Concord Climb rate ?
Mindy
higher than subsonic airliners such as the 767 or the 757 .
Tom Turton
> Does anyone know what the rate of climb is for the Concord ? Is it
> higher than subsonic airliners such as the 767 or the 757 .
Not the max performance numbers, but I believe they are "representative"
performance numbers, FAA document 7110.65 shows:
Concorde 5000 fpm climb rate
B757 2500 fpm climb rate
B767 3500 fpm climb rate
---Tom Turton
Darren Rhodes
>Does anyone know what the rate of climb is for the Concord ? Is it
>higher than subsonic airliners such as the 767 or the 757 .
In a word no. Concorde climbs about on par with four engined
transports like 747s and A340s. It of course needs to fly at rather
higher speeds. Not helping climb performance as well is the need to
reduce power deeply; some time after takeoff - what is referred to as
a noise abatement cut-back procedure. As far as I know they calculate
the time of cut-back to the second before each flight based on takeoff
weight and weather conditions.
--
Mr. Darren P. Rhodes, BEng. (Hons) | Aircraft Performance
Email: dar...@daz-technology.demon.co.uk | Analysis & Noise
Web: www.daz-technology.demon.co.uk | Specialist
cow...@ram.net.au
The elapsed time from brakes release to level at cruise flight level would
give an indication of the average rate of climb and that could be compared ,
using the same parameters for the other types you are interested in.
Like every other type of aeroplane the concorde initial rate of climb
(depending on weight) would be very high initially and decreasing as it climbs
in the accelerating portion of the climb. (presuming standard atmosphere).
If it climbs to a ias/mach cross over then on attaining the climb mach and
holding that speed in the decelerating portion of the climb below the
tropopause, the rate initially increases again then decreases all the way to
cruise level. This is the theory but I have never flown a supersonic airliner
yet, perhaps there are some ex military pilots lurking who can explain, in
gerneral terms, how the climb to height is executed.
cow...@ram.net.au
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
ter...@dircon.co.royaume-uni
>Mindy wrote:
>> Does anyone know what the rate of climb is for the Concord ? Is it
>> higher than subsonic airliners such as the 767 or the 757 .
>
>performance numbers, FAA document 7110.65 shows:
>
>Concorde 5000 fpm climb rate
>B757 2500 fpm climb rate
>B767 3500 fpm climb rate
The 757, as overpowered as it is, can only manage that climg rate????
Terence Liow - replace royaumeuni with the abbreviation of the
U_nited K_ingdom of England, Scotland, Wales & N. Ireland
to reply
Karl Swartz
>>Concorde 5000 fpm climb rate
>>B757 2500 fpm climb rate
>>B767 3500 fpm climb rate
>The 757, as overpowered as it is, can only manage that climg rate????
I was on a UA 757 flying SFO-LAX a few years ago and, listening on
channel 9, heard our pilots request a higher altitude. ATC granted
the request on the condition that we could do at least 3000 fpm --
we could, and as I recall gave them better than 4000 fpm. So, I
seriously doubt the accuracy of Tom's numbers.
--
Karl Swartz |Home k...@chicago.com
|Work k...@netapp.com
|WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/
"The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney
Tom Turton
> In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Terence Liow wrote:
>On 18 Aug 98 01:04:35, Tom Turton <ttu...@cowboys.anet-dfw.com> wrote:
> >>Concorde 5000 fpm climb rate
> >>B757 2500 fpm climb rate
> >>B767 3500 fpm climb rate
>
> >The 757, as overpowered as it is, can only manage that climg rate????
>
> I was on a UA 757 flying SFO-LAX a few years ago and, listening on
> channel 9, heard our pilots request a higher altitude. ATC granted
> the request on the condition that we could do at least 3000 fpm --
> we could, and as I recall gave them better than 4000 fpm. So, I
> seriously doubt the accuracy of Tom's numbers.
Boys, boys, boys -
I never claimed those to be MAX climb rates - only representative
numbers as published in an FAA document. It is my "assumption" that
those are probably nominal climb rates that the aircraft can "always"
make (high weight, close to cruising altitudes??). Obviously, a
lighter weight airplane flying on a nice crisp clear day at lower
altitude, can probably burn through those numbers. I merely posted them
as a starting point - hoping that someone else might have a source of
better data than mine (i.e. a flight ops manual).
Frank Jenkins
>
......
> >
> >Concorde 5000 fpm climb rate
> >B757 2500 fpm climb rate
> >B767 3500 fpm climb rate
>
> The 757, as overpowered as it is, can only manage that climg rate????
This is anecdotal, but a UAL 757 captain I know claims that he regularly
pegs the R/C meter at 6000fpm on climbout.
Frank Jenkins
Malcolm Weir
appear as if it was written:
>> >Concorde 5000 fpm climb rate
>> >B757 2500 fpm climb rate
>> >B767 3500 fpm climb rate
>>
>> The 757, as overpowered as it is, can only manage that climg rate????
>
>This is anecdotal, but a UAL 757 captain I know claims that he regularly
>pegs the R/C meter at 6000fpm on climbout.
Obviously, without some additional definition, these numbers are fairly
useless. For example, climbout for the B757 from SNA is extremely rapid for
the first 1,000ft, then it virtually stops for a while as a result of noise
abatement procedures. One could argue, therefore, that the B757's climb
rate should be the number applicable without noise abatement.
... and this is relevant if one of the aircraft in that list happens to have
afterburners which it normally shuts off immediately after takeoff...
Malc.
cow...@ram.net.au
> Karl Swartz wrote:
> > I was on a UA 757 flying SFO-LAX a few years ago and, listening on
> > channel 9, heard our pilots request a higher altitude. ATC granted
> > the request on the condition that we could do at least 3000 fpm --
> > we could, and as I recall gave them better than 4000 fpm. So, I
> > seriously doubt the accuracy of Tom's numbers.
>
> Boys, boys, boys -
> I never claimed those to be MAX climb rates - only representative
> numbers as published in an FAA document. It is my "assumption" that
> those are probably nominal climb rates that the aircraft can "always"
> make (high weight, close to cruising altitudes??). Obviously, a
> lighter weight airplane flying on a nice crisp clear day at lower
> altitude, can probably burn through those numbers. I merely posted them
> as a starting point - hoping that someone else might have a source of
> better data than mine (i.e. a flight ops manual).
cowboy's comment; what the hell are we trying to find out here, initial rates
of climb or the time to height. It will depend on power to weight ratio, ie,
as stated above, the lighter the aeroplane the higher it can climb but the
longer it takes. There will be consistency if we presume the aeroplane is
operated correctly and is climbed to the optimum altitude for the weight.
That's what a PERFORMANCE MANUAL will indicate. They all go well at the start
but at the end they are staggering a bit.If KS was on one that could, off the
bat,at altitude, find 3000 plus fpm then it must have been suffering an
altitude blockage and was way to light for the altitude at which it was
cruising. cow...@ram.net.au
Karl Swartz
>fpm then it must have been suffering an altitude blockage and was way
>to light for the altitude at which it was cruising.
An altitude blockage?! That's a new one! As for being too light, I
wasn't aware of any *minimum* weight regulations for airliners or any
other sort of aircraft. This happened to be during climb -- probably
below 20,000' and well below cruise -- with a light load on a 337 mile
flight. Of course the aircraft was well below the weight it would have
been at had it been taking a full load 2500+ miles against headwinds to
Hawaii.
Kai Rüffer
Tom Turton schrieb in Nachricht ...
>Mindy wrote:
>> Does anyone know what the rate of climb is for the Concord ? Is it
>> higher than subsonic airliners such as the 767 or the 757 .
I know it in detail, because I'm flying the B757/767.
It's a matter of weight,thrustsetting, speed,temperature,altitude and so
on.....
