Centre of Gravity (CG) and flight controls were highly integrated with the fuel system, and fuel was moved around the aircraft to shift the Centre of Gravity for different speeds during supersonic flight.
Riding a Bike: A Smart Way to Save Fuel
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Concorde used an estimated two tons of fuel during an average taxi.
Concorde used more fuel taxiing to the end of the runway than a Boeing 737 needs for a London to Amsterdam flight.
Yes, Concorde was not fuel-efficient. It used half of its total fuel load between leaving the gate and reaching its cruise speed of Mach 2.
British Airways quotes a total fuel consumption rate of 5,638 Imperial gallons (25,629 liters) per hour.
Concorde's fuel system had to perform additional functions beyond supplying fuel to the engines, such as controlling and absorbing surplus. Additionally, Concorde did not have a full tail plane, so fuel had to be transferred from tank to tank during flight to maintain trim and balance.
