Was the transatlantic crossing for Concorde too short to reach optimal cruising altitude?
up vote
18
down vote
favorite
When listening to Gander/Shannon ATC on shortwave, you could hear Concorde communicate its planned flight levels at longitudes from 20 West till 50 West. What I remember is that it would continue climbing to, say, flight level 570 at 30 West and then descent. So, it seems that it never reached cruising altitude, it would climb until halfway on the Atlantic and then start to descent again.
altitude concorde
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
favorite
When listening to Gander/Shannon ATC on shortwave, you could hear Concorde communicate its planned flight levels at longitudes from 20 West till 50 West. What I remember is that it would continue climbing to, say, flight level 570 at 30 West and then descent. So, it seems that it never reached cruising altitude, it would climb until halfway on the Atlantic and then start to descent again.
altitude concorde
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
favorite
up vote
18
down vote
favorite
When listening to Gander/Shannon ATC on shortwave, you could hear Concorde communicate its planned flight levels at longitudes from 20 West till 50 West. What I remember is that it would continue climbing to, say, flight level 570 at 30 West and then descent. So, it seems that it never reached cruising altitude, it would climb until halfway on the Atlantic and then start to descent again.
altitude concorde
When listening to Gander/Shannon ATC on shortwave, you could hear Concorde communicate its planned flight levels at longitudes from 20 West till 50 West. What I remember is that it would continue climbing to, say, flight level 570 at 30 West and then descent. So, it seems that it never reached cruising altitude, it would climb until halfway on the Atlantic and then start to descent again.
altitude concorde
altitude concorde
edited yesterday
Ari Brodsky
1093
1093
asked yesterday
Count Iblis
19116
19116
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
34
down vote
The simple answer is that the Concorde had no single assigned altitude, it was allowed to climb freely above ~FL450; this is discussed in depth in episode 166 – Flying the Concorde (worth the listen as it answers just about every Concorde question!). As @pilothead alludes to in their answer it climbed as it burned fuel but the aircraft never actually initiated a climb, it simply drifted up as it burned fuel and became lighter.
Also discussed in the episode is the complex approach and departure procedure. Due to the fuel burn schedule the Concorde did not really have the ability to hold for more than a single lap in a holding pattern or do a stepped climb with some route adjustments like many airliners. They had a special departure procedure that was more or less runway to cruise with no interruptions and a similar descent option. So the flight was effectively a climb to cruise block then a glide down right to landing. Depending on the wind and conditions of any given day as well as the load on board, the cruise altitude could vary greatly.
20
The Concorde cruise climb would actually be the most efficient cruise procedure for all aircraft, anyway, but no other aircraft are allowed this due to traffic density. Normal aircraft approximate this by step climbing a couple of thousand feet every few hours. Concorde was very much alone at her altitude, hence a gradual climb didn’t risk any loss of separation with other traffic.
– Cpt Reynolds
yesterday
2
Link for what @CptReynolds said: Step Climb. As the aircraft changes weight the efficient altitude changes. Apparently conventional aircraft used to cruise climb, but since the skies are pretty busy now isn't no longer an option. Interesting read.
– Nathan Cooper
18 hours ago
"it simply drifted up as it burned fuel and became lighter." Awesome explanation, thanks!
– Fattie
16 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
16
down vote
Concorde had a 10,000fpm climb and a max altitude of 60,000ft, so time to climb was not a problem. It had an optimum cruise altitude that varied with weight, so as it burned fuel it climbed higher to stay on the optimum.
There were no other aircraft operating at those altitudes, so it would get clearances to climb 15,000ft at a time and would cruise climb throughout the trip until descent to destination was required.
Is there a link to graph/formula of optimum cruise altitude vs weight?
– smci
yesterday
@smci It is more complex than just weight. I found a repository of the flight manuals but it is thousands of pages. If you are interested avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/europe-and-consortiums/…
– Pilothead
9 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Amazing how we humans skew altitude and distance. 60,000 feet up is 12 miles. Transatlantic 2400 miles.
The climb would be a gradient of 12/1200 x 100 = 1.0%
I daresay the Concorde could climb a bit faster.
A 1.0% gradient would be barely noticeable in an automobile.
10
This answer does not have any sources (and doesn't make any strong claims at all) and may be more fitting as a comment.
– Jules
yesterday
1
On the other hand, a freight train climbing that same grade (12 miles in 1200) could be handled by normal locomotive allocation if they didn't mind it going slower than normal. If speed is a factor, e.g. Fast container train, it will get helper units added mid-train simply to keep speed up.
