Subsonic Atlantic Record

[ORAC]

BA Flight Sets Atlantic Subsonic Record

A British Airways (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/BritishAirways) flight has likely broken the fastest-ever subsonic New York to London crossing time after reaching speeds of more than 800mph.

Passenger plane records over the Atlantic tumbled overnight on Saturday and Sunday as Storm Ciara (https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/storm-ciara-news-latest-updates-flights-cancelled-heathrow-gatwick-british-airways-a9325236.html) hurtled towards Britain on the back of a 200mph jet stream.

According to Flightradar24 an online flight tracking service, a British Airways Boeing 747 departing JFK airport on Saturday reached Heathrow in 4 hours 56 minutes shortly after 11.20pm. It was just a minute faster than a Virgin Atlantic Airbus A350 flight which landed at Heathrow moments later, and three minutes quicker than another Virgin plane which arrived at 5.12am this morning.

Flights travelling in the opposite direction were taking more than two and a half hours longer.

BA and Virgin smashed the previous New York to London record (https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/norwegian-plane-boeing-harold-van-dam-new-york-jfk-london-gatwick-travel-holiday-a8169496.html) held by Norwegian, which reached London Gatwick from JFK in 5 hours 13 minutes in January 2018. The average travel time between New York and London is around 6 hours 13 minutes.

The BA flight reached its peak ground speed of 825mph at the eastern edge of Newfoundland at about 35,000ft, according to Flightradar24's tracking tool (https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ba112#23cda523).


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/660x449/image_75423885b85a8d34ee7bf895efe95940a3f37285.jpeg


https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1226395432252780544?s=21

[Sobelena]

I guess it should read that it (BA112) arrived shortly after 4:20am at LHR.

[Jim59]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/09/storm-ciara-hits-britain-mph-wind-rain-travel/
Reporting at its best...

'This could be worst storm this century'
Storm Ciara threatens to be the worst of the century, the Met Office said today, Robert Mendick reports.
The scale of the storm - with amber warnings across all of Wales and most of England - make it the most widespread for years, although it's full toll will not be known until it begins to blow itself out from tonight.
The storm hit Britain today on the back of a Gulf Stream that is travelling at 265 miles per hour. The speed of the Gulf Stream is as fast it has ever been, said the Met Office.

11:39AM
'Fastest ever' subsonic New York to London flight
A British Airways flight has broken the record for a subsonic flight from London to New York, Flightrader24, an online flight tracking service is reporting.

(Actually Flightradar reported the record as being from New York to London!)

[Bro]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51433720

[RogueOne]

The Virgin 350 did it burning 22,000kg less fuel than the BA.

[DaveReidUK]

Comments?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51433720

Well we learned from that article that:

a) modern passenger planes usually travel at about M0.85

b) 825 mph is a "phenomenal speed"

c) riding the jet stream can be very smooth or involve severe turbulence

:O

[newfoundglory]

I was only thinking its so fitting for this to have been the 747.

The Queen Of The Skies won't be around much longer, at least not in big passenger airlines like BA.

Proud moment for the 747.

[N1EPR]

How are these things measured? From what point to what point.? Who does the record keeping?

[double_barrel]

How accurately can aircraft predict the best altitude and route for their journey to take advantage of high altitude winds ?
How are winds aloft measured? With what frequency and resolution ? Is it trial and error, or reports from 'company' or is there a way of 'crowd sourcing' the information? If there was an automated system for all aircraft to continually share the windspeed and direction they were encountering, that should build-up a nice picture?

So many questions....

[Auxtank]

Well done BA - good stuff. Supersonic record and now subsonic record - no mean feat (wind up the jacksy is often uncomfortable and can cause mayhem in the galley)

How accurately can aircraft predict the best altitude and route for their journey to take advantage of high altitude winds ?
How are winds aloft measured? With what frequency and resolution ? Is it trial and error, or reports from 'company' or is there a way of 'crowd sourcing' the information? If there was an automated system for all aircraft to continually share the windspeed and direction they were encountering, that should build-up a nice picture?

