Home





Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Fastest Commercial Jetliner.
alex-y
post Jul 15 2006, 09:22 AM
Post #1


Airbus 380 Member
*****

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 315
Joined: 4-August 05
From: Sydney, Australia Santiago, chile
Member No.: 1,880



Hey guys i just want to know what is the fastest commercial jetliner today? i know the concord used to be.
cheers icon_thumright.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tripleseven
post Jul 15 2006, 10:00 AM
Post #2


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 547
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Member No.: 2,550



QUOTE(alex-y @ Jul 15 2006, 05:22 AM) [snapback]93965[/snapback]
Hey guys i just want to know what is the fastest commercial jetliner today? i know the concord used to be.
cheers icon_thumright.gif



Isn't it the 777?

If it isn't then maybe the 74
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yaarpanjabi
post Jul 15 2006, 10:24 AM
Post #3


Boeing 747 Member
****

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 207
Joined: 31-July 05
From: Sydney, Australia
Member No.: 1,867



Boeing 747, apparently the shape of the aircraft allows it to fly faster than any other civil airliner, as the drag is a lot less at high speeds (Mach 8.5 +)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
iambenwyatt
post Jul 15 2006, 10:58 AM
Post #4


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 505
Joined: 11-January 06
From: Frome, Somerset, U.K
Member No.: 2,853



QUOTE(yaarpanjabi @ Jul 15 2006, 03:24 PM) [snapback]93967[/snapback]
Boeing 747, apparently the shape of the aircraft allows it to fly faster than any other civil airliner, as the drag is a lot less at high speeds (Mach 8.5 +)


MACH 8.5, NOW THAT IS FAST!!!! icon_lol.gif LOL, I guess you mean 0.85. That is fast though, I thought they cruised at more like around mach 0.55.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AirRabbit
post Jul 15 2006, 11:32 AM
Post #5


The Rant Master
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 1,225
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Member No.: 1,333



QUOTE(iambenwyatt @ Jul 15 2006, 10:58 AM) [snapback]93969[/snapback]
MACH 8.5, NOW THAT IS FAST!!!! icon_lol.gif LOL, I guess you mean 0.85. That is fast though, I thought they cruised at more like around mach 0.55.

The 0.85 number for the B747 is correct; and the B777 does about the same; the B767 is not a lot slower, something like 0.82. When you get down to the B737 the cruise speed drops to something like 0.78. I think the A340 cruises at something just a bit slower than the B747 and B777; and is more like the 0.82 of the B767. The DC-9/MD-88/90 are very similar to the B737 - about 0.78.

The 0.55 number is likely what you'll see out of the family of "Very Light Jets" coming down the pike. Oh, goody ... I can see it now ... "United 382, would you like a vector off course for spacing or would you prefer a 30-minute holding pattern? Traffic in front of you at your altitude is doing Mach point five two."

Yikes! icon_eek.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Archangel
post Jul 15 2006, 12:33 PM
Post #6


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Banned
Posts: 2,047
Joined: 8-December 04
From: McChord AFB 62 AW
Member No.: 333



I think the MD-11 is faster than the 747. Max level speed is .87 mach at 31,000ft

Edit: no wait, the 747 has a max level speed of .885 mach at 30,000ft

Of course these are max speeds not ideal crusing speeds.

If you disregard that you said Commercial Jetliner then the Citation X wins with a blistering .91 max CRUISE speed. Im not sure what the max all out level speed is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bernoulli
post Jul 15 2006, 12:36 PM
Post #7


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: FL350 CREW
Posts: 3,266
Joined: 11-December 04
From: (KLFT) Lafayette, LA
Member No.: 348



QUOTE(AirRabbit @ Jul 15 2006, 10:32 AM) [snapback]93974[/snapback]
The 0.55 number is likely what you'll see out of the family of "Very Light Jets" coming down the pike. Oh, goody ... I can see it now ... "United 382, would you like a vector off course for spacing or would you prefer a 30-minute holding pattern? Traffic in front of you at your altitude is doing Mach point five two."

Yikes! icon_eek.gif


Remember when the Cessna Citation first came out? It was known as the "High Altitude Roadblock", or something to that effect....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alex-y
post Jul 15 2006, 12:54 PM
Post #8


Airbus 380 Member
*****

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 315
Joined: 4-August 05
From: Sydney, Australia Santiago, chile
Member No.: 1,880



When i was on a flight to Santiago on a LAN a340, i was checking how far we where from Santiago and the speed that was displayed said that we where flying at 910km/h. was the aircraft over speed or something?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AirRabbit
post Jul 15 2006, 01:48 PM
Post #9


The Rant Master
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 1,225
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Member No.: 1,333



QUOTE(bernoulli @ Jul 15 2006, 12:36 PM) [snapback]93983[/snapback]
Remember when the Cessna Citation first came out? It was known as the "High Altitude Roadblock", or something to that effect....

