1078kph in 737-800 - mach 0.xx?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Horten, Norway / Bremen, Germany
Age: 38
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1078kph in 737-800 - mach 0.xx?
Hello =)
A month ago or so I was on a 'yet another' flight with Ryanair (one out of 12 of them so far this year for me). Long story short, the departure airport got fogged down, aircraft diverted and pax (14 including me!) got bussed to a/c. 3 hours later we took off. ENTO -> EDDW. I guess the pilots had been told to hurry up and make in some time, as they were heauling some serious a**.
At some point during the flight the pilot announced that we were doing a steady groundspeed of 1078kph (or 582kts or ~670mph), OAT -50°C. Altitude I cant remember. There was also something about getting there ASAP, buckling up and holding onto sth..
I was unable to confirm speed with my GPS as it was out of battery.
Anyway, the flight was - as one can imagine - rather shaky and bouncy and the wings were doing some serious flapping with the engines bouncing opposite of the wings to add to the view out the window. Quite the show. Whatever the actual speed(mach) was, it was faster than the aircraft would like to go. It did not feel anything like turbulence, which we encouter quite often here in the north.
An online "local speed of sound" calculator gave me a LSS of 1078.012 at -50°C.
Even with the plane obviously protesting, I wouldnt think we were actually at the sound barrier... just closer than we might ought to be. The pilot did not mention anything about tailwind, but could it have been a jetstream that added some (serious) push? I am not familiar with the air currents over northern europe.
Just wanted to figure out how we ended up at those speeds, as on any other flight I've usually logged around 850-860kph steady for the same leg, both ways. Normal flight time is about 1 hour 20 minutes, this time we landed just short of an hour after takeoff.
So or so, it was quite the experience... although I think I would prefer not repeating it.
A month ago or so I was on a 'yet another' flight with Ryanair (one out of 12 of them so far this year for me). Long story short, the departure airport got fogged down, aircraft diverted and pax (14 including me!) got bussed to a/c. 3 hours later we took off. ENTO -> EDDW. I guess the pilots had been told to hurry up and make in some time, as they were heauling some serious a**.
At some point during the flight the pilot announced that we were doing a steady groundspeed of 1078kph (or 582kts or ~670mph), OAT -50°C. Altitude I cant remember. There was also something about getting there ASAP, buckling up and holding onto sth..
I was unable to confirm speed with my GPS as it was out of battery.
Anyway, the flight was - as one can imagine - rather shaky and bouncy and the wings were doing some serious flapping with the engines bouncing opposite of the wings to add to the view out the window. Quite the show. Whatever the actual speed(mach) was, it was faster than the aircraft would like to go. It did not feel anything like turbulence, which we encouter quite often here in the north.
An online "local speed of sound" calculator gave me a LSS of 1078.012 at -50°C.
Even with the plane obviously protesting, I wouldnt think we were actually at the sound barrier... just closer than we might ought to be. The pilot did not mention anything about tailwind, but could it have been a jetstream that added some (serious) push? I am not familiar with the air currents over northern europe.
Just wanted to figure out how we ended up at those speeds, as on any other flight I've usually logged around 850-860kph steady for the same leg, both ways. Normal flight time is about 1 hour 20 minutes, this time we landed just short of an hour after takeoff.
So or so, it was quite the experience... although I think I would prefer not repeating it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Horten, Norway / Bremen, Germany
Age: 38
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That doesent explain the heavy buffeting felt throughout most of the flight, though. The engine sound was also a lot more high-pitched than on any other of my 200+ 738 flights, indicating a higher RPM.
Also, without a jetstream - why wouldnt they normally use it if there was one - in the area, is ~240kph/130kts a normal wind/airflow strenght?
Also, without a jetstream - why wouldnt they normally use it if there was one - in the area, is ~240kph/130kts a normal wind/airflow strenght?