So many questions....

Start here Brother...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Tracks

[DaveReidUK]

How are these things measured? From what point to what point.? Who does the record keeping?

The convention is from wheels-off to wheels-on, which has the advantage that it's one of the metrics that the airlines measure. Having said that, there is no central repository of this data that covers all airlines.

You can usually get a reasonable approximation from FR24, accurate to within a minute or two.

[421dog]

“...Gulf Stream that is travelling at 265 miles per hour. The speed of the Gulf Stream is as fast it has ever been, said the Met Office”

All of those container ships must be having a bit of a thrill...

[gearlever]

“...Gulf Stream that is travelling at 265 miles per hour. The speed of the Gulf Stream is as fast it has ever been, said the Met Office”

All of those container ships must be having a bit of a thrill...
:):):):)

Love the media

[fokker1000]

I've sat in 200KT jet, but didn't get wet!!!!

Wasn't so brilliant on the way out with 185KTS on the nose...

[TwinAisle]

Incidentally, Norwegian NEVER held the record - the previous best time of 5h1m was held by a BOAC VC10 from 40-odd years ago....

[DaveReidUK]

Incidentally, Norwegian NEVER held the record - the previous best time of 5h1m was held by a BOAC VC10 from 40-odd years ago....

Norwegian held the New York-London record.

[MarkerInbound]

How accurately can aircraft predict the best altitude and route for their journey to take advantage of high altitude winds ?
How are winds aloft measured? With what frequency and resolution ? Is it trial and error, or reports from 'company' or is there a way of 'crowd sourcing' the information? If there was an automated system for all aircraft to continually share the windspeed and direction they were encountering, that should build-up a nice picture?

So many questions....

I wouldn’t say the aircraft is predicting the best route. As pointed out earlier the routes during busy times are organized by ATC. Modern aircraft can tell you what the optimum altitude is based on the aircraft's current weight (which it calculates continuously) and the winds aloft forecasts which the crew enter into the flight management computer. Traditional winds aloft forecasts (FBs in Met speak) come out every 6 hours. However with so many aircraft now able to send winds aloft data it is very much as you say crowd sourced data that is is constantly being up dated. On a busy route like the eastbound NAT tracks during the evening you could reload fresh wind data every 30 minutes if you were bored.

[golfyankeesierra]

Hooray, BA sets a supposed record on JFK-LHR.
Just like Lufthansa probably holds the JFK-FRA, Air France the JFK-CDG and KLM the JFK-AMS records
Whats the big deal?

Now for the really impressive groundspeeds (and records), have a look at groundspeedrecords.com (https://groundspeedrecords.com/wof-top-3/?aircraft-manufacturer=Boeing&wpvaircraftmodel=b747-400&term_id=432)

[lansen]

Hooray, BA sets a supported record on JFK-LHR.
Just like Lufthansa probably holds the JFK-FRA, Air France the JFK-CDG and KLM the JFK-AMS records
Whats the big deal?

Dicksize matters.

[421dog]

Was in G-BOAG when it made the second best LHR-JFK run. (At the time, as the very accomadating flight crew informed me)

Way more fun than anyone should be able to have with pants on...

[421dog]

I was fortunate to fly on Concorde twice. An amazing machine.

The leading edge of the wing changed color in flight, and the inner plastic window in the “back half” of the cabin (I was part of the great unwashed) was uncomfortably warm to the touch.

On my last trip, the stews encouraged us to take as much stuff like blankets and pillows as we could, as it “was all over”...

[Miraz]

Does anyone have enough insight into this to know if BA operated the flight at maximum practical CI to go after the record?

[Anilv]

Does anyone have enough insight into this to know if BA operated the flight at maximum practical CI to go after the record?

