Race! US Fighter vs Concord

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

rowbeartoe

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 30 Nov 2016, 06:30

Unread post21 Jul 2021, 22:19

Hi Everyone. I hope everyone is having a great day.

I'm curious if Any US Fighter could take off and land faster than the Concord on the famous New York to London flight (3,470 miles)? It's said the Concord would need about 3 hours vs the 747 which would take about 6 hours. The SR-71 did the run in about 2 hours but it didn't take off from New York but it had to refuel.

So could a clean F-16, F-15, F-35, F-22 etc with our without fuel tanks, with refueling (I think no matter what they would need to have air refuel) leave New York and arrive in London faster than the Concord?

https://www.wired.com/2010/09/0901sr-71 ... o%20cities.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2909
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post22 Jul 2021, 04:55

No.

The Concorde cruised at 2.0 Mach. So to beat that time, a fighter would need to fly faster than 2.0 Mach. To do so means the fighter would need to be clean (no external fuel tanks). But, to exceed 2.0 Mach, a fighter is going to be using reheat (i.e. afterburner(s)), which burns a LOT of gas really really quickly. For example, the F-15C has about 13,500lb of gas internally. In full afterburner, the F100 burns 1.94lb/lbf-hour. Using round numbers, with 24,000lb of thrust, and say 1.8 lb/lbf-hr, both F100s are going to be burning around 86,400lb of gas per hour, or 1,440lb of gas per minute. You'll be out of gas in about 10 minutes. Even if my numbers are off a bit, you're still going to be out of gas in a matter of tens of minutes. But you have to keep this speed up for three hours. And this does not even account for slowing down to get gas from an aerial tanker. (Slow down from 2.0+ Mach to 0.75 +/- Mach to tank, then accelerate back up to 2.0 Mach. But since you are flying slower than 2.0 Mach to tank, that means you are going to have to be going a lot faster than 2.0 Mach when not tanked, to make up for the lost time spent tanking.)

An F-22 can supercruise... but at 1.5 Mach -- not nearly fast enough to beat the Concorde, and reportedly only for about 460 +/- nautical miles.

So, no. A fighter could not beat the Concorde.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2332
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post22 Jul 2021, 15:17

Yeah Steve would be right - if the fuel capacity of over 200,000lbs is correct then that was probably a lot of available supersonic cruise time at altitude.

I think that fuel figure you have is for lower altitudes Steve so can probably shave quite a bit off that for the F100.

Looking at the SR-71 it had 80,000 lbs fuel capacity and at M3.2 @ 75,000ft the total fuel flow was estimated to be around 45,000 pph in Max burner.
When Obi Wan logged onto Twitter: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious"
Offline

shadowhawk

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2021, 15:29

Unread post22 Jul 2021, 17:20

Concorde's engines were extremely efficient at high altitudes and supersonic speeds. In fact, the engines were capable of higer speeds, but the airframe was limited to M2.05. In testing, they achieved M2.23 and FL690.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2909
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post22 Jul 2021, 19:47

basher54321 wrote:Yeah Steve would be right - if the fuel capacity of over 200,000lbs is correct then that was probably a lot of available supersonic cruise time at altitude.

I think that fuel figure you have is for lower altitudes Steve so can probably shave quite a bit off that for the F100.

Looking at the SR-71 it had 80,000 lbs fuel capacity and at M3.2 @ 75,000ft the total fuel flow was estimated to be around 45,000 pph in Max burner.


Heck, I could be off by a factor of three, four or five... Insteada running outta gas in 10 minutes, it's 20, 30, or 40 minutes. When you're looking at a three hour flight, it don't matter -- you're not going to beat the Concorde, so the answer remains the same. (I just ran to Wikipedia to try to get in the SFC ballpark.)
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google Adsense [Bot] and 38 guests