Boeing 777 reported at supersonic speeds of up to 745mph - Polidicks

[QUOTE]The Boeing 777-200 jet reached a ground speed of 745mph as it rode winds of more than 200mph across the Atlantic[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11337617/Jet-stream-blasts-BA-plane-across-Atlantic-in-record-time.html[/url]

What was the cause of the winds? Also is this the first airliner besides the Concorde to break the sound barrier?

-snip-

that's cool and all but they should't really call it supersonic and then go on to mention the concorde as well, the 777's max air speed is subsonic

Supersonic ground speed, but it was nowhere near supersonic in its air. Still a neat tidbit of info though.

[QUOTE=Tmaxx;46907535]What was the cause of the winds? Also is this the first airliner besides the Concorde to break the sound barrier?[/QUOTE] The speed of sound isn't a set value. It varies according to pressure and temperature (among other things). Also, it's a function of airspeed, not ground speed, so the jet was still going at it's usual subsonic speeds as far as it was concerned, it's just the tailwind made the ground speed much higher. So no, this airliner didn't break the sound barrier. The article doesn't even say it did, it just says it "approached" it, which is itself a bit of a stretch. The thread title is inaccurate.

[QUOTE=Tmaxx;46907535] Also is this the first airliner besides the Concorde to break the sound barrier?[/QUOTE] This one'd be the first airliner not expressly-built to go supersonic and the third overall. Before it was the Concorde and the Russian alternative, the Tu-144 (which, despite looking like a Concorde knockoff, actually came first).

[quote]passenger jet approached supersonic speed[/quote] "The Reliant Robbin approached supersonic speeds as it pushed past it's max speed of 53 mph, only 600mph to go"

The pilot was probably sick of Bitching Betty screaming "Overspeed! Overspeed!"

[QUOTE=Bradyns;46907925]The pilot was probably sick of Bitching Betty screaming "Overspeed! Overspeed!"[/QUOTE] I can't imagine why they'd have that keyed to ground speed rather than indicated, since indicated (relative) airspeed is what matters for VNE.

[QUOTE=Tmaxx;46907535]What was the cause of the winds? Also is this the first airliner besides the Concorde to break the sound barrier?[/QUOTE] no sound barrier, its just its getting up in the jet-stream and getting super-charged.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;46907925]The pilot was probably sick of Bitching Betty screaming "Overspeed! Overspeed!"[/QUOTE] nah that's for indicated not groundspeed

[QUOTE=Tmaxx;46907535]What was the cause of the winds? Also is this the first airliner besides the Concorde to break the sound barrier?[/QUOTE] a) It didn't break the sound barrier b) The Soviet Tu-144 flew 55 supersonic passenger flights from 1977 to 1978.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;46908224] b) The Soviet Tu-144 flew 55 supersonic passenger flights from 1977 to 1978.[/QUOTE] I did not know that, from everything I read about it I had just assumed it only did a handful at most. That is pretty impressive. I'm surprised no one died though.

why would anyone die? if it was a gradual acceleration to supersonic speeds, the passengers wouldn't even feel that uncomfortable.

[QUOTE=lintz;46908274]why would anyone die? if it was a gradual acceleration to supersonic speeds, the passengers wouldn't even feel that uncomfortable.[/QUOTE] The Tu-144 was a piece of shit. Completely unreliable, intolerably noisy, and shoddily produced. It was basically a Soviet government vanity project - Aeroflot didn't even want to operate it because of the maintenance problems.

[QUOTE=lintz;46908274]why would anyone die? if it was a gradual acceleration to supersonic speeds, the passengers wouldn't even feel that uncomfortable.[/QUOTE] If you're talking about the 777, it's probably because it's top speed is around 600mph, a little under 745mph it reached. Granted, I don't know if thats true airspeed or indicated. If you're talking about the T-144, probably because it's a soviet piece of shit. Soviet aircraft have always been notorious for being complete shit. No 2 aircraft can use the same set of spare parts. Every part is different on those birds.

This happens all the time with high altitude airliners. Many of them cruise above mach 0.80 so it doesn't take all that much wind to have a high groundspeed. Also at altitudes above 30,000 feet 100 knot winds are the norm in these jet streams.

Gotta bo fast

[QUOTE=Tmaxx;46907535]What was the cause of the winds? Also is this the first airliner besides the Concorde to break the sound barrier?[/QUOTE] GS is not the same as IAS

about fucking time we replace the corcorde

[QUOTE=hagbard;46908490]about fucking time we replace the corcorde[/QUOTE] I don't see supersonic commercial flight happening anytime soon. Same issues that put it out of service (fuel economy, high ticket cost, in other words, lack of profitability) are still in play.

[QUOTE=Apache249;46908556]I don't see supersonic commercial flight happening anytime soon. Same issues that put it out of service (fuel economy, high ticket cost, in other words, lack of profitability) are still in play.[/QUOTE] I can see a niche for supersonic private jets, though. They're already paying a massive premium, and it should be easier to make a smaller aircraft supersonic, compared to a larger one. Same reason supersonic fighters came before supersonic bombers.

[QUOTE=Apache249;46908556]I don't see supersonic commercial flight happening anytime soon. Same issues that put it out of service (fuel economy, high ticket cost, in other words, lack of profitability) are still in play.[/QUOTE] Once we get ramjets and other alternative supersonic propulsion methods working, I think we could do it now. Electronic control methods combined with advances in aerospace materials and construction mean we are more ready now than ever. The plane would be far better than the Concorde if we tried again, but who knows if it would be profitable.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;46908409]If you're talking about the 777, it's probably because it's top speed is around 600mph, a little under 745mph it reached. Granted, I don't know if thats true airspeed or indicated. If you're talking about the T-144, probably because it's a soviet piece of shit. Soviet aircraft have always been notorious for being complete shit. No 2 aircraft can use the same set of spare parts. Every part is different on those birds.[/QUOTE] iz soviet engineering, no spare parts needed (not that any will be supplied)

[QUOTE=Bradyns;46907925]The pilot was probably sick of Bitching Betty screaming "Overspeed! Overspeed!"[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;MRbzWQ2r118]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRbzWQ2r118[/video] That's basically what it would sound like, the video says 767 but hey that's what the 777's cockpit and instrumentation is based off of.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;46907925]The pilot was probably sick of Bitching Betty screaming "Overspeed! Overspeed!"[/QUOTE] They wouldn't get an overspeed warning. They were traveling with the wind, not against it. No additional stress or faster winds rushing across the tubes that read the speed and show the indicated air speed. Just faster ground speed Also, technically, the speed of sound is less than 700mph at that altitude. So they crushed it if you go by ground speed, but still sitting at the usual Mach 0.75ish as far as IAS is concerned

[QUOTE=BMCHa;46907553]The speed of sound isn't a set value. It varies according to pressure and temperature (among other things). Also, it's a function of airspeed, not ground speed, so the jet was still going at it's usual subsonic speeds as far as it was concerned, it's just the tailwind made the ground speed much higher. So no, this airliner didn't break the sound barrier. The article doesn't even say it did, it just says it "approached" it, which is itself a bit of a stretch. The thread title is inaccurate.[/QUOTE]Actually, no, it isn't. Speed of sound on the ground is basically going to be the same unless you start climbing into extreme elevations (and in that case your opinion doesn't count go back to your silly mountainhome you dwarf) or something terribly wrong has happened, so saying "faster than the speed of sound" when the groundspeed is what we're going with isn't inaccurate at all.

Is it like a car that you can turn of the engines and just go 'down hill' but then with the wind? [editline]12th January 2015[/editline] sorry

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;46911330]Actually, no, it isn't. Speed of sound on the ground is basically going to be the same unless you start climbing into extreme elevations (and in that case your opinion doesn't count go back to your silly mountainhome you dwarf) or something terribly wrong has happened, so saying "faster than the speed of sound" when the groundspeed is what we're going with isn't inaccurate at all.[/QUOTE] Are you sure you responded to the right post? [editline]12th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Siemz;46911918]Is it like a car that you can turn of the engines and just go 'down hill' but then with the wind? [editline]12th January 2015[/editline] sorry[/QUOTE] Well you can't really turn the engines off and glide in an airliner, but in a tailwind you can decelerate to save some fuel if you're just looking for a particular ground speed. If you're not worried about showing up early, you can go 'normal' airspeed, but with a faster ground speed.