Probably went for speed over cost to beat the storms. They would have read the forecast and decided to make haste. I'm betting they took a fair bit more fuel as well to cater to higher burn and potential diversions if they couldn't beat the storm.

Anilv

[wiggy]

Does anyone have enough insight into this to know if BA operated the flight at maximum practical CI to go after the record?

I haven't heard of it being a deliberate attempt to break the record ( doesn't sound like the BA way TBH) ...I do know for certain that there were a few other Atalantic crossings flown with CI 0 / low Mach numbers in the last 48 hours that were ludicrously quick ( bet cabin service on some of the BOS-LHR flights was interesting) so I suspect the record breaking was an accident..

I have yet to hear how long it took the record breakers to get allocated a stand after landing...:E:E

[8driver]

Does anyone have enough insight into this to know if BA operated the flight at maximum practical CI to go after the record?

What do you think? If you think you are going to set a record you aren't going to sit there at CI50. Or plan an ECON descent.

[Miraz]

What do you think? If you think you are going to set a record you aren't going to sit there at CI50. Or plan an ECON descent.

Hence the question....was wondering if the fun police interfered and forced the crew to take a fuel saving out of the weather by operating at a lower CI, or if the crew were given the green light to minimise the flight time and set a new record...

[Jumpjim]

My flight back on a 787 yesterday was cost index 53 so standard for the 787. But unusually we didn’t reduce to CI0 for the quick flight time so I think they (BA) were trying to get us back before it really kicked off.

[wiggy]

My flight back on a 787 yesterday was cost index 53 so standard for the 787. But unusually we didn’t reduce to CI0 for the quick flight time so I think they (BA) were trying to get us back before it really kicked off.

That makes sense..I haven't heard any mention of this being a deliberate attempt to beat the previous time. I just can't imagine anyone in the head shed being willing to put their names to an attempt.

[double_barrel]

Does anyone have enough insight into this to know if BA operated the flight at maximum practical CI to go after the record?

Since this is now in an area for us amateurs, and since I had to google to find out what CI is, I thought I might usefully share this:

In the majority of civil aviation flights, aircraft operators have to trade-off between the fuel consumed and time needed to fly a certain route. Aircraft equipped with Flight Management Systems (FMS) use a Cost Index (CI) parameter when optimising the flight profiles. The CI express the ratio between the cost of the fuel and the cost of the time [6]. Thus, a CI set to zero means that the cost of fuel is infinitely more important that the cost of the time and the aircraft will fly at the maximum range speed. On the other hand, the maximum value of the CI gives all the importance to the time, regardless of the needed fuel. In this case, the aircraft will fly at the maximum operating speed (VMO/MMO) with, in general, some safety margins. Airlines can reduce their operation cost by an efficient management of the CI settings among their scheduled flights. Actually, a CI value not only affects to the cruise airspeed but will determine the whole profile of the flight. This means that the optimal flight level may change and that t

From here https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/41758368.pdf

[Dufo]

The Virgin 350 did it burning 22,000kg less fuel than the BA.

Citation X can do it even faster burning even less than A350.

[DaveReidUK]

Citation X can do it even faster burning even less than A350.

It would have been rather worrying if the CX had burned more than the A350. :O

In fact the weight of the fuel burned by the Airbus would be higher than the Citation's MTOW.

[Seat3Dplease]

This Junior Jet Club member remembers a 1967 flight from Montreal to London on a BOAC VC10 in 5 hours and small change. Pilot announced nobody had ever done it faster! Impossible to recover the details, I imagine.

[3Greens]

Citation X can do it even faster burning even less than A350.

the BA crew certainly weren’t going for the record at any stage. In fact I know they didn’t even know they’d broken it until later that day when someone told them. Conversely the virgin crew were asking for priority landing and were doing their best to break it. Some of the social media posts from the Captain of the Virgin flight are cringeworthy beyond belief. Who gives a rats ass about “doing it by burning 22000kgs” less fuel? Really? Bet he wears long sleeved shirts too.