– Harper
yesterday
4
Math nitpick: it should be "x 100%" (="x 1"), not just "x 100".
– amI
yesterday
2
@RobertDiGiovanni User aml is right though.12/1200 * 100 = 1200/1200 = 1
and1% = 1/100
, from which follows that LHS and RHS of your post's equation can't be equivalent.
– Inarion
17 hours ago
6
Better nitpick: There should be nox 100
. 12/1200 is 1%. 12/1200 x 100 is 100%.
– pipe
17 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
34
down vote
The simple answer is that the Concorde had no single assigned altitude, it was allowed to climb freely above ~FL450; this is discussed in depth in episode 166 – Flying the Concorde (worth the listen as it answers just about every Concorde question!). As @pilothead alludes to in their answer it climbed as it burned fuel but the aircraft never actually initiated a climb, it simply drifted up as it burned fuel and became lighter.
Also discussed in the episode is the complex approach and departure procedure. Due to the fuel burn schedule the Concorde did not really have the ability to hold for more than a single lap in a holding pattern or do a stepped climb with some route adjustments like many airliners. They had a special departure procedure that was more or less runway to cruise with no interruptions and a similar descent option. So the flight was effectively a climb to cruise block then a glide down right to landing. Depending on the wind and conditions of any given day as well as the load on board, the cruise altitude could vary greatly.
20
The Concorde cruise climb would actually be the most efficient cruise procedure for all aircraft, anyway, but no other aircraft are allowed this due to traffic density. Normal aircraft approximate this by step climbing a couple of thousand feet every few hours. Concorde was very much alone at her altitude, hence a gradual climb didn’t risk any loss of separation with other traffic.
– Cpt Reynolds
yesterday
2
Link for what @CptReynolds said: Step Climb. As the aircraft changes weight the efficient altitude changes. Apparently conventional aircraft used to cruise climb, but since the skies are pretty busy now isn't no longer an option. Interesting read.
– Nathan Cooper
18 hours ago
"it simply drifted up as it burned fuel and became lighter." Awesome explanation, thanks!
– Fattie
16 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
34
down vote
The simple answer is that the Concorde had no single assigned altitude, it was allowed to climb freely above ~FL450; this is discussed in depth in episode 166 – Flying the Concorde (worth the listen as it answers just about every Concorde question!). As @pilothead alludes to in their answer it climbed as it burned fuel but the aircraft never actually initiated a climb, it simply drifted up as it burned fuel and became lighter.
Also discussed in the episode is the complex approach and departure procedure. Due to the fuel burn schedule the Concorde did not really have the ability to hold for more than a single lap in a holding pattern or do a stepped climb with some route adjustments like many airliners. They had a special departure procedure that was more or less runway to cruise with no interruptions and a similar descent option. So the flight was effectively a climb to cruise block then a glide down right to landing. Depending on the wind and conditions of any given day as well as the load on board, the cruise altitude could vary greatly.
20
The Concorde cruise climb would actually be the most efficient cruise procedure for all aircraft, anyway, but no other aircraft are allowed this due to traffic density. Normal aircraft approximate this by step climbing a couple of thousand feet every few hours. Concorde was very much alone at her altitude, hence a gradual climb didn’t risk any loss of separation with other traffic.
– Cpt Reynolds
yesterday
2
Link for what @CptReynolds said: Step Climb. As the aircraft changes weight the efficient altitude changes. Apparently conventional aircraft used to cruise climb, but since the skies are pretty busy now isn't no longer an option. Interesting read.
– Nathan Cooper
18 hours ago
"it simply drifted up as it burned fuel and became lighter." Awesome explanation, thanks!
– Fattie
16 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
34
down vote
up vote
34
down vote
The simple answer is that the Concorde had no single assigned altitude, it was allowed to climb freely above ~FL450; this is discussed in depth in episode 166 – Flying the Concorde (worth the listen as it answers just about every Concorde question!). As @pilothead alludes to in their answer it climbed as it burned fuel but the aircraft never actually initiated a climb, it simply drifted up as it burned fuel and became lighter.
Also discussed in the episode is the complex approach and departure procedure. Due to the fuel burn schedule the Concorde did not really have the ability to hold for more than a single lap in a holding pattern or do a stepped climb with some route adjustments like many airliners. They had a special departure procedure that was more or less runway to cruise with no interruptions and a similar descent option. So the flight was effectively a climb to cruise block then a glide down right to landing. Depending on the wind and conditions of any given day as well as the load on board, the cruise altitude could vary greatly.
