daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Airports and Aviation

Airports and Aviation » Airports | Photos and Videos



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old December 13th, 2005, 12:14 AM   #1
thunder head
BANNED
 
thunder head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 401
Likes (Received): 0

Fastest airliner in the world (besides concorde)

This is one topic that is never though off, What is the fastest commercial airliner in the world besides Concorde? I know for sure that the Convair 990 had a cruising speed of Mach 0.9 and was regarded as the world's fastest airliner at the time but that is out of service now.

WHile flying in a Boeing 777-200ER from Vienna to Melbourne, it maintained a ground speed of 1132 km/h for approx 15 minutes in a tailwind, and above 1000km/h for several hours.

so any commerical airliner flown faster on a scheduled service and what airliner has the fastest average cruise speed?
thunder head no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 13th, 2005, 12:25 AM   #2
BOLSCHOI
Bannerbeauftragter
 
BOLSCHOI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Berlin (West) / St.Petersburg
Posts: 444
Likes (Received): 81

Fastest airliner in the world was russian TU-144. . A prototype first flew on December 31, 1968 near Moscow, two months before the Concorde.

Airline: Aeroflot
Power source: 4 Kuznetsov NK-144 turbofans of 196 kN afterburning thrust
Maximum cruising speed: 2345-2500km/h (Mach 2.5)
Operational ceiling: 18,000 m
Range with maximum payload: 6,500 km
Empty weight: 85,000 kg
Maximum take-off weight: 180,000 kg
Span: 28.80 m
Length: 65.50 m
Crew: 3
Passengers: 120
Wing area: 438 m²







__________________
The art of il fenomeno:PART I PART II


Marco Polo, RegioManio liked this post
BOLSCHOI no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2005, 12:31 AM   #3
luv2bebrown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Unknown
Posts: 1,882
Likes (Received): 109

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunder head

WHile flying in a Boeing 777-200ER from Vienna to Melbourne, it maintained a ground speed of 1132 km/h for approx 15 minutes in a tailwind, and above 1000km/h for several hours.
i was on a KLM 747-300 at 1160km/h. unless my math is wrong, isnt that faster than the speed of sound?
luv2bebrown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2005, 01:28 AM   #4
Kai Tak
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anytown, USA
Posts: 428
Likes (Received): 2

Ground speed and air speed are two different things. You both probably experienced substantial tailwinds (which is common) and thus were able to significantly increase ground speed.

True the speed of sound at crusing altitudes is roughly 1062 kph. But something tells me you weren't actually breaking the sound barrier. You would've noticed it too.

Kai Tak no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2005, 01:34 AM   #5
Kai Tak
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anytown, USA
Posts: 428
Likes (Received): 2

I miss the Tupolev 144. Fastest commercial aircraft ever built! Go Russia!
__________________

Marco Polo liked this post
Kai Tak no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2005, 01:54 AM   #6
thunder head
BANNED
 
thunder head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 401
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai Tak
Ground speed and air speed are two different things. You both probably experienced substantial tailwinds (which is common) and thus were able to significantly increase ground speed.

True the speed of sound at crusing altitudes is roughly 1062 kph. But something tells me you weren't actually breaking the sound barrier. You would've noticed it too.

Yeah those speeds are possible ONLY with a tailwind! Because of the tailwind, the Indicated Airspeed of the aircraft is still around Mach 0.85 thus within safe operable limits at the 1100km/h plus groundspeed we were experiencing, but if there was no tailwind, that would actually be supersonic, probably around Mach 1.1 at 35,000ft so in theory we were cruising at supersonic speed
thunder head no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2005, 01:54 AM   #7
Monkey
BANNED
 
Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Londinium
Posts: 14,108
Likes (Received): 38

@Bolshoi
Corcordski was a poor copy and insufficiently tested. She was rushed into flight before she was ready in order to "beat" Concorde, crashed soon afterwards, and the programme was promptly abandoned. Now see the real incomparable thing - one of the most beautiful creations of mankind....









Monkey no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2005, 02:05 AM   #8
nicksanderson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 282
Likes (Received): 15

Not as quick as Concorde and Concordski - the DC8 went supersonic during testing click here! and I was on a A320 that had a massive tailwind and the pilot announced that we were travelling in excess of 700mph!
nicksanderson no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2005, 02:12 AM   #9
thunder head
BANNED
 
thunder head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 401
Likes (Received): 0

How the hell did they get the DC-8 up to 52,000ft?
thunder head no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2005, 02:22 AM   #10
Effer
E Pluribus Unum
 
Effer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vanderbilt
Posts: 3,736
Likes (Received): 226

Those are some very fast planes!
Effer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2005, 03:33 AM   #11
The Boy David
Registered User
 
The Boy David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 4,830
Likes (Received): 668

Mmmmmmmmmmmm.... Concorde........... Many will try, most will fail.

Concorde was (still should be) the pinnicle of aviation.