[DaveReidUK]

This Junior Jet Club member remembers a 1967 flight from Montreal to London on a BOAC VC10 in 5 hours and small change. Pilot announced nobody had ever done it faster! Impossible to recover the details, I imagine.

That's good going - YUL-LHR is a tad further (Great Circle) than the later JFK-PIK record (5:01) set by the Super VC-10 in 1979.

But you have put your finger on the difficulty of establishing what the absolute shortest flight duration has been (assuming we're restricting ourselves to subsonic transatlantic regular scheduled services as our criteria).

The winner is almost certainly an instance of WestJet WS16, which operated from St John's (YYT) to Dublin in 2017-18. Its shortest flight time will likely have been significantly under 4 hours.

I'll do a bit of digging around to see if I can find out what that time was, but in the meantime if anyone has an unrestricted (business) subscription to FR24, which provides 2 years' worth of flight histories, it would be worth a look at WS16 there.

[ACA856]

I also thought the VC10 still held the record until this weekend for JFK-LHR. Others are debating what route qualifies a 'transatlantic crossing record', YYT-DUB would usually be the shortest subsonic as it's considerably less distance to cover.

Then again, I'm old and memory is the second thing to go.

[DaveReidUK]

I also thought the VC10 still held the record until this weekend for JFK-LHR.

The VC-10 may well have held the JFK-LHR record at one point, though I haven't seen it documented anywhere. The Norwegian records set in January and February 2018 (the latter being the one broken at the weekend by BA) got plenty of coverage at the time, beating BA's previous January 2015 record of 5:16. I suppose if we wanted to be really picky, we could argue that one went to Heathrow and the other to Gatwick. :O

If it's any consolation, this site (http://www.michaelprophet.com/News_articles/News_articles2010/VC10.html) reckons that at least up to 2009, the VC-10 held the record for the fastest westbound transatlantic crossing (LHR-JFK), though I suspect that WestJet now have that, too.

[sandiego89]

What did these winds do to folks going the other way?

Related, wonder what the slowest LHR-JFK flight has been? (jet)

[PaulH1]

Citation X can do it even faster burning even less than A350.
But a Citation X at M.95 would not have the range to make it across the pond I think!

[frangatang]

Im surprised an a350 can do m0.85. Th ba had a planned flt time of 5.10. Typical of the bearded monsters lot to whinge though!

[A340Yumyum]

What utter nonsense - I really can't believe what I am reading. The 747 is limited to around 320kts (I know as that's the red tape on my FS). At '800' kts, the wings would definitely fall off; no sub-sonic aircraft could fly that fast, it would break up.
I have looked at all the commercial jet parameters on my flight sim and none of them is certified for anything near 800kts.

[lurkio]

Now now, place nicely with the others.

[DaveReidUK]

What utter nonsense - I really can't believe what I am reading. The 747 is limited to around 320kts (I know as that's the red tape on my FS). At '800' kts, the wings would definitely fall off; no sub-sonic aircraft could fly that fast, it would break up.
I have looked at all the commercial jet parameters on my flight sim and none of them is certified for anything near 800kts.

As windups go, that's rather a good one !

[Miraz]

Related, wonder what the slowest LHR-JFK flight has been? (jet)

I was pax on a plane that took 4 days nearly 20 years ago....might have been a diversion involved though :-)

[sudden twang]

What utter nonsense - I really can't believe what I am reading. The 747 is limited to around 320kts (I know as that's the red tape on my FS). At '800' kts, the wings would definitely fall off; no sub-sonic aircraft could fly that fast, it would break up.
I have looked at all the commercial jet parameters on my flight sim and none of them is certified for anything near 800kts.

Naughty naughty Mave 😂
Did I read it landed at 0420?
I know the 0600 NJB was cancelled but not the 0430 ban.

