778 MPH: Fastest Subsonic Commercial Transatlantic Flight Ever

"Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura) 01/19/2018 at 11:42 • Filed to: None

6

37

I love the curving dihedral in the Dreamliner wing.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

HammerheadFistpunch > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 01/19/2018 at 11:54

1

I need help understanding this number. Its right on the transonic threshold which would be super inefficient. Is that speed over ground or IAS?

Wrong Wheel Drive (41%) > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 01/19/2018 at 11:54

1

I have to imagine that plane burned a shit ton of fuel in the process. Lots of planes can get places WAY faster than they plan to do it in. But it will burn so much fuel that the airline will lose money on the flight.

TheRealBicycleBuck > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 01/19/2018 at 12:01

1

From the article: “Strong tailwinds over the Atlantic Ocean pushed the aircraft to a top speed of 776 mph during the flight.”

Azrek > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 01/19/2018 at 12:02

1

WilliamsSW > HammerheadFistpunch 01/19/2018 at 12:02

2

That’s ground speed. If you look at the article there’s a screenshot presumably taken at that peak cruise speed:

GS677 = ground speed 677kts which is 778 mph

TAS483 = true airspeed of 483kts which is 555 mph

HammerheadFistpunch > WilliamsSW 01/19/2018 at 12:06

5

Which is a number that makes a lot more sense. So basically this is a story saying “thanks for the wind”

WilliamsSW > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 01/19/2018 at 12:06

1

The curvature of the Dreamliner wing is gorgeous when it’s airborne.

Also that’s almost too short to get a good night’s sleep!!

WilliamsSW > HammerheadFistpunch 01/19/2018 at 12:07

3

And be glad you weren’t flying westbound!!!!

ttyymmnn > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 01/19/2018 at 12:07

3

I’m not a scientist, but I think there’s more to this story, and it was hinted at by WilliamsSW. There’s ground speed, there’s airspeed, there’s altitude, there’s tailwind, all of which factor into an aircraft’s speed. And it all depends on how you measure it and which metric you want to quote. I still wonder, based on WilliamsSW’s math, if this flight broke the 56-year-old record held by the Convair 990. From Wiki:

The Convair 990A is still the fastest non-supersonic commercial transport to have ever been produced. During May 1961, one of the pre-production 990 prototype aircraft set a record of .97 Mach in level flight at an altitude of 22,500 ft., equivalent to a true airspeed of 675 mph. [5] This was before the various aerodynamic drag-reduction changes were applied to the later 990A in order to meet certain performance guarantees which Convair had made to American Airlines. These subsequent modifications made to the later 990A (consisting of the four wing-mounted anti-shock body “speed capsules” and substantial streamlining of the engine pylon/wing interface) increased the velocity at which onset of transonic drag would occur by 0.09 Mach. As such, the 990A would have been capable of speeds slightly in excess of 700 mph. [6]

HammerheadFistpunch > ttyymmnn 01/19/2018 at 12:09

1

in terms of time, its inarguable they won, but in terms of speed I think you are correct.

ttyymmnn > HammerheadFistpunch 01/19/2018 at 12:16

1

We learn in school that speed is distance/time. So if Plane A and Plane B leave at the same time, but Plane A gets there first, it went faster. But just like in drag racing the fastest car doesn’t always get to the finish line fist.

Then there’s velocity, and angular momentum, and all the other things, and I’m no physicist. But I think that if you could put a speedometer on an airplane, the 990 would still win.

WilliamsSW > ttyymmnn 01/19/2018 at 12:18

2

The Norwegian flight was just taking advantage of a huge tailwind, and probably also had minimal delays on climbout and approach - I presume the quoted time was from runway to runway.

By my rough SWAG (best I can do without the OAT), they were flying somewhere around Mach 0.84 - - very ordinary by current commercial jet transport standards.

Also, while the Convair *could* fly at Mach 0.97, I would imagine it wasn’t very efficient at that speed - it was probably more cost effective at a lower speed, I would think.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > HammerheadFistpunch 01/19/2018 at 12:19

2

That’s definitely not what they said when Dude farted in Row 17.

Ash78, voting early and often > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 01/19/2018 at 12:19

3

The Ultimate Ground Speed Fakeout: Tales from the Dreamliner

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > WilliamsSW 01/19/2018 at 12:21

2

Breathtaking, really. Long, narrow, curving.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > ttyymmnn 01/19/2018 at 12:23

2

Pedant.

WilliamsSW > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 01/19/2018 at 12:23

1

I don’t know of any other aircraft that looks like that in the air.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Ash78, voting early and often 01/19/2018 at 12:24

5

Gamecat is triggered.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > WilliamsSW 01/19/2018 at 12:28

1

The Constellation has a nice curve and so does the 747-400.

