Concorde descent & landing
03-10-2009, 07:20 AM
#11
On Reserve
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: PA-28, finally moved to left seat
Posts: 18
Does anyone know the V-speeds? Back when FS had the Concorde I never seemed to get it right - oh well, the real thing is much cooler anyway.
I thought it was neat how they use reverse thrust to slow the plane during descent - I did a little research and found that the Trident does this, as doe the IL-86.
I thought it was neat how they use reverse thrust to slow the plane during descent - I did a little research and found that the Trident does this, as doe the IL-86.
Last edited by Tantalum; 03-10-2009 at 07:54 AM. Reason: typo
03-10-2009, 07:25 AM
#12
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Sounds Low to me...
The 747-400 burns about 30 tons an hour at brake-release (total; about 15k per engine).
The F-4 burns 50 tons an hour in afterburner, total (98,500 lbs).
The T-38 burns 10 tons an hour in burner.
The Olympus engine was 32,000 lbs of thrust dry, and 38,000 in burner (not much extra, according to Wikipedia) which would make it slightly more efficient than the F-4 or T-38, but I would guess each engine would burn about 30 tons an hour in burner, and about 6-7 tons in cruise.
Maybe he said 140 tons an hour?
The F-4 burns 50 tons an hour in afterburner, total (98,500 lbs).
The T-38 burns 10 tons an hour in burner.
The Olympus engine was 32,000 lbs of thrust dry, and 38,000 in burner (not much extra, according to Wikipedia) which would make it slightly more efficient than the F-4 or T-38, but I would guess each engine would burn about 30 tons an hour in burner, and about 6-7 tons in cruise.
Maybe he said 140 tons an hour?
Last edited by UAL T38 Phlyer; 03-10-2009 at 07:43 AM.
03-10-2009, 05:15 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Going Mach Chicken
Posts: 324
The 747-400 burns about 30 tons an hour at brake-release (total; about 15k per engine).
The F-4 burns 50 tons an hour in afterburner, total (98,500 lbs).
The T-38 burns 10 tons an hour in burner.
The Olympus engine was 32,000 lbs of thrust dry, and 38,000 in burner (not much extra, according to Wikipedia) which would make it slightly more efficient than the F-4 or T-38, but I would guess each engine would burn about 30 tons an hour in burner, and about 6-7 tons in cruise.
Maybe he said 140 tons an hour?
The F-4 burns 50 tons an hour in afterburner, total (98,500 lbs).
The T-38 burns 10 tons an hour in burner.
The Olympus engine was 32,000 lbs of thrust dry, and 38,000 in burner (not much extra, according to Wikipedia) which would make it slightly more efficient than the F-4 or T-38, but I would guess each engine would burn about 30 tons an hour in burner, and about 6-7 tons in cruise.
Maybe he said 140 tons an hour?
03-10-2009, 06:02 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: B767A[ret.]
Posts: 593
Concorde
Does anyone know the V-speeds? Back when FS had the Concorde I never seemed to get it right - oh well, the real thing is much cooler anyway.
I thought it was neat how they use reverse thrust to slow the plane during descent - I did a little research and found that the Trident does this, as doe the IL-86.
I thought it was neat how they use reverse thrust to slow the plane during descent - I did a little research and found that the Trident does this, as doe the IL-86.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