[Rwy in Sight]

I was pax on a plane that took 4 days nearly 20 years ago....might have been a diversion involved though :-)

Was it around late Summer early Autumn and it started on a Tuesday?

[DaveReidUK]

Did I read it landed at 0420?

I don't know - did you? And no, it didn't.

[Alpine Flyer]

How are these things measured? From what point to what point.? Who does the record keeping?
In order to be a real world record, it needs to be registered with the FAI (https://www.fai.org/records). That requires registering it with the national air sports association that is affiliated with FAI, usually the Aero Club of the country of registry. There's a detailed procedure on how to document this but there's a special category for "speed over a commercial air route" which has simplified rules. AFAIK you can use ACARS printouts for documentation under US rules, while the "standard" rules require a signed confirmation of take-off and landing time by the respective airport/ATC unit (something that can be a bit daunting to organize during a turn-around) and some proof that it's a commercial air route and not a charter (e.g. excerpt from timetable and copy load sheet). Such records get filed for the cities linked by the route, so flights to any NYC airport to any LON airport will be compete with each other.

You can of course file for records without a commercial air route and even between arbitrary non-airport points but that requires official witnesses, etc. Check the Sporting Code (https://www.fai.org/gac-documents) for details. There's a record database at the link above, but it is not very search-friendly.

I certainly regret not having filed records for a couple of routes long since abandoned that would have been very likely to have remained unchallenged forever.

Here (https://www.flyingmag.com/technique/proficiency/any-pilot-can-set-speed-record/)'s a nice Flying Mag article about record setting.

[TLB]

What utter nonsense - I really can't believe what I am reading. The 747 is limited to around 320kts (I know as that's the red tape on my FS). At '800' kts, the wings would definitely fall off; no sub-sonic aircraft could fly that fast, it would break up.
I have looked at all the commercial jet parameters on my flight sim and none of them is certified for anything near 800kts.

I guess that's the difference between a 'FS' pilot and a real pilot. Google "Indicated Airspeed" and "True Airspeed" and "Ground Speed" !

[Miraz]

Was it around late Summer early Autumn and it started on a Tuesday?

Yup - that's about right, would have been staying just across the street too...

[A340Yumyum]

I guess that's the difference between a 'FS' pilot and a real pilot. Google "Indicated Airspeed" and "True Airspeed" and "Ground Speed" !

Hmmmm, the vast array of aircraft I fly on FS makes me most knowledgable, especially with varying flying characteristics; thus I know the Jumbo just as well as anyone who flies it. The airframe is simply not built to withstand speeds of 800mph. None of the airspeedometers in any of the jets I regularly fly (yes, it’s just the same as ‘real flying, all the dials work) go much beyond 550kts.

AND that aircraft on the treadmill WOULD take off. The thrust is pushing the wheels at 200 mph.

[DaveReidUK]

He's still trying to wind us up, folks.

DNFTT.

[Atlas Shrugged]

Hmmmm, the vast array of aircraft I fly on FS makes me most knowledgable, especially with varying flying characteristics; thus I know the Jumbo just as well as anyone who flies it.

Utter rubbish. Just like the article.

It flew at it's standard 0.85 or so (or whatever BA do these days if they're still using zero CI for everything). Nothing supersonic about it. It was all about a strong, and long lasting bit of wind. Which also describes A340Yumyum's posts.

Oh, and just which variant of the 74 is it that has an "airspeedometer" ?

[DaveReidUK]

Oh, and just which variant of the 74 is it that has an "airspeedometer" ?

Good question. I don't know the answer, but clearly the "airspeedometer" is a special instrument that uses kts and mph interchangeably:

I have looked at all the commercial jet parameters on my flight sim and none of them is certified for anything near 800kts.

The airframe is simply not built to withstand speeds of 800mph.

:O

[A340Yumyum]

Utter rubbish. Just like the article.