For me it always will be.
The Boy David no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2005, 04:14 AM   #12
Kai Tak
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anytown, USA
Posts: 428
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey
@Bolshoi
Corcordski was a poor copy and insufficiently tested. She was rushed into flight before she was ready in order to "beat" Concorde, crashed soon afterwards, and the programme was promptly abandoned. Now see the real incomparable thing - one of the most beautiful creations of mankind....
I thought the Tu-144 crash at the Paris Airshow was caused by a French spyplane.
Kai Tak no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2005, 01:19 PM   #13
Wezza
©
 
Wezza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Townsville
Posts: 8,882
Likes (Received): 987

I'm pretty sure the 747 is the fastest commercial airliner currently in service? It has alot to do with it's highly swept wing design compared to most other airliners flying today.

Someone mentioned the Convair 990, it was considered the sports car of the skies when it first came into service. Pity there are none flying anymore. There are plans to restore a Convair 880 to flying condition, hope it happens, they were a great looking aircraft.
Wezza no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2005, 01:34 PM   #14
Monkey
BANNED
 
Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Londinium
Posts: 14,108
Likes (Received): 38

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai Tak
I thought the Tu-144 crash at the Paris Airshow was caused by a French spyplane.
That was probably a Russian excuse. Actually they screwed up the software in order to "outperform" Concorde and the plane went beyond its envelope and crashed. Soon afterwards another Tu-144 crash landed (the crew were killed) shortly before entering passenger service. It was a poor and insufficiently tested copy made possible by the Russians spying on the Concorde programme. By contrast a BA pilot, interviewed as Concorde was being retired, said that Concorde had been so extensively tested, and was so aerodynamically perfect, that he could take her off autopilot and control the stick with his little finger even at Mach 2.2 and 60,000 feet high. He could clearly see the curvature of the earth at the edge of space. He would look down and see the small Jumbos far below trundling across the Atlantic and disappearing rapidly behind. His description was so evocative....
__________________

Marco Polo, rakcancer, WillBuild liked this post

Last edited by Monkey; December 13th, 2005 at 02:09 PM.
Monkey no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2005, 02:27 PM   #15
CharlieP
Tax avoider
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 23,762
Likes (Received): 1980

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey
@Bolshoi
Corcordski was a poor copy and insufficiently tested. She was rushed into flight before she was ready in order to "beat" Concorde, crashed soon afterwards, and the programme was promptly abandoned. Now see the real incomparable thing - one of the most beautiful creations of mankind....

Did I ever mention that I've flown at Mach 2 on Concorde?
__________________
This signature is socialist and un-American.
CharlieP no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2005, 03:15 PM   #16
Nephasto
Enlightened user
 
Nephasto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Porto
Posts: 5,802
Likes (Received): 71

Cruising speed for some major airliners:

Boeing 737 : Mach 0.79
Boeing 767: Mach 0.80
Boeing 777: Mach 0.84
Boeing 747: Mach 0.85
Boeing 787: (will be) Mach 0.85

Airbus A330: Mach 0.82
Airbus A340-200/300: Mach 0.82
Airbus A340-500/600: Mach 0.83
Airbus A380: Mach 0.85
__________________
Long live rail freight!!
Nephasto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2005, 03:59 PM   #17
Desven
...und so halt!
 
Desven's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: WestWood baby!
Posts: 614
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey
@Bolshoi
Corcordski was a poor copy
yes,it was a poor copy but it was still faster than the concorde!
__________________
Hä,wo ist meine Signatur hin?!
Desven no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2005, 09:09 PM   #18
Kai Tak
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anytown, USA
Posts: 428
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey
That was probably a Russian excuse. Actually they screwed up the software in order to "outperform" Concorde and the plane went beyond its envelope and crashed. Soon afterwards another Tu-144 crash landed (the crew were killed) shortly before entering passenger service.
I think both are true, the software malfunction and the spyplane, I remember watching a show on TV about it, and they mentioned yes the spyplane was there.

True, the second crash didn't help things either. Overall the oil embargo killed SSTs, which is really really sad. That's why I think the A380 is the next best solution. If you can't get there any faster, at least make the journey more comfortable and plesant.
Kai Tak no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2005, 01:54 PM   #19
Wezza
©
 
Wezza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Townsville
Posts: 8,882
Likes (Received): 987

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nephasto
Cruising speed for some major airliners:

Boeing 737 : Mach 0.79
Boeing 767: Mach 0.80
Boeing 777: Mach 0.84
Boeing 747: Mach 0.85
Boeing 787: (will be) Mach 0.85

Airbus A330: Mach 0.82
Airbus A340-200/300: Mach 0.82
Airbus A340-500/600: Mach 0.83
Airbus A380: Mach 0.85
I didn't think the A380 was going to have a cruise speed equal to the 747?
Wezza no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2005, 05:41 PM   #20
Nephasto
Enlightened user
 
Nephasto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Porto
Posts: 5,802
Likes (Received): 71

^But it is.
__________________
Long live rail freight!!
Nephasto no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium