View Poll Results: Which of these two commercial airplane's do you think travells faster?tr
The new Boeing 747-400ER?
10
7.04%
Concorde?
132
92.96%
Voters: 142. This poll is closed
Boeing claims 747-400ER is fastest commercial airplane in the sky (what about Conc ?)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Blighty
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing claims 747-400ER is fastest commercial airplane in the sky (what about Conc ?)
According to Boeing's wesite, "the 747-400ER is now the largest and fastest commercial airplane in the sky - cruising at Mach 0.85, or 85 percent of the speed of sound."
So what about Concorde then?
------ B747-400ER = Mach 0.85.
------ Concorde = Mach 2.2 (i.e. over 2 and a half times faster !!!!!)
When asked why they are claiming the 747-400ER to be the fastest commercial airplane, when Concorde is clearly much much faster, they replied "The 747-400ER is the fastest subsonic commercial airplane currently in service. Our Sonic Cruiser will, when it goes into service, will take on that title.".
And yet the website news article remains unchanged!! Should you feel inclined to let the author or Boeing know how you feel about this claim, please see the details below.
URL : http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...r_020731g.html
Author's email : [email protected]
Boeing's www email : [email protected]
So what about Concorde then? ------ B747-400ER = Mach 0.85.
------ Concorde = Mach 2.2 (i.e. over 2 and a half times faster !!!!!)
When asked why they are claiming the 747-400ER to be the fastest commercial airplane, when Concorde is clearly much much faster, they replied "The 747-400ER is the fastest subsonic commercial airplane currently in service. Our Sonic Cruiser will, when it goes into service, will take on that title.".
And yet the website news article remains unchanged!! Should you feel inclined to let the author or Boeing know how you feel about this claim, please see the details below.
URL : http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...r_020731g.html
Author's email : [email protected]
Boeing's www email : [email protected]
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: platform9
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it must be frustrating for some americans to have almost ALL aviation records EXCEPT the one for supersonic commercial airtravel , and this for over more than 20years. The land where everything is bigger (but not faster for the time being 
)
)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Blighty
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The 747-400ER is the fastest subsonic commercial airplane currently in service. Our Sonic Cruiser will, when it goes into service, will take on that title.".
NO IT WON'T !!!!!
According to their website, the Sonic Cruiser will only fly at up to Mach 0.98.
This is still less than half the cruising speed of Concorde. (M2.2).
:-)
NO IT WON'T !!!!!
According to their website, the Sonic Cruiser will only fly at up to Mach 0.98.
This is still less than half the cruising speed of Concorde. (M2.2).
:-)
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt that Concorde can be considered 'commercial' in any meaningful sense of the word. It's been a 'one-off', a money-losing dinosaur, supporting government self-important bigwigs & Hollywood celebrities. Politicians & movie-stars need their perks, I know, supported by all the 'little-people' taxpayers; we Yanks have our Helmsley's, so why not the Frogs & Limeys? (Gratituous insults, I know; please take with 2 grains of salt, then fire-at-will!)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: South East UK
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hate to say this but this oversight is old news. I queried it with Boeing a week ago and they did admit that it was technically untrue. Although they did point out that the -400ER got up to M0.92 in the first flight tests.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Blighty
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Semaphore Sam - I would Fire at Will, but I don't know who he is, so you'll have to do instead !
It's good that you keep up the old "we're so jealous of Concorde, that we can't bring ourselves to acknowledge it's superior performance!" attitude!.
I'm half expecting someone to start blahting about it's noise pollution Hehehehe!
As far as I can see, if a "joe public" wants to travel in the air, in the fastest means possible, there's only one aircraft that cuts the mustard - that's Concorde. Nothing else comes anywhere close! It's a shame that certain people (corporations?) can't acknowledge that!
Oh, and why call the Conc a dinosaur, when the 747 is an even older design?
Kalium Chloride - Wow, that's great! You hero! A whole week ago? So where's the post? Sorry, but if you don't tell anyone, then why criticise someone else for posting a new topic on the subject?
Knold - no, not married, but seriously chatting her up!
It's good that you keep up the old "we're so jealous of Concorde, that we can't bring ourselves to acknowledge it's superior performance!" attitude!.
I'm half expecting someone to start blahting about it's noise pollution Hehehehe!As far as I can see, if a "joe public" wants to travel in the air, in the fastest means possible, there's only one aircraft that cuts the mustard - that's Concorde. Nothing else comes anywhere close! It's a shame that certain people (corporations?) can't acknowledge that!
Oh, and why call the Conc a dinosaur, when the 747 is an even older design?
Kalium Chloride - Wow, that's great! You hero! A whole week ago? So where's the post? Sorry, but if you don't tell anyone, then why criticise someone else for posting a new topic on the subject?
Knold - no, not married, but seriously chatting her up!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWPU:
"Joe Public" would love to fly in the 'fastest means possible', but it's commercially impossible, and that's the rub! Given enough money, NASA (or the Russian Federation Airforce) will organize a flight at warp 6, or whatever, to the whateverosphere, in suitable aircraft, or even rockets. If that's considered 'commercial' then so is Concorde, or Saturn V, or the Shuttle (which was supposed to be a 'commercial enterprise', like Concorde, with similar results).