It flew at it's standard 0.85 or so (or whatever BA do these days if they're still using zero CI for everything). Nothing supersonic about it. It was all about a strong, and long lasting bit of wind. Which also describes A340Yumyum's posts.

Oh, and just which variant of the 74 is it that has an "airspeedometer" ?

All aircraft have to have airspeedometers, it is a legal requirement for, say, when you cross the Atlantic. They are required so you can make ETAs over waypoints and stuff. They also tell you how fast you are going for take-off and bits like that.

And (Atlas Shrugged) the 744 also has a Machometer (for using above high ground); it displays on the bottom LH corner of the artificial horizon display.

I am between job’s at the moment (I teach English so am good at reading the manual’s) and have plenty of time to read the operating note’s and reflect. I remember pre-911, I was invited to the cockpit of a 747-400. The pilot definitely told me that it had 2 gauge’s and the machometer automatically turned on as you got faster. It was also interesting because the 747-400 was a modification to the 747 (Classical, they called it) so it could be flown single pilot as the flap’s and gear’s were all automatic.

I believe the removal of pilot’s from some trip’s (as mentioned in another thread) as a cost saving measure proves this.

[Bergerie1]

A340Yumyum, I think you must be living on another planet!! But I hope you enjoy it.

[DaveReidUK]

All aircraft have to have airspeedometers, it is a legal requirement for, say, when you cross the Atlantic.

I'm told that on the Herc, you just had to stick your hand out of the window - is that true ?

:O :O

[A340Yumyum]

I'm told that on the Herc, you just had to stick your hand out of the window - is that true ?

:O :O

I have no knowledge of helicopters.

[sudden twang]

So A340 yum yum
what on your FS does it say about helicopter blade speeds which are a bit flappy. They must go about 800 knotty mphy so that would be easy for a jumbo wing which is more sturdy.
In all your spare time have a look at the FS maunuals for us.

[A340Yumyum]

So A340 yum yum
what on your FS does it say about helicopter blade speeds which are a bit flappy. They must go about 800 knotty mphy so that would be easy for a jumbo wing which is more sturdy.

i am using my down-time to read and study about helicopters. I have put all my efforts into fixed wing airplane’s up until now (hence the knowledge). It seems a lot of people on my FS forum are now looking at hele’s. I might one day make the transition to helicopter pilot, but for now will keep to the FW forum. I have been using FS98 since, well 1998, so the other members see me as a sort of ‘Jesus’ in a way.

[DaveReidUK]

I have no knowledge of helicopters.

Now you're just being disingenuous - the game's up, we know who you are.

The fake apostrophe's are a nice touch, by the way !

[MATELO]

So, just for an explanation..... for those that need it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W18cuvltgD0

[Atlas Shrugged]

I might one day make the transition to helicopter pilot, but for now will keep to the FW forum. I have been using FS98 since, well 1998, so the other members see me as a sort of ‘Jesus’ in a way.

Well, there's another head scratcher..............

I wonder what the 'FW' stands for?

[DaveReidUK]

I wonder what the 'FW' stands for?

Standard abbreviation for Fixed-Wing, as opposed to RW (rotary).

Our friend hasn't quite mastered the trick of appearing to be an amateur. :O

[Private jet]

It's all nonsense of course. Depends on the SID/SDR and the STAR/vectoring/holding at the other end. No defined parameters. Just encourages the "mine's bigger than your's" crowd, which we already get a lot of on Prune.

[TURIN]

This is all very well and groovy, but what about the chemtrail coverage? Surely at that speed the nano-particles will be dispersed too thinly.

[Atlas Shrugged]

I was thinking more along the lines of F-wit...