The simple answer is that the Concorde had no single assigned altitude, it was allowed to climb freely above ~FL450; this is discussed in depth in episode 166 – Flying the Concorde (worth the listen as it answers just about every Concorde question!). As @pilothead alludes to in their answer it climbed as it burned fuel but the aircraft never actually initiated a climb, it simply drifted up as it burned fuel and became lighter.
Also discussed in the episode is the complex approach and departure procedure. Due to the fuel burn schedule the Concorde did not really have the ability to hold for more than a single lap in a holding pattern or do a stepped climb with some route adjustments like many airliners. They had a special departure procedure that was more or less runway to cruise with no interruptions and a similar descent option. So the flight was effectively a climb to cruise block then a glide down right to landing. Depending on the wind and conditions of any given day as well as the load on board, the cruise altitude could vary greatly.
edited yesterday
FreeMan
6,734651118
6,734651118
answered yesterday
Dave
59.6k4107218
59.6k4107218
20
The Concorde cruise climb would actually be the most efficient cruise procedure for all aircraft, anyway, but no other aircraft are allowed this due to traffic density. Normal aircraft approximate this by step climbing a couple of thousand feet every few hours. Concorde was very much alone at her altitude, hence a gradual climb didn’t risk any loss of separation with other traffic.
– Cpt Reynolds
yesterday
2
Link for what @CptReynolds said: Step Climb. As the aircraft changes weight the efficient altitude changes. Apparently conventional aircraft used to cruise climb, but since the skies are pretty busy now isn't no longer an option. Interesting read.
– Nathan Cooper
18 hours ago
"it simply drifted up as it burned fuel and became lighter." Awesome explanation, thanks!
– Fattie
16 hours ago
add a comment |
20
The Concorde cruise climb would actually be the most efficient cruise procedure for all aircraft, anyway, but no other aircraft are allowed this due to traffic density. Normal aircraft approximate this by step climbing a couple of thousand feet every few hours. Concorde was very much alone at her altitude, hence a gradual climb didn’t risk any loss of separation with other traffic.
– Cpt Reynolds
yesterday
2
Link for what @CptReynolds said: Step Climb. As the aircraft changes weight the efficient altitude changes. Apparently conventional aircraft used to cruise climb, but since the skies are pretty busy now isn't no longer an option. Interesting read.
– Nathan Cooper
18 hours ago
"it simply drifted up as it burned fuel and became lighter." Awesome explanation, thanks!
– Fattie
16 hours ago
20
20
The Concorde cruise climb would actually be the most efficient cruise procedure for all aircraft, anyway, but no other aircraft are allowed this due to traffic density. Normal aircraft approximate this by step climbing a couple of thousand feet every few hours. Concorde was very much alone at her altitude, hence a gradual climb didn’t risk any loss of separation with other traffic.
– Cpt Reynolds
yesterday
The Concorde cruise climb would actually be the most efficient cruise procedure for all aircraft, anyway, but no other aircraft are allowed this due to traffic density. Normal aircraft approximate this by step climbing a couple of thousand feet every few hours. Concorde was very much alone at her altitude, hence a gradual climb didn’t risk any loss of separation with other traffic.
– Cpt Reynolds
yesterday
2
2
Link for what @CptReynolds said: Step Climb. As the aircraft changes weight the efficient altitude changes. Apparently conventional aircraft used to cruise climb, but since the skies are pretty busy now isn't no longer an option. Interesting read.
– Nathan Cooper
18 hours ago
Link for what @CptReynolds said: Step Climb. As the aircraft changes weight the efficient altitude changes. Apparently conventional aircraft used to cruise climb, but since the skies are pretty busy now isn't no longer an option. Interesting read.
– Nathan Cooper
18 hours ago
"it simply drifted up as it burned fuel and became lighter." Awesome explanation, thanks!
– Fattie
16 hours ago
"it simply drifted up as it burned fuel and became lighter." Awesome explanation, thanks!
– Fattie
16 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
16
down vote
Concorde had a 10,000fpm climb and a max altitude of 60,000ft, so time to climb was not a problem. It had an optimum cruise altitude that varied with weight, so as it burned fuel it climbed higher to stay on the optimum.
There were no other aircraft operating at those altitudes, so it would get clearances to climb 15,000ft at a time and would cruise climb throughout the trip until descent to destination was required.
Is there a link to graph/formula of optimum cruise altitude vs weight?