WilliamsSW > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 01/19/2018 at 12:34

0

Yes, but there’s something a little more graceful in the 787 to my eye.

ttyymmnn > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 01/19/2018 at 12:37

0

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > WilliamsSW 01/19/2018 at 12:40

1

Oh, by far. I was just naming two wings that had caught my attention previously.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > ttyymmnn 01/19/2018 at 12:42

2

And if I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a trillion times not to exaggerate!

ttyymmnn > WilliamsSW 01/19/2018 at 12:43

1

Boeing has always made pretty planes. Airbuses are functional and boring.

ttyymmnn > Wrong Wheel Drive (41%) 01/19/2018 at 12:44

0

With that much tailwind, they probably burned less than you might think.

WilliamsSW > ttyymmnn 01/19/2018 at 13:03

0

True, although I think the A320 is good looking, and the 737, not so much.

The exceptions that prove the rule, though - and the other A320 family airplanes (318/319/321) aren’t good looking at all.

ttyymmnn > WilliamsSW 01/19/2018 at 13:10

1

Now you see, I think the A320 is boring, while the 737 is graceful and beautiful, hearkening back to an era when planes were still drawn on paper by humans. I mean, just look at those curves.

415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 01/19/2018 at 13:11

2

Disqualified, FIA says the wing is too flexible.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > 415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) 01/19/2018 at 13:23

0

someassemblyrequired > ttyymmnn 01/19/2018 at 13:34

0

There is an unsubstantiated rumor I’ve heard many times that a Swissair 990 went through Mach 1 in level flight. Not sure I believe it, but if there was an airplane that had a good shot, it was the 990. Here’s a link to the May ‘61 article in Flying:

https://books.google.com/books?id=YEr0ZO3UKlgC&lpg=PA25&ots=AsiGyXF11L&dq=convair%20990%20mach%201&pg=PA24#v=onepage&q=convair%20990%20mach%201&f=false

WilliamsSW > ttyymmnn 01/19/2018 at 13:49

1

I spent way too much time in these in the ‘90s, and disliked them to the point where I would go out of my way to book flights on other aircraft when I could (especially if it was an old -200). I always thought they looked too fat and low to the ground, and the jet intake was just silly. Plus they had less legroom than the rest of United’s fleet, and got a bad rap at the time too (UA 585/US427).

The newer ones do look much better though - the -800 is the best looking 737 yet with those winglets.

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > Ash78, voting early and often 01/19/2018 at 14:38

1

Time for everyone to go read the story again...views are getting close to 1 million. Come on guys we can do it!

https://oppositelock.kinja.com/favorite-sr-71-story-1079127041

Ash78, voting early and often > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 01/19/2018 at 15:03

5

Fun random fact. My dad still holds the world record for transatlantic flight in a twin turboprop (under a certain weight, etc), which he set in 1986. It included one fuel stop in Iceland, but otherwise went from Newfoundland to Ireland unbroken at a little over 400kts (airspeed) and over 500mph groundspeed. Over 40k feet altitude most of the trip. He said it’s always eerie to have propellers and be looking down at all the jet airliners below you.

The Iceland airport FBO (not the big international airport at Keflavik, but the little executive airport in Reykjavik — Loftleidir?) had been alerted ahead of time and were waiting for him. He said they got on that plane like an F1 pit crew.

ttyymmnn > someassemblyrequired 01/19/2018 at 16:09

0

I look forward to reading this, and a lot of the other articles in that edition. Again, I’m no aero engineer, but I just don’t see the 990 breaking the sound barrier and remaining controllable. But I could be wrong.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Ash78, voting early and often 01/19/2018 at 16:52

2

That is a cool story.

someassemblyrequired > ttyymmnn 01/19/2018 at 17:35

0

It’s great that a lot of the old issues of Flying, Flight International and Popular Mechanics are online. It’s a great timewaster.

Yep there are lots of issues with transonic flight, and jet engines don’t like supersonic flow (hence the variable intakes on Concorde). Calculating speed is a bit of an art at those speeds as well, so it is possible the instrument could have granted bragging rights that physics didn’t. There’s been a few airliners that have gone supersonic by accident (this article about TWA 841 from 1981 is well worth a read: http://reprints.longform.org/flight-bissinger ), and Canadian Pacific’s Empress of Montreal (a DC-8-43) flew supersonically in a dive during a test flight in 1961 - http://www.dc8.org/library/display.php?file=supersonic/ss8letter.jpg.

415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 01/19/2018 at 18:01

2

F1, if their front wing flexes too much etc...