[Young Daedalus]

A record is not a record until it has been certified by the FAI (Fédération Aéronautique Internationale). They require that a record attempt should be notified in advance and that the time is measured from over the top of the departure tower to over the top of the destination tower. The tower operators log the times and advise the FAI. The FAI website is www.fai.org/records. If you are interested to view their records for airliners (Class B) go to record I.D. 1766 which should show the fastest sector time in history as certified by the FAI. (1132 Km/hr from memory. Perth to Melbourne) If the entry is still green then it is still current for that sector. Just for interest, for that particular attempt, the cowboy irrresponsible crossed Perth tower in his B727-100 at 350 Kias, cruised at M.87, and again crossed Tullamarine tower at 350Kias at 2000 ft! 2 hrs 11 mins I think.

[Alpine Flyer]

A record is not a record until it has been certified by the FAI (Fédération Aéronautique Internationale). They require that a record attempt should be notified in advance and that the time is measured from over the top of the departure tower to over the top of the destination tower. The tower operators log the times and advise the FAI. The FAI website is www.fai.org/records. If you are interested to view their records for airliners (Class B) go to record I.D. 1766 which should show the fastest sector time in history as certified by the FAI. (1132 Km/hr from memory. Perth to Melbourne) If the entry is still green then it is still current for that sector. Just for interest, for that particular attempt, the cowboy irrresponsible crossed Perth tower in his B727-100 at 350 Kias, cruised at M.87, and again crossed Tullamarine tower at 350Kias at 2000 ft! 2 hrs 11 mins I think.
As already explained a bit above (https://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=10685394), a normal scheduled airline flight can be certified as a record in its own class ("speed over commercial air route") without overflying specific points and without advance notification. You just need the departure and arrival ATC units to certify your take-off and landing times and mail or fax them to the FAI plus your own paperwork. US based pilots are even allowed to use ACARS for certification under NAA rules.

Anything else posted on a forum or observed on flightradar24 is an impressive feat but not a record.

[chrissw]

All aircraft have to have airspeedometers, it is a legal requirement for, say, when you cross the Atlantic. They are required so you can make ETAs over waypoints and stuff. They also tell you how fast you are going for take-off and bits like that.

And (Atlas Shrugged) the 744 also has a Machometer (for using above high ground); it displays on the bottom LH corner of the artificial horizon display.

I am between job’s at the moment (I teach English so am good at reading the manual’s) and have plenty of time to read the operating note’s and reflect. I remember pre-911, I was invited to the cockpit of a 747-400. The pilot definitely told me that it had 2 gauge’s and the machometer automatically turned on as you got faster. It was also interesting because the 747-400 was a modification to the 747 (Classical, they called it) so it could be flown single pilot as the flap’s and gear’s were all automatic.

I believe the removal of pilot’s from some trip’s (as mentioned in another thread) as a cost saving measure proves this.
You "teach English"? Do you teach your students that all plurals require an apostrophe before the final "s"? No wonder it's such a common mistake nowadays.

Perhaps that's why you're currently unemployed.

[Jim59]

All aircraft have to have airspeedometers, it is a legal requirement for, say

False. If you check the official definition of what aircraft are it will become clear why not all aircraft are required to have airspeed indicators or machmeters.. If you had said aeroplane you would have been correct.

[DaveReidUK]

A340YY is having a laugh. I can't believe anyone is still taking his/her posts at face value.

[wiggy]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wind-up_merchant

and beautifully executed.....

[Intruder]

What utter nonsense - I really can't believe what I am reading. The 747 is limited to around 320kts (I know as that's the red tape on my FS). At '800' kts, the wings would definitely fall off; no sub-sonic aircraft could fly that fast, it would break up.
I have looked at all the commercial jet parameters on my flight sim and none of them is certified for anything near 800kts.
Now we know why A340YY had such skewed "knowledge" - he has a flight sim that has bad info! If he had a real 744 manual or sim, the "red tape" would be at 366 KIAS or 0.92 MACH!

[Ascend Charlie]

All aircraft have to have airspeedometers

Yeah, my balloon has an airspeedometer and a Machometer, both of which read Zero in flight.