No, I don't remember that ... but, then again, sometimes I don't remember what I had for breakfast. Anyway, the numbers of these VLJs that are planned to enter service is almost staggering! The price of the Eclipse is rumored to be just under $1.3 million. Here's what they're advertising regarding insurance requirements and rates (anyone can look in the FARs to see the "technical requirements" to fly PIC in one of these things, but, at least for now, the insurance is probably going to be the REAL requirements).

Minimal: 500 hours total time; Private pilot with instrument and multi-engine ratings; Very limited instrument and multi-engine time; $46,000 annual premium provides full hull and $1M liability.

Medium: 1,000 hours total time; Private pilot with instrument and multi-engine ratings; 100 instrument hours; 200 multi-engine hours; $40,000 annual premium provides full hull and $1M liability; $47,000 annual premium provides full hull and $5M liability.

Experienced: 2,500 hours total time; Commercial pilot with instrument, multi-engine and jet type ratings; 100 instrument hours; 500 multi-engine hours; 100 turbine hours; $29,000 annual premium provides full hull and $1M liability; $38,000 annual premium provides full hull and $10M liability.

Training is going to be under contract with United Airlines as a Training Provider and will use full Level D simulators - or at least that is the talk at the moment. I'm not sure how much time a pilot will get in the actual airplane. It is going to be ... interesting!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
learguy
post Jul 15 2006, 03:07 PM
Post #10


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: FL350 CREW
Posts: 755
Joined: 10-February 05
From: US (KSDL)/China (VHHH)
Member No.: 775



Like mentioned above, I believe the 747 is the fastest airliner, with a maximum cruising speed of Mach .87 and an Mmo of .885.

For perspective:

The Citation X is the fastest civil airplane, with a Mmo of .92 and able to cruise at Mach .91.

The Gulfstream G-550 can cruise at up to Mach .87 and has an Mmo of .885. It can travel 6,000 NM at Mach .85 and 6,750 NM at Mach .80. Very impressive.

There were some good jokes running around when the Citation I first came out. It was slow compared to "real" jets of the time, like the Learjet. The Citation was nicknamed the Near-jet as a result. And why did it have a mesh metal screen in the tailpipe? For birdstrike protection from the rear.

As for the VLG's coming out, I had an opinion about that from day one. With them, if they become half as popular as predicted, we will all become 340kt airplanes as we get stuck behind them.

I think we will see a spate of crashes in them, too. A lot of non-professional pilots trading in their Cessna 414's and Piper Meridians for their first jet. The jet is easier to operate in some ways compared to, say, a C-414, but they come with their own other set of operating requirements and skills. There is going to be a "learning curve" attached to them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Archangel
post Jul 15 2006, 03:19 PM
Post #11


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Banned
Posts: 2,047
Joined: 8-December 04
From: McChord AFB 62 AW
Member No.: 333



QUOTE(learguy @ Jul 15 2006, 12:07 PM) [snapback]94006[/snapback]
As for the VLG's coming out, I had an opinion about that from day one. With them, if they become half as popular as predicted, we will all become 340kt airplanes as we get stuck behind them.



From what i read about that subject, the faster jets like yours will get the higher cruising alt's and will still get preference when low and around airports. A VLJ will hardly ever cruise up where you guys do, from what i read they will be required to stick around slightly lower than commercial jets when they are in crowded jetways and such. So they will putz along at .70 mach or so while you guys go streaking but 5,000 feet above them. It shouldnt be a big deal.

Also some of them arent as slow as you think. Check this page out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLJ

That Javelin will give everyone a run for thier money. I want one so bad i can taste the fuel, course i need a few costly licenses first lol.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AirRabbit
post Jul 15 2006, 03:34 PM
Post #12


The Rant Master
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 1,225
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Member No.: 1,333



Well, as you can obviously see, the Javelin, while a great looking airplane and clearly the fastest of the new crop of VLJs, it is a two-place machine and costs almost three times as much. Also, a golfing trip with your best bud will be complicated, as it looks like you could take your golf clubs OR your best bud.