130 knots worth of wind is common. So is much more. The poor ride most likely goes with the wind. You were not doing anywhere near the local speed of sound.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Horten, Norway / Bremen, Germany
Age: 38
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guess that explains it then. Still weird with the engines running a lot harder/faster than normal, I think that added to the feeling of airframe stress (which again was completely different to that of any turbulence I've been in, some of which quite severe).
For the record I did not expect us to have gone much closer to the local speed of sound than "normal"/Mmo, it was just an onset of slight unease from what seemed to be airframe stress due to overspeed.
For the record I did not expect us to have gone much closer to the local speed of sound than "normal"/Mmo, it was just an onset of slight unease from what seemed to be airframe stress due to overspeed.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm sorry, I've only been an aviation professional for 42+ years. Could you enlighten me as to where ENTO and EDDW are? So kind of you, thank you. My ignorance, I know.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Granada (GRX)
Age: 70
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sick to death of seeing DUB for Dubai.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Horten, Norway / Bremen, Germany
Age: 38
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bad coding
Well, there I learned something. "Flying people" usually use IATA codes to refer to airports? I was under the impression that IATA was for baggage tags and boarding cars while ICAO was "the" system used for airport identification, seeing as it is easier to identify where the airport is to start with and that there are no duplicates like there is in IATA(?). My aviation experience other than as pax is a lot of flight sim'ing (FS98 up, XPlane), as well as a few flying lessons, and I've always used ICAO for 'flightplanning' (Garmin G500/G1000).
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It was a perfectly fair question and was fairly answered at #2 and #4.
What irritates me is the regular use of ICAO designators by people who think that their use of them confers some sort of insider status – let’s face it, in most cases they are more like a secret code than a shorthand way to render an airport name (and yes, I know how they are constructed).
The IATA 3-letter designators, for the most part, are not difficult to decipher and are common, everyday usage within the airline business. I have a ‘vocabulary’ of probably 1500 of them and although that’s far more than I need, I do my job better armed with this knowledge. On the other hand, I have ‘almost’ never come across the use of the ICAO codes in the professional context, and I’ve worked just about everywhere except onboard and in the hangar. Where they were used – in the BA Prestwick ops room for example – it was just for official paperwork, the common currency was always the IATA codes.
So if you flew from TRF to BRE, why couldn’t you say so? I for one would know what you meant. (or has TRF just undermined my own argument?)
The SSK
What irritates me is the regular use of ICAO designators by people who think that their use of them confers some sort of insider status – let’s face it, in most cases they are more like a secret code than a shorthand way to render an airport name (and yes, I know how they are constructed).
The IATA 3-letter designators, for the most part, are not difficult to decipher and are common, everyday usage within the airline business. I have a ‘vocabulary’ of probably 1500 of them and although that’s far more than I need, I do my job better armed with this knowledge. On the other hand, I have ‘almost’ never come across the use of the ICAO codes in the professional context, and I’ve worked just about everywhere except onboard and in the hangar. Where they were used – in the BA Prestwick ops room for example – it was just for official paperwork, the common currency was always the IATA codes.
So if you flew from TRF to BRE, why couldn’t you say so? I for one would know what you meant. (or has TRF just undermined my own argument?)
The SSK
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can understand irritation on an equal playing field of one of the professional forums, but to be sarcastic to a well-meaning spectator who doesn't share the same knowledge is unnecessary and patronising in my opinion.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Horten, Norway / Bremen, Germany
Age: 38
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IATA it will be in the future then, I know both designators for the airports I'm involved with but thought ICAO was the proper one to be used. Sorry!
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but to be sarcastic to a well-meaning spectator who doesn't share the same knowledge is unnecessary and patronising
Even with the plane obviously protesting, I wouldn't think we were actually at the sound barrier... just closer than we might ought to be.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're not paranoid, it's just that everyone's out to get us
Spotter asking a question about something he doesn't understand.....no accusation of wrongdoing..............educate and enlighten
Spotter asking a question about something he doesn't understand.....no accusation of wrongdoing..............educate and enlighten