A380 overtakes BA 747 across Atlantic to show off.

[Julian Hensey]

Call me cynical - but if you are on a North Atlantic Track you are given a speed and people don't like you busting your given mach number - are you allowed to start "playing games"..... :rolleyes:

"Boeing has never knowingly oversold the rival A340's slowness in its own marketing presentations for the 747 and 777. The slowness of the A340-200/300 is indeed legendary - there's even a painting of a 747-400 in flight where the caption reads: "...and just below can be seen an A340 that is being overtaken".

Imagine Airbus's unbridled glee therefore when on the first ever commercial route proving flight of the A380 to New York last week the opportunity came to settle some very high profile public relations scores.

The flight operated in collaboration with future A380 customer Lufthansa was cruising over the Atlantic at M0.85 and was about to slow down to coordinate with the LAX-bound A380 sister flight when the crew spotted one of BA's 747s plying its own lonely furrow to the New World. Never slow to acknowledge the broader irony of the encounter, the Airbus-Lufthansa flight crew accelerated to M0.87 and overtook it.
The 747, not to be outdone, responded in kind and crept up to M0.87 as well. The A380 soon had to drop back to M0.83 for the rest of the way however in an effort to co-ordinate its arrival with the LAX flight. It was still early ahead of schedule - landing at 12.10 at New York Kennedy and slightly ahead of the tandem LAX flight whose distinctly imaginative landing repertoire caused several raised eyebrows on either side of the continent. "

By Aimee Turner

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flight-international/2007/03/a380-biggest-and-fastest.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flight-international/189_8995.jpg

[Codman]

Once you've read the paper and done the So Duko there ain't much else left to amuse you I guess.

[exvicar]

The report did not say that they were on a track merely that they were on the atlantic. Having spent the last few years being overtaken by 60's technology fair play to the 380 guys. Next complaint will be about the extra 30 milligrammes of CO2 thrown into the atmosphere. Good to see some rivalry!

[autothrottle]

Still prefer the Boeing though....

[Loose rivets]

Hah, shades of the Titanic.

But seriously, folk have played games like this since airlines were being started again after the war. Brightened the day. Some DC3s were just faster than others...by two or three knots. We weren't going to waste an advantage of that magnitude.

[tacr2man]

I seem to remember a 747 being passed both ways whilst crossing the atlantic by another aeroplane I think it was called Concord :confused: Whatever happened to that:sad: ?

[WorkingHard]

Whatever happened to Concord? Simple, when the USA politicians could not destroy it they simply waited until the French did the job for them. FANTASTIC aircraft! Unique! No one else could build one that lasted! Remind me how long ago was it designed and where is the next contender.

[NZLeardriver]

It's not really showing off when the 747 also increased to that speed, is it? It would be showing off when the a380 passes the 747 at a speed that the 747 couldn't match.

[Impress to inflate]

I bet the Ba was full of pax with all there bags and crap while the 380 was MT

[BEagle]

M0.87? How pedestrian.

Try a little VC-tenderness!

[TopBunk]

The 747, not to be outdone, responded in kind and crept up to M0.87 as well.

What it does say is that it sped up to match the A380, what it does not say is that it could have increased further to M0.88-0.89 and passed it if it wanted to.

Must be about the first time a longhaul Airbus aircraft has matched a Boeing product for speed....

[Thirty Eight South]

You guys want to check your facts, if the 747's so good, why did Boeing redesign it?

"I bet the Ba was full of pax with all there bags and crap while the 380 was MT"
-> No, check the Lufthansa info - The flight to JFK was an operational route proving flight with a representative pax, under floor cargo, catering and crew...Aerodynamics and design principles improvements have moved on since 1967, blimey

"Whatever happened to Concord? Simple, when the USA politicians could not destroy it they simply waited until the French did the job for them. FANTASTIC aircraft! Unique! No one else could build one that lasted! ...blah, blah"

The ex BA Concordes are all U/S and have been deactivated, they are not even in long term storage - they're static non flyable display A/C. The (ex Air France) French on the other hand have at least one serviceable and potentially airworthy Concorde available and it's sitting in the place where it was manufactured...quel horreur, le pensez-vous volerez-vous encore?

