Concorde replacement engines

[Foo Fighter]

OK, four Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593 engines with thrust, as Rolls Royce officienado's might call it 'sufficient' so , what engines could have been fitted in a move to reinstall Concorde to flight with the same performance?

 

[Archibald]

Four GE4 ! the SST monster engine.
More seriously: the mk.625 or 626 without the reheat.

 

[Nigelhg]

Four GE4 ! the SST monster engine.
More seriously: the mk.625 or 626 without the reheat.

I'm not familiar with the mk625/626- from the nomenclature I'm guessing Rolls Royce?

 

[Archibald]

Yes it was the non afterburning Olympus for Concorde B.

 

[Scott Kenny]

OK, four Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593 engines with thrust, as Rolls Royce officienado's might call it 'sufficient' so , what engines could have been fitted in a move to reinstall Concorde to flight with the same performance?

Really quite a challenge, since there aren't really any engines that make 30klbs at 100% power and ~35k in AB.

F110-132, maybe the -134 (CFM56-7 core, F118 fan, afterburners). That'd get you up to ~36klbs in full AB, but only about 24k at 100%.

 

[F119Doctor]

The F110 engine, any version, is not a supercruising engine like the Concorde version of the Olympus. The F119 would be a decent replacement for the Olympus, probably with a round nozzle. Still would be quite noisy on takeoff.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

The F119 would be a decent replacement for the Olympus, probably with a round nozzle. Still would be quite noisy on takeoff.

Concorde really works because the dry thrust 31.5klbsf/engine was required to keep cruise in the low gradient Mach drag rise and also energise the intake. This was the bit the TU144 didn’t get right. So F119 at 26klbsf mayn't achieve this, but of course it’s a lot lighter, so taking 4 tons off the aircraft mass would drop the cruise drag. Also cruise fuel consumption would be significantly improved. again dropping the cruise drag/range.The data to evaluate this isn’t public available so we won’t know.

The (stalled) Concorde 2.0 development focused on an even higher dry thrust, to delete the reheat, where takeoff noise was seen as a concept killer. I understand they were looking at a fairly modest increase 5-10% dry thrust. Would F119 zero stage?

 

[Scott Kenny]

The F110 engine, any version, is not a supercruising engine like the Concorde version of the Olympus. The F119 would be a decent replacement for the Olympus, probably with a round nozzle. Still would be quite noisy on takeoff.

Ah, crap, forgot that point. *facepalm*

And the F110-134 would probably be the least supercruising engine of them all. The CFM56-7 has a high core pressure ratio.

F119 is a bit low-powered for Concorde, we really need an engine that makes at least 30klbs dry.

A tuned-up F135 would be my suggestion. 28klbs dry, 45k in full AB stock. Bump the thrust up to about 32k dry (yes, ~15% increase) and you could probably skip the afterburner entirely. Or just give a minimum afterburner to pop supersonic and then throttle down to cruise.