When the aircraft's are almost empty and you select a high thrustsetting
they can easily catch up with a 20 year old fighter.
For the first 5000 feet they both have climrates over 6000fpm.
The B767 has a little better weight-thrust ratio the the B757.(empty)
The Concorde has app. 4000-5000fpm climerate during the initial climeout.
......
Don Boberick
Those climb rates sound low to me, too. What is the title to Order 7110.65?
Could that be an Air Traffic Service Order relating to operational
parameters?
Tom Turton
7110.65 is entitled simply "Air Traffic Control". The data I cited was from
Appendix A of that document, and on second look it states: "CLIMB AND DESCENT
RATES - Climb and descent rates based on average en route climb/descent
profiles at median weight between maximum gross takeoff and landing weights."
So, they ain't the best and they ain't the worst - guess that's about ALL you
can infer from those numbers :-)
--Tom
G3AV8TOR
>An altitude blockage?! That's a new one! As for being too light, I
>wasn't aware of any *minimum* weight regulations for airliners or any
>other sort of aircraft.
The HS-125-800 (Hawker 800) has a minimum zero fuel weight of 13,100 pounds.
Gary
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it ain't fixed, don't fly it."
Karl Swartz
>>regulations for airliners or any other sort of aircraft.
>The HS-125-800 (Hawker 800) has a minimum zero fuel weight of 13,100 pounds.
Interesting. Why?! The only reason I can think of is that the aircraft
might not have flight tested in that part of the envelope -- not unlike
the prohibition against flap usage above 20,000' on some Boeings because
it wasn't ever flight tested.
Paul
> >>As for being too light, I wasn't aware of any *minimum* weight
> >>regulations for airliners or any other sort of aircraft.
>
> >The HS-125-800 (Hawker 800) has a minimum zero fuel weight of 13,100 pounds.
>
> Interesting. Why?! The only reason I can think of is that the aircraft
The A300's and A310's that fedex flys all have minumum flt wts, if we don't
put freight on them then fuel must be allocated as ballast weight to bring
the airframe up to the minumum flt weight. I've been told by every
crewmember that I asked that this is because that weight was the weight
that the airframe was certified at when it left the factory.
If anyone can add any info I for one would be glad to hear it.
Paul
Kees de LezenneCoulander
>>>As for being too light, I wasn't aware of any *minimum* weight
>>>regulations for airliners or any other sort of aircraft.
>
>>The HS-125-800 (Hawker 800) has a minimum zero fuel weight of 13,100
>>pounds.
>
>Interesting. Why?! The only reason I can think of is that the aircraft
>might not have flight tested in that part of the envelope ...
From my time in an aircraft project office I distinctly remember that
the stress people always came to ask us for the minimum flight weight (not
minimum zero-fuel weight). It definitely goes into the sums somewhere. I
cannot remember the exact reason, but I think it had to do with the gust
respone which is more violent for a lightly loaded aircraft. I have never
seen it as a formal limitation though.
Kees de Lezenne Coulander
--
C.M. de Lezenne Coulander E-mail: Lez...@CompuServe.com
Amsterdam-Zuidoost, The Netherlands
Aircraft Development and Systems Engineering B.V.
Schiphol-Rijk, The Netherlands
cow...@ram.net.au
> Appendix A of that document, and on second look it states: "CLIMB AND DESCENT
> RATES - Climb and descent rates based on average en route climb/descent
> profiles at median weight between maximum gross takeoff and landing weights."
> So, they ain't the best and they ain't the worst - guess that's about ALL you
> can infer from those numbers :-)
Thank you Tom, in essence that is what I posted on the 18th of August
cowboy
MCLELLAN Alexander
"The subsonic climb is carried out with a rate of climb (ROC)
of 3000 - 6000 ft/min."
Regards
Alex.
This message does not constitute official EUROCONTROL correspondence.
The Organisation is not responsible for its contents or the consequences
of its use, nor for inaccurate transmission or misdirection.