Supersonic 777...
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northame...
I take it the airspeed would've been somewhat less so the reporting is a little hyperbolic?
I take it the airspeed would've been somewhat less so the reporting is a little hyperbolic?
Is it a 'record time' or are they just using that as a turn of phrase? I'm sure I've seen people on here post PFD shots with ground speeds beginning with an '8'. Maybe it's rare for a strong jet to be sustained for a large part of the journey?
In the article I read they used the term 'supersonic' in the headline, and then explained why this was b
ks in the text. Typical clickbait.
In the article I read they used the term 'supersonic' in the headline, and then explained why this was b
ks in the text. Typical clickbait.Prawo Jazdy said:
Is it a 'record time' or are they just using that as a turn of phrase? I'm sure I've seen people on here post PFD shots with ground speeds beginning with an '8'. Maybe it's rare for a strong jet to be sustained for a large part of the journey?
In the article I read they used the term 'supersonic' in the headline, and then explained why this was bks in the text. Typical clickbait.
Yeah, I couldn't quite see what record it was that they'd broken (it's no doubt written in the article)...i assumed it was time rather than speed but is it time for that model of aircraft.In the article I read they used the term 'supersonic' in the headline, and then explained why this was b
ks in the text. Typical clickbait.Edit: I'll go back and read it properly...
To be fair, the Telegraph seem to be having a bit of trouble with their website;
This was on the frontpage a couple of hours ago...even now they've only corrected one of the typos...
Edit: MBH, an hour and a half early...although don't all operators over estimate their flight times so they can look faster than they really are when they land?
This was on the frontpage a couple of hours ago...even now they've only corrected one of the typos...
Edit: MBH, an hour and a half early...although don't all operators over estimate their flight times so they can look faster than they really are when they land?
Edited by DrTre on Sunday 11th January 16:43
Typical tabloid sensationalism.
This time of year, it's entirely normal to see groundspeeds in excess of 700mph. Aircraft speed through the air is the same as it always is. All this supersonic talk is complete horsest.
Press seem to be going Jetstream crazy of late, but most airlines crossing the pond with actively plan routes into a jetstream (tailwind) in order to cut down on flight times, thus saving fuel.
This time of year, it's entirely normal to see groundspeeds in excess of 700mph. Aircraft speed through the air is the same as it always is. All this supersonic talk is complete horses
t.Press seem to be going Jetstream crazy of late, but most airlines crossing the pond with actively plan routes into a jetstream (tailwind) in order to cut down on flight times, thus saving fuel.
I was on a transatlantic a few years back that hit 764mph ground speed. Nothing unusual at all about it so not sure why such a hoohaa with this particular instance? Some of our pilot chums will no doubt be along soon with photos of cockpit displays showing ground speeds equivalent to 800+ mph.
Edited by dvs_dave on Tuesday 13th January 02:52
As we don't use mph you are v unlikely to see a pic of 8 something, in kts that'd be really moving. A GS of anything over 700kts is a good help home. I think the highest I've had was 760.
The wind is regularly strong enough to do more, however the direction is obviously important, as is our level. The core of the jet being the strongest part, but is a fairly narrow 'tunnel'.
The wind is regularly strong enough to do more, however the direction is obviously important, as is our level. The core of the jet being the strongest part, but is a fairly narrow 'tunnel'.
Mabbs9 said:
As we don't use mph you are v unlikely to see a pic of 8 something, in kts that'd be really moving. A GS of anything over 700kts is a good help home. I think the highest I've had was 760.
The wind is regularly strong enough to do more, however the direction is obviously important, as is our level. The core of the jet being the strongest part, but is a fairly narrow 'tunnel'.
If you could produce a photo of said 760kts GS you would hold the record for the fastest commercial GS on http://www.groundspeedrecords.com/index.php excluding concorde of course.The wind is regularly strong enough to do more, however the direction is obviously important, as is our level. The core of the jet being the strongest part, but is a fairly narrow 'tunnel'.
What do you fly if you don't mind my asking?
Mabbs9 said:
As we don't use mph you are v unlikely to see a pic of 8 something, in kts that'd be really moving. A GS of anything over 700kts is a good help home. I think the highest I've had was 760.
The wind is regularly strong enough to do more, however the direction is obviously important, as is our level. The core of the jet being the strongest part, but is a fairly narrow 'tunnel'.
If you could produce a photo of said 760kts GS you would hold the record for the fastest commercial GS on http://www.groundspeedrecords.com/index.php excluding concorde of course.The wind is regularly strong enough to do more, however the direction is obviously important, as is our level. The core of the jet being the strongest part, but is a fairly narrow 'tunnel'.
What do you fly if you don't mind my asking?
Jim Campbell said:
If you could produce a photo of said 760kts GS you would hold the record for the fastest commercial GS on http://www.groundspeedrecords.com/index.php excluding concorde of course.
What do you fly if you don't mind my asking?
Fastest by quite some margin. What do you fly if you don't mind my asking?
DrTre said:
brenflys777 said:
Proof the Daily Mail and aviation stories are incompatible with actual facts!
No sonic boom from the 380 this time at 704kt GS or 810 mph
How very dare you suggest I read the daily mail!No sonic boom from the 380 this time at 704kt GS or 810 mph
Jim Campbell said:
If you could produce a photo of said 760kts GS you would hold the record for the fastest commercial GS on http://www.groundspeedrecords.com/index.php excluding concorde of course.
What do you fly if you don't mind my asking?
Indeed. 875mph GS is bloody quick. Assuming a conventional airliner cruising speed of circa 550mph, that's a 325mph tail wind. Not being an aviator, is such a jet stream speed possible?What do you fly if you don't mind my asking?
el stovey said:
Jim Campbell said:
If you could produce a photo of said 760kts GS you would hold the record for the fastest commercial GS on http://www.groundspeedrecords.com/index.php excluding concorde of course.
What do you fly if you don't mind my asking?
Fastest by quite some margin. What do you fly if you don't mind my asking?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff