Jump to content

Can you fly to 89 different destinations in 43 real Concorde Round the World Tours?


Ramón Cutanda

Recommended Posts

Ramón Cutanda

After standing for too long stored in my hangar, I've decided to clean the dust of my Concorde and take her for a spin.

I am a super fan of world tours... and just look what I found. A website dedicated to aviation round the world tours! --> https://www.wingnet.org/rtw/

There you will find all sort of world tours... including those made by Concorde!!! 43 OF THEM!
 

Map of the destinations: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/edit?hl=en&hl=en&mid=1IxBQtH7loS6YDPX7DmBeTjP_KSqOePPe&ll=2.8685249224783718%2C0&z=2

---------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE (29th May 2020)

Using those Word Tours, and a couple more charters I found along the way, I have finally created a Tour that joins ALL THOSE World Tours.

The full tour runs over 847,095 nm (great circle) along 437 legs. That makes an average of almost 2,000 miles per leg. Flying one leg per day you will need a year and 7 weeks to complete the tour; so this tour should keep you busy :-) You can download the tour in the following link:

https://simulaciondevuelo.com/archivos/concorde/Concorde-RTW-Tours-1976-2001.zip

Inside you will find a couple of PDF files with more details.

Hopefully, some of you will find it interesting :-)

Bests,

PS: If after flying all these 437 you are still thirsty for more... wel... you can continue with these:

https://simulaciondevuelo.com/world-tours-designed-for-concorde/

UPDATES:

v1.0.1 - 29 Mayo 2020 - Click here to see the changes

  • Like 7
Link to post
Søren Dissing
10 hours ago, Ramón Cutanda said:

After standing for too long stored in my hangar, I've decided to clean the dust of my Concorde and take her for a spin.

<snip>

The Flightplans for the BA RTW tours are (somewhat to my surprise!) still available here:

http://www.strontiumdog.plus.com/concfp.htm

I did all of them at least once in my early years at BAVirtual, these days I'm a bus driver there ;-)

  • Like 1
Link to post
  • 3 weeks later...
Ramón Cutanda

I have divided all the World Tours listed on my first post into four blocks and I have ready the first block to be flown :-) It contains all the world tours from 1976 to 1988 which, in total, add up 131 flights. You will find all these 131 flight plans and more details here:

https://simulaciondevuelo.com/archivos/concorde/ConcordeWorldTours1976-1988.zip

Later on I will prepare and share the remaining three blocks.

Hopefully some of you will find these flight plans useful.

Bests,

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
  • 5 weeks later...
Alfredo Hernandez

Hello..

I see a flight plan from KJFK to KOAK. was it a supersonic flight? or subsonic one?

 

Thank you

Cheers

Alfredo

Link to post
Fraser Gale
4 minutes ago, Alfredo Hernandez said:

Hello..

I see a flight plan from KJFK to KOAK. was it a supersonic flight? or subsonic one?

 

Thank you

Cheers

Alfredo

If it goes directly over the US it's definitely subsonic.  If it routes north over Canada as was done for Seattle and Vancouver then supersonic.  I think this was on a tour that had subsonic legs so it probably is subsonic.  Later tours tried to do all super if possible. 

Link to post
Alfredo Hernandez

thanks Fraser, Is the 2nd leg for the 2nd tour at the top of this page. highest it goes is Chicago so it would be sub. CPSX is giving 42 tons for a 4:25 flight (calculated as subsonic). That would give roughly 2.4 tons per engine per hour. I feel is quite low dont you think? total fuel needed for the flight its only 56.5 ton. I ve never calculated nor flown a fully subsonic flight before.

Link to post
Fraser Gale
45 minutes ago, Alfredo Hernandez said:

thanks Fraser, Is the 2nd leg for the 2nd tour at the top of this page. highest it goes is Chicago so it would be sub. CPSX is giving 42 tons for a 4:25 flight (calculated as subsonic). That would give roughly 2.4 tons per engine per hour. I feel is quite low dont you think? total fuel needed for the flight its only 56.5 ton. I ve never calculated nor flown a fully subsonic flight before.

I just happen to have the Cruise Control Manual sitting next to me.  Planning a full flight is actually quite complicated from a fuel point of view, but if I use the fuel check/re-flight planning table, a 4:25 four engine subsonic flight would need a minimum of 48.3 tonnes if you start at a weight of around 126 tonnes and fly at optimum flight levels.  HOWEVER, this is not counting takeoff fuel (around 1 tonne) and climb fuel (around 4.8 tonnes).   This is also assuming a very minimal payload and zero wind.  The ground distance is 2400nm.   It is more likely to be (with payload) 56.3+4.8+1.0 = 62.1 tonnes.