[TopBunk]

I bet the Ba was full of pax with all there bags and crap while the 380 was MT

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

I have never flown an aircraft that has to fly slower because it's full:ugh:

[Desert Diner]

So weight (or should I say mass) has nothing to do with flight?:confused:

[Few Cloudy]

... and of course the Concorde flew faster without its "e"...

[Hotel Mode]

The speed bar rarely comes down from Mmo on the 744 unless you're right up on max alt. The stall speed does increase with weight so generally fly faster when heavier. Cost index's reduce speed through flight.

[exvicar]

Still prefer the Boeing though....

Still prefer my flying table!

[arem]

<<Cost index's reduce speed through flight.>>

in that case why whenever I used 400 as the CI on the -400 did it always increase speed towards the end of the flight - often in excess of .87

always thought it a bit weird meself, guv

[BYALPHAINDIA]

I think the A380 has to 'prove' it's value before it can start showing off over the Atlantic.

Long Live the 747!:D

If it ain't Boeing I ain't Rowing!

[parabellum]

I think all BA was doing was stuffing up the A380's descent to make sure it got in first! Not that professional pilots actually do that sort of thing, of course.;)

[Colonel Klink]

Well, ultimately Boeing have sold about 1200 747's and continue to do so over a 40 reign as the worlds biggest airliner. Airbus may have taken that honour, but I doubt anyone can remember the last time they sold one.....? The break-even point is so far over the horizon, one would wonder if they can ever get there.

[mujan]

i don't think airbus will ever see the break-even point. I wonder if they'll ever actually deliver one?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Reminds me of the 'story' of the rivalry between airlines in de good ole days of the 707.......

Pan AM 707 flying slightly higher FL is slowly overtaking Aerlingus of same type.
Conversation goes something like....
(Yankee accent)...."Wattsa matter Paddy, trying to save fuel?"
Irish response... "Nope. FULL LOAD!"

Gotcha!:ok:

[Navy_Adversary]

By Aimee Turner
Not Amy Johnson then?:D

[panda-k-bear]

Colonel Klink - let me refresh your memory. The last time they sold one was in December. To Singapore Airlines. And before that? November. To QANTAS. Were you just being facetious or is it the onset of Alzheimers?

[Callo]

I think I missed the part where they actually overtook the jumbo?! Good sensationalist headline writing at it's best.

Hardly some international race for air superiority but more like a game between two old advasaries. Brits and Germans that is.

[Hahn]

At least the Brits are good sports in games like this. Chasing others is boring most of the times.

[Colonel Klink]

Panda, actually neither. I was trying to make a point. I am well aware Qantas bought a few more as did Singapore. Hardly startling sales performance that in the last year, the numbers sold have actually decreased due cancellations of the the Freighters by UPS and others. Meanwhile, Boeing sold another 30 787's this week to an unidentified customer and the number sold over Seattle way is expected to reach 700 by rollout. Now that's impressive!!!

[parabellum]

Oh dear Rainboe, you are really are still smoking that stuff again, aren't you?!!;)
Airbus original figure for break even was around 269.
Since then they have had billions of dollars in cost over runs and millions, if not billions of dollars in penalty payment due to delivery delays. The current BE figure, from analysts, is at least 500 but possibly more. It has all been in the aviation press for a while now.

The A380 has a niche market, the airlines love it but they will never order in the kind of numbers that will even come close to the B747. The 787 is is similar to the B777, it is a B747 replacement, given the changing nature of the passenger market. Mass cattle movers are great but they have a very limited appeal. Said it before, A380 maybe technically good but commercially a dead duck.

[LGB]

So weight (or should I say mass) has nothing to do with flight?
Yes, because heavier weight = lower flight level (if close to optimum). Lower flight level normally means higher temperature. Higher temperature = higher TAS (if mach is the same), as MACH = TAS/LSS where LSS = 38.95 x sqr(temp in Kelvin). Many an aviator and controller seem to forget this, so even with the same wind, a heavy 747 at FL310 is faster than an empty one at FL 410, just for the sake of the temperature. Crossing the Pacific recently, we were playing with another 747, taking turns at passing each other as the winds were shifting in the different levels (he was 4000 feet above).

How big is this difference in TAS?

Mach .85 @ -56.5C: TAS = 487 (Could be FL410)
Mach .85 @ -46.4C: TAS = 499 (ISA for FL310)
OK, just 12 knots, but still :-) If the wind is the same ...