SST Fuel Consumption vs. Contemporary Aircraft

[Delta Force]

I was wondering if anyone knows where I could find information on SST and contemporary aircraft fuel consumption figures. SSTs naturally have higher fuel consumption than subsonic aircraft, but I've always wondered just how much higher their fuel consumption is. For the purposes of this, the long range narrowbodies (Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8, Ilyushin Il-62, and Vickers VC-10), SSTs (Aérospatiale-BAC Concrde, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, and Tupolev Tu-144), and early widebodies (Airbus A300, Boeing 747, Lockheed L-1011 TriStar, and McDonnell-Douglas DC-10) should suffice.

It is possible to calculate approximate values for some of the historical aircraft, but it is more difficult with the SSTs due to a relative lack of information. Even when the information can be found, the use of afterburners for portions of flight complicates calculations. Additionally, all aircraft vary power over the course of flight, so thrust and specific fuel consumption is really only a relative comparison. Anyone happen to have these fuel consumption figures handy, or know where I might be able to find them so approximate figures can be calculated?

 

[totoro]

Can't help you with that but a very, VERY rough estimate, based on max range and max fuel loads for concorde and, say, a330-300, gives roughly 75 km traveled per ton of fuel for concorde and 141 km travelled per ton of fuel for a330-300. that's of course average figures, as you yourself pointed that different flight profiles would use more or less fuel. Adding seats to the mix - some 120 seats on concorde versus 360 sets on a330-300 (for a roughly similar seat width and pitch), that's some 9000 seat-kilometers traveled per ton of fuel for concorde versus 50.700 seat-kilometers traveled per ton of fuel for the airbus. So little over five and a half times better fuel efficency per seat.

One might say that airbus is bigger and therefore more efficient. A better comparison would then be Boeing 767-300ER, plane with more or less identical MTOW as Concorde. It'd travel 148 km per ton of fuel. Of course, it carries less passengers than a330. its 300 seat arrengement would lead to 44.400 seat-kilometers per ton of fuel, or just shy of 5 times better fuel efficiency per seat than the Concorde.