These all vary depending on payload weight and ISA temperature but as a minimum for that length of subsonic flight, you are looking at a minimum of 60 tonnes, so CPS is a little out there I would say.  Might be good to ask @Ray Proudfoot about this as he is a fan of CPS and can maybe cross check.  I would say that is a minimum and only if you fly at optimum flight levels including step climbs.   

By the way, the figures I have given only include the 6.5 tonne final reserve so more would be carried.  Also, remember the actual fuel flight planning is more complex as fuel burn reduces as time goes on, but these figures are official. 

Link to post
Alfredo Hernandez

Thank you Fraser. Right now Im trying a shorter subsonic flight. about 540nm and will use the CPS fuel and will let you know what happens.

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot
7 hours ago, Alfredo Hernandez said:

Thank you Fraser. Right now Im trying a shorter subsonic flight. about 540nm and will use the CPS fuel and will let you know what happens.

If you want me to check a plan using CPS-X please attach it to any reply. It would need to include the accel point and the waypoint at the other end where subsonic is required. That's usually around FL340, Mach 0.95.

Link to post
Fraser Gale
1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

If you want me to check a plan using CPS-X please attach it to any reply. It would need to include the accel point and the waypoint at the other end where subsonic is required. That's usually around FL340, Mach 0.95.

That sounds like CPS can't do subsonic only planning, would that be a correct statement?  The two are very different when it comes to planning so it wouldn't surprise me if this was the case. 

Link to post
Fraser Gale
1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@Fraser Gale, it can do subsonic. Pierre and @Ramón Cutanda thought of every possibility.

So why do you need the accel and decel points?  This sounds like a supersonic flight calculation to me...?

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Because I was referring to this post..

“I see a flight plan from KJFK to KOAK. was it a supersonic flight? or subsonic one?”

Later he mentioned a shorter subsonic flight but it was the first I was referencing.

Link to post
Fraser Gale
55 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Because I was referring to this post..

“I see a flight plan from KJFK to KOAK. was it a supersonic flight? or subsonic one?”

Later he mentioned a shorter subsonic flight but it was the first I was referencing.

This flight is subsonic.

 

Link to post
Alfredo Hernandez

Hello.  The short flight I did (find attached the pdf) Fuel figures at arrival was around 13500kg. but, it was planned for 340. Thou I climbed up to 380 and mach cruise was between .94-.95 Fuel flow was around 3.6 ton/hr/engine. so, it wasnt that off. only major difference was the actual flown FL.

the attached .PLN is from Ramon's wourld tour. and it is the one I want to do.

Thank you all for the interest on the matter.

Cheers. Alfredo

WIHH-WSAP.pdf KJFKKOAK014.pln

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Alfredo,

Thanks for sight of the CPS-X document. That program estimated 11.5T on arrival so you did well to arrive with 2T more.

If I'd flown between those two airports I'd have been tempted to fly over the ocean and fly it supersonic. Are you using the revised fuel files provided by Konstantin?

And the other thing is you have the map of the route in the CPS-X document. I stopped using that option some time ago as it locked up CPS-X after Pierre ended support. It seems to be working again which is great news.

Link to post
Fraser Gale

Can't really compare a short sector fuel burn with a long sector when subsonic unfortunately, as the changing weight over a long flight changes the fuel burn more.  Only way to find out is to fly it.

Figures still differ between the official BA manual and your CPS numbers so it will be interesting to see what happens. 

Link to post
Alfredo Hernandez
10 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Alfredo,

Thanks for sight of the CPS-X document. That program estimated 11.5T on arrival so you did well to arrive with 2T more.

If I'd flown between those two airports I'd have been tempted to fly over the ocean and fly it supersonic. Are you using the revised fuel files provided by Konstantin?

And the other thing is you have the map of the route in the CPS-X document. I stopped using that option some time ago as it locked up CPS-X after Pierre ended support. It seems to be working again which is great news.

Yes Ray, so far, I stopped having crashes with CPS which makes me very happy. :D I didnt do it over the ocean since I Followed Ramon's flightplans. As I would like to think those are the real routes the aircraft flew. I will get a try (eventually) of the subsonic JFK OAK flight and I will get back in here with results.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Ramón Cutanda

1. UPDATE (26th May 2020)

Using the Word Tours mentioned in my first post and a couple more charters I found along the way, I have finally created a Tour that joins ALL THOSE World Tours.

The full tour runs over 847,095 nm (great circle) along 437 legs. That makes an average of almost 2,000 miles per leg. Flying one leg per day you will need a year and 7 weeks to complete the tour; so this tour should keep you busy :-) You can download the tour in the following link:

https://simulaciondevuelo.com/archivos/concorde/Concorde-RTW-Tours-1976-2001.zip

Inside you will find a couple of PDF files with more details; including restrictions for supersonic flights.