– smci
yesterday
@smci It is more complex than just weight. I found a repository of the flight manuals but it is thousands of pages. If you are interested avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/europe-and-consortiums/…
– Pilothead
9 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
16
down vote
Concorde had a 10,000fpm climb and a max altitude of 60,000ft, so time to climb was not a problem. It had an optimum cruise altitude that varied with weight, so as it burned fuel it climbed higher to stay on the optimum.
There were no other aircraft operating at those altitudes, so it would get clearances to climb 15,000ft at a time and would cruise climb throughout the trip until descent to destination was required.
Is there a link to graph/formula of optimum cruise altitude vs weight?
– smci
yesterday
@smci It is more complex than just weight. I found a repository of the flight manuals but it is thousands of pages. If you are interested avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/europe-and-consortiums/…
– Pilothead
9 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
16
down vote
up vote
16
down vote
Concorde had a 10,000fpm climb and a max altitude of 60,000ft, so time to climb was not a problem. It had an optimum cruise altitude that varied with weight, so as it burned fuel it climbed higher to stay on the optimum.
There were no other aircraft operating at those altitudes, so it would get clearances to climb 15,000ft at a time and would cruise climb throughout the trip until descent to destination was required.
Concorde had a 10,000fpm climb and a max altitude of 60,000ft, so time to climb was not a problem. It had an optimum cruise altitude that varied with weight, so as it burned fuel it climbed higher to stay on the optimum.
There were no other aircraft operating at those altitudes, so it would get clearances to climb 15,000ft at a time and would cruise climb throughout the trip until descent to destination was required.
answered yesterday
Pilothead
8,93322458
8,93322458
Is there a link to graph/formula of optimum cruise altitude vs weight?
– smci
yesterday
@smci It is more complex than just weight. I found a repository of the flight manuals but it is thousands of pages. If you are interested avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/europe-and-consortiums/…
– Pilothead
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Is there a link to graph/formula of optimum cruise altitude vs weight?
– smci
yesterday
@smci It is more complex than just weight. I found a repository of the flight manuals but it is thousands of pages. If you are interested avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/europe-and-consortiums/…
– Pilothead
9 hours ago
Is there a link to graph/formula of optimum cruise altitude vs weight?
– smci
yesterday
Is there a link to graph/formula of optimum cruise altitude vs weight?
– smci
yesterday
@smci It is more complex than just weight. I found a repository of the flight manuals but it is thousands of pages. If you are interested avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/europe-and-consortiums/…
– Pilothead
9 hours ago
@smci It is more complex than just weight. I found a repository of the flight manuals but it is thousands of pages. If you are interested avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/europe-and-consortiums/…
– Pilothead
9 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Amazing how we humans skew altitude and distance. 60,000 feet up is 12 miles. Transatlantic 2400 miles.
The climb would be a gradient of 12/1200 x 100 = 1.0%
I daresay the Concorde could climb a bit faster.
A 1.0% gradient would be barely noticeable in an automobile.
10
This answer does not have any sources (and doesn't make any strong claims at all) and may be more fitting as a comment.
– Jules
yesterday
1
On the other hand, a freight train climbing that same grade (12 miles in 1200) could be handled by normal locomotive allocation if they didn't mind it going slower than normal. If speed is a factor, e.g. Fast container train, it will get helper units added mid-train simply to keep speed up.
– Harper
yesterday
4
Math nitpick: it should be "x 100%" (="x 1"), not just "x 100".
– amI
yesterday
2
@RobertDiGiovanni User aml is right though.12/1200 * 100 = 1200/1200 = 1
and1% = 1/100
, from which follows that LHS and RHS of your post's equation can't be equivalent.
– Inarion
17 hours ago
6
Better nitpick: There should be nox 100
. 12/1200 is 1%. 12/1200 x 100 is 100%.
– pipe
17 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
Amazing how we humans skew altitude and distance. 60,000 feet up is 12 miles. Transatlantic 2400 miles.
The climb would be a gradient of 12/1200 x 100 = 1.0%
I daresay the Concorde could climb a bit faster.
A 1.0% gradient would be barely noticeable in an automobile.
10
This answer does not have any sources (and doesn't make any strong claims at all) and may be more fitting as a comment.
– Jules
yesterday
1
On the other hand, a freight train climbing that same grade (12 miles in 1200) could be handled by normal locomotive allocation if they didn't mind it going slower than normal. If speed is a factor, e.g. Fast container train, it will get helper units added mid-train simply to keep speed up.
– Harper
yesterday
4
Math nitpick: it should be "x 100%" (="x 1"), not just "x 100".