As for the altitudes, if, for some reason (and speed capability IS a great reason) ATC wants to keep them at a lower altitude, there 'may' be some arguments, because the range on these little guys won't be as great as advertised at the lower altitudes - and they'll all be fully capable of operating up through FL350 (no pun intended). And, with the exception of the Javelin, they're all going to be at the 340-350 knots (0.55) range, just as Learguy indicated. Unfortunately, I also fear that he may be just as correct about the potential for accidents. That will depend on the quality of the traininng AND the background/experience of the guys with enough money to buy one of these toys, er ... airplanes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AspiringPilot
post Jul 15 2006, 04:20 PM
Post #13


Airbus 380 Member
*****

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 425
Joined: 24-March 06
Member No.: 3,514



Well the 747s combined power from its four jet engines have to count for something too. I believe but maybe Im wrong that the A340 and 747 are on about the same level of speed if you think about it. The only variations the 747 has opposed to the A340 is the jet engines which vary and the upper configuration.Plus the 747 jet engines are really strong. I heard once that if each engine on both sides of the 747 were put up to a good throttle speed they could carry the plane to cruise. Thats pretty strong. icon_thumright.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Archangel
post Jul 15 2006, 05:07 PM
Post #14


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Banned
Posts: 2,047
Joined: 8-December 04
From: McChord AFB 62 AW
Member No.: 333



QUOTE(AspiringPilot @ Jul 15 2006, 01:20 PM) [snapback]94022[/snapback]
Well the 747s combined power from its four jet engines have to count for something too. I believe but maybe Im wrong that the A340 and 747 are on about the same level of speed if you think about it. The only variations the 747 has opposed to the A340 is the jet engines which vary and the upper configuration.Plus the 747 jet engines are really strong. I heard once that if each engine on both sides of the 747 were put up to a good throttle speed they could carry the plane to cruise. Thats pretty strong. icon_thumright.gif


What are you talking about? Carry the plane? Im sure im not the only one confused here, and the 747 isnt overpowered, its got just the right amount.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gatorbuc99
post Jul 15 2006, 06:08 PM
Post #15


Boeing 747 Member
****

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 232
Joined: 3-October 05
From: KATL
Member No.: 2,219



I guess he means in the rare(to be curt with my words) case of case of 3 engines out (which is actually LESS likely than 4 engines out, btw...the a/c could cruise on that one engine.

However, aspiring, that's not completely the case. The a/c will "fly" a limited distance...she can't keep her altitude on that one engine, that's why she needs 4, lol.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dash8q300
post Jul 15 2006, 07:34 PM
Post #16


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 724
Joined: 22-December 05
From: Nhulunbuy, Northern Territory
Member No.: 2,714



I was on a boeing 747-400 from singapore-london and we reached 998 km/h! icon_smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AIRCRAFT ENGINEE...
post Jul 15 2006, 08:59 PM
Post #17


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 913
Joined: 13-August 05
From: US Pacific Northwest
Member No.: 1,931



QUOTE(alex-y @ Jul 15 2006, 09:54 AM) [snapback]93987[/snapback]
When i was on a flight to Santiago on a LAN a340, i was checking how far we where from Santiago and the speed that was displayed said that we where flying at 910km/h. was the aircraft over speed or something?


910km/h is 565mph (500k or so - more or less) Besides, that was GROUND SPEED (about M .72 to .78 actual I'd guess - but I'm no 'Bus expert icon_thumright.gif ) The 340 isn't all that fast until it burns off a bunch of fuel and gets to altitude - then it scoots right along. Earlier this year I was on Asiana 777 and saw 1020km/h (big tailwind in the jetstream)

As to the 747 speed - it's the wing design - it's built for speed. BTW - There is a point at which merely adding "power" doesn't produce a similar "speed" increase - the drag increase from trying to increase speed overpowers that extra power
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
{DaRk}
post Jul 16 2006, 02:36 AM
Post #18


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 1,504
Joined: 10-September 05
From: Sydney, Australia
Member No.: 2,096



QUOTE(dash8q300 @ Jul 15 2006, 04:34 PM) [snapback]94053[/snapback]
I was on a boeing 747-400 from singapore-london and we reached 998 km/h! icon_smile.gif



Me too, I've been on numerous long hauls flying at Mach 0.9+

Are you sure max speed is 0.85?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
charliepapa
post Jul 16 2006, 07:35 AM
Post #19


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 716
Joined: 30-December 05
Member No.: 2,779



All aircraft are overpowered. Even the A343... icon_razz.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tripleseven
post Jul 16 2006, 10:43 AM
Post #20


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 547
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Member No.: 2,550



QUOTE(charliepapa @ Jul 16 2006, 03:35 AM) [snapback]94093[/snapback]
All aircraft are overpowered. Even the A343... icon_razz.gif



No it's not......... icon_rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

 
 
Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th May 2013 - 11:44 AM

Home | Webmail | Forum | Random Video Generator | Link to us | Aircraft Fact Sheets | Help
Upload videos | Become a videographer | Terms of Use | Privacy | Contact us | About Flightlevel350.com | Ad Choices

© 2004 - 2009 Flightlevel350.com
Aviation Videos - Airplane Videos - Loudest place on the web!