Hopefully, some of you will find it interesting :-)

2. Regarding subsonic legs, if the flight is 100% subsonic CPS-X will suggest you the optimum flight level. In the case of the flight WIHH-WSAP the level suggested by CPS-X was FL340 for 87 passengers and I cannot remember the exact figures, but the fuel prediction was acceptable.

I will share the tables for subsonic flights as soon as I find some time.

Bests,

Link to post
Fraser Gale
47 minutes ago, Ramón Cutanda said:

1. UPDATE (26th May 2020)

Using the Word Tours mentioned in my first post and a couple more charters I found along the way, I have finally created a Tour that joins ALL THOSE World Tours.

The full tour runs over 847,095 nm (great circle) along 437 legs. That makes an average of almost 2,000 miles per leg. Flying one leg per day you will need a year and 7 weeks to complete the tour; so this tour should keep you busy :-) You can download the tour in the following link:

https://simulaciondevuelo.com/archivos/concorde/Concorde-RTW-Tours-1976-2001.zip

Inside you will find a couple of PDF files with more details; including restrictions for supersonic flights.

Hopefully, some of you will find it interesting :-)

2. Regarding subsonic legs, if the flight is 100% subsonic CPS-X will suggest you the optimum flight level. In the case of the flight WIHH-WSAP the level suggested by CPS-X was FL340 for 87 passengers and I cannot remember the exact figures, but the fuel prediction was acceptable.

I will share the tables for subsonic flights as soon as I find some time.

Bests,

Well done for putting all that together, I think I'll stick to one round the world per year rather than every day of the year though! 

WIHH-WSAP isn't a great route, but by my calculations it is 484nms direct and using the diversion table for this distance, no wind, 120T weight, fuel to destination from 1000ft above WIHH is 11.7 tonnes.  Add on 1.2 tonnes for takeoff and you get 12.9 tonnes.  Add final reserve of 6.5 and standard additional fuel of 2.5 and you are up to 21.9 tonnes.  Legal minimum could be taken for a subsonic flight of 25 tonnes.

Was this an official route?  Strange that it departs from the military airfield rather than WSSS and it is hardly worth the effort for such a short distance.

Link to post
Ramón Cutanda
9 hours ago, Fraser Gale said:

Was this an official route?  Strange that it departs from the military airfield rather than WSSS and it is hardly worth the effort for such a short distance.

All the round the world tours were either test, presentation and/or promotion flights during the first years, such as this one, or charter flights. Either case, sometimes you will find quite "unusual" distances and/or destinations because of this.

Regarding the choice of airports to visit, is explained in one of the PDF included in the download. I quote myself:

"4. I have tried to be strict regarding the chronology of the airports visited. For example, VHHX is planned as the destination to Hong Kong for flights made before 1990 and VHHH thereafter. Another example is Singapore: WSAP is the destination for flights previous to 1981 and WSSS after that year. Sometimes I have not been able to find out which airport Concorde used when visiting some cities. That is the case of Moscow, for instance. In those cases, the criteria followed has been using the airport with most traffic"

Link to post
Vimal Anandharaman

Changi was opened in 1981 so yea it makes sense for WSAP to be the airport as that was the main airport previously! 

Link to post
Fraser Gale

Interesting stuff.  I assume this route was on a sales tour @Ramón Cutanda?  I doubt it would have been commercially flown unless a fuel stop for somewhere else. Are your fuel figures similar to mine?

Link to post
Ramón Cutanda
Quote

On October 19, 1976 Concorde F-BTSC with captains Jean Franchi and Gilbert Defer departed Charles de Gaulle Airport, Paris on the start of a sales tour around-the-world but not technically round-the-world. The tour would cover 30,922 miles visiting Bahrain, Singapore, Manila, Hong Kong, Djakarta, Seoul and London before returning to Paris. It would log 22.06 hours of supersonic flight over 31.54 hours airborne.

Source: https://www.wingnet.org/rtw/RTW006NN.HTM

Regarding fuel and subsonic flights I need to find some time to go through it calmly and do some test flights. I prefer to wait and share something solid rather than giving a quick answer.

Bests,

Link to post
Fraser Gale
2 hours ago, Ramón Cutanda said:

Source: https://www.wingnet.org/rtw/RTW006NN.HTM

Regarding fuel and subsonic flights I need to find some time to go through it calmly and do some test flights. I prefer to wait and share something solid rather than giving a quick answer.

Bests,

That's what I thought so in fact they were trying to cover as many destinations as possible to show the aircraft to as many people as possible with the test pilots.  That aircraft was the heaviest in the AF fleet by the way, so would have a higher ZFW weight and burn a little more fuel. 

Link to post
Ramón Cutanda

v1.0.1 - All the .PLN files have been updated with a default altitude of FL600

Bests,

Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...