– amI
yesterday
2
@RobertDiGiovanni User aml is right though.12/1200 * 100 = 1200/1200 = 1
and1% = 1/100
, from which follows that LHS and RHS of your post's equation can't be equivalent.
– Inarion
17 hours ago
6
Better nitpick: There should be nox 100
. 12/1200 is 1%. 12/1200 x 100 is 100%.
– pipe
17 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Amazing how we humans skew altitude and distance. 60,000 feet up is 12 miles. Transatlantic 2400 miles.
The climb would be a gradient of 12/1200 x 100 = 1.0%
I daresay the Concorde could climb a bit faster.
A 1.0% gradient would be barely noticeable in an automobile.
Amazing how we humans skew altitude and distance. 60,000 feet up is 12 miles. Transatlantic 2400 miles.
The climb would be a gradient of 12/1200 x 100 = 1.0%
I daresay the Concorde could climb a bit faster.
A 1.0% gradient would be barely noticeable in an automobile.
answered yesterday
Robert DiGiovanni
726210
726210
10
This answer does not have any sources (and doesn't make any strong claims at all) and may be more fitting as a comment.
– Jules
yesterday
1
On the other hand, a freight train climbing that same grade (12 miles in 1200) could be handled by normal locomotive allocation if they didn't mind it going slower than normal. If speed is a factor, e.g. Fast container train, it will get helper units added mid-train simply to keep speed up.
– Harper
yesterday
4
Math nitpick: it should be "x 100%" (="x 1"), not just "x 100".
– amI
yesterday
2
@RobertDiGiovanni User aml is right though.12/1200 * 100 = 1200/1200 = 1
and1% = 1/100
, from which follows that LHS and RHS of your post's equation can't be equivalent.
– Inarion
17 hours ago
6
Better nitpick: There should be nox 100
. 12/1200 is 1%. 12/1200 x 100 is 100%.
– pipe
17 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
10
This answer does not have any sources (and doesn't make any strong claims at all) and may be more fitting as a comment.
– Jules
yesterday
1
On the other hand, a freight train climbing that same grade (12 miles in 1200) could be handled by normal locomotive allocation if they didn't mind it going slower than normal. If speed is a factor, e.g. Fast container train, it will get helper units added mid-train simply to keep speed up.
– Harper
yesterday
4
Math nitpick: it should be "x 100%" (="x 1"), not just "x 100".
– amI
yesterday
2
@RobertDiGiovanni User aml is right though.12/1200 * 100 = 1200/1200 = 1
and1% = 1/100
, from which follows that LHS and RHS of your post's equation can't be equivalent.
– Inarion
17 hours ago
6
Better nitpick: There should be nox 100
. 12/1200 is 1%. 12/1200 x 100 is 100%.
– pipe
17 hours ago
10
10
This answer does not have any sources (and doesn't make any strong claims at all) and may be more fitting as a comment.
– Jules
yesterday
This answer does not have any sources (and doesn't make any strong claims at all) and may be more fitting as a comment.
– Jules
yesterday
1
1
On the other hand, a freight train climbing that same grade (12 miles in 1200) could be handled by normal locomotive allocation if they didn't mind it going slower than normal. If speed is a factor, e.g. Fast container train, it will get helper units added mid-train simply to keep speed up.
– Harper
yesterday
On the other hand, a freight train climbing that same grade (12 miles in 1200) could be handled by normal locomotive allocation if they didn't mind it going slower than normal. If speed is a factor, e.g. Fast container train, it will get helper units added mid-train simply to keep speed up.
– Harper
yesterday
4
4
Math nitpick: it should be "x 100%" (="x 1"), not just "x 100".
– amI
yesterday
Math nitpick: it should be "x 100%" (="x 1"), not just "x 100".
– amI
yesterday
2
2
@RobertDiGiovanni User aml is right though.
12/1200 * 100 = 1200/1200 = 1
and 1% = 1/100
, from which follows that LHS and RHS of your post's equation can't be equivalent.– Inarion
17 hours ago
@RobertDiGiovanni User aml is right though.
12/1200 * 100 = 1200/1200 = 1
and 1% = 1/100
, from which follows that LHS and RHS of your post's equation can't be equivalent.– Inarion
17 hours ago
6
6
Better nitpick: There should be no
x 100
. 12/1200 is 1%. 12/1200 x 100 is 100%.– pipe
17 hours ago
Better nitpick: There should be no
x 100
. 12/1200 is 1%. 12/1200 x 100 is 100%.– pipe
17 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57058%2fwas-the-transatlantic-crossing-for-concorde-too-short-to-reach-optimal-cruising%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password