Was the transatlantic crossing for Concorde too short to reach optimal cruising altitude?











up vote
18
down vote

favorite
1












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.










share|improve this question




























    up vote
    18
    down vote

    favorite
    1












    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.










    share|improve this question


























      up vote
      18
      down vote

      favorite
      1









      up vote
      18
      down vote

      favorite
      1






      1





      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.










      share|improve this question















      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






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited yesterday









      Ari Brodsky

      1093




      1093










      asked yesterday









      Count Iblis

      19116




      19116






















          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.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 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


















          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.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 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


















          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.






          share|improve this answer

















          • 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 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




            Better nitpick: There should be no x 100. 12/1200 is 1%. 12/1200 x 100 is 100%.
            – pipe
            17 hours ago











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "528"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          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
































          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.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 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















          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.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 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













          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.






          share|improve this answer














          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.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          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














          • 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










          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.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 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















          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.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 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













          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.






          share|improve this answer












          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.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          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


















          • 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










          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.






          share|improve this answer

















          • 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 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




            Better nitpick: There should be no x 100. 12/1200 is 1%. 12/1200 x 100 is 100%.
            – pipe
            17 hours ago















          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.






          share|improve this answer

















          • 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 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




            Better nitpick: There should be no x 100. 12/1200 is 1%. 12/1200 x 100 is 100%.
            – pipe
            17 hours ago













          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.






          share|improve this answer












          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.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          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 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




            Better nitpick: There should be no x 100. 12/1200 is 1%. 12/1200 x 100 is 100%.
            – pipe
            17 hours ago














          • 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 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




            Better nitpick: There should be no x 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


















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded



















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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




















































































          Popular posts from this blog

          Plaza Victoria

          Puebla de Zaragoza

          Musa