United may go bust; so may US Air. Concorde (and the Shuttle)will NEVER stop flying due to 'commercial considerations'. Such considerations would have grounded Concorde in '74. Now, that's not to say Concorde doesn't have a niche; it's just that 'Commercial Aviation' isn't it; let's call it 'National Ego Airlines'.
Yes, the original 747 is a dinosaur; I saw it in Seattle 3 years ago; hasn't flown since mid-eighties (a real shame), when it was a testbed for future engines. The original SP's, 100's, 200's and 300's are being retired, due to airframe fatigue, and excess costs of running (commercial considerations). Not the Concorde; each airframe has so few hours per month since the early '70s it can safely fly another 15-20 years...safely, but not commercially.
Your civilized response is appreciated! I don't bash the Concorde per say; it just isn't a 'commercial aircraft'. So there is a case for the 747-400ER to be considered the fastest commercial aircraft, even if Boeing mistakenly disagrees!
Will accept further fire, especially in your good-natured format.
"Joe Public" would love to fly in the 'fastest means possible', but it's commercially impossible, and that's the rub! Given enough money, NASA (or the Russian Federation Airforce) will organize a flight at warp 6, or whatever, to the whateverosphere, in suitable aircraft, or even rockets. If that's considered 'commercial' then so is Concorde, or Saturn V, or the Shuttle (which was supposed to be a 'commercial enterprise', like Concorde, with similar results).
United may go bust; so may US Air. Concorde (and the Shuttle)will NEVER stop flying due to 'commercial considerations'. Such considerations would have grounded Concorde in '74. Now, that's not to say Concorde doesn't have a niche; it's just that 'Commercial Aviation' isn't it; let's call it 'National Ego Airlines'.
Yes, the original 747 is a dinosaur; I saw it in Seattle 3 years ago; hasn't flown since mid-eighties (a real shame), when it was a testbed for future engines. The original SP's, 100's, 200's and 300's are being retired, due to airframe fatigue, and excess costs of running (commercial considerations). Not the Concorde; each airframe has so few hours per month since the early '70s it can safely fly another 15-20 years...safely, but not commercially.
Your civilized response is appreciated! I don't bash the Concorde per say; it just isn't a 'commercial aircraft'. So there is a case for the 747-400ER to be considered the fastest commercial aircraft, even if Boeing mistakenly disagrees!
Will accept further fire, especially in your good-natured format.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commercial
Perhaps the key lies in the fact that they mention the word commercial? Of course, there's absolutely nothing commercial about the old money losing Concorde! In that case, I guess they're quite right.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: This week Reading, next week Barcelona ... and repeat
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd just like to point out that the Rallye I flew last week is the fastest sub 100kt aeroplane in service today at a measured velocity of 99.999999999999kts.......
I feel proud to be English & European and beat the Americans in their (so called) own field.......
I feel proud to be English & European and beat the Americans in their (so called) own field.......
Bringer of Wx
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How commercial are Boeing aircraft, anyway? It's common knowledge that their airliners are produced with the aid of cross-subsidies from over-endowed defence budgets...(and before I get flamed, I know that Airbus is not exactly subsidy-free either) 
I doubt that commercial aviation when taken as a whole has been at all financially viable if looked at over its 80 yrs or so lifetime, but then again so what? Why does everything have to make a profit?
Jx
PS - Concorde is gorgeous, though....
I doubt that commercial aviation when taken as a whole has been at all financially viable if looked at over its 80 yrs or so lifetime, but then again so what? Why does everything have to make a profit?
Jx
PS - Concorde is gorgeous, though....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Horsham UK
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the question is: Are Concordes commercial? I think there are two answers to that question for an manufacturer's perspective clearly not. Squillions to develop and a production run of 14 a/c which were sold for a very small price indeed...No chance. Its worth remembering though that it took big B from '69 till sometime in the mid to late '80s and several hundred airframes to cover the development costs of the '47 (the early design of which was for a USAF strategic heavy lift a/c contract - which they lost to Lockheed (C5) - was subsidised by Uncle.
From the airline perspective quite a different kettle of fish according to BA the type contributes a lot of revenue to its bottom line and they consider it a money maker. (All to do with securing lucrative business travel accounts from big corporations by offering so many Conc seats per xx biz class tickets bought or something like that) Certainly the grounding cost them a a lot in this competitive arena. And Big Airways have invested a significant wodge of cash in the mods to get the fleet back in the air.
I reckon them both to be jolly significant '47 for the social change it engendered - and it's longevity of production - 33 years and counting -
A Concs for being the sexiest airliner in the sky
Ref the website - Cy Attle's PR Kool aid kid PR types tend to get carried away from time to time its the rain you see
From the airline perspective quite a different kettle of fish according to BA the type contributes a lot of revenue to its bottom line and they consider it a money maker. (All to do with securing lucrative business travel accounts from big corporations by offering so many Conc seats per xx biz class tickets bought or something like that) Certainly the grounding cost them a a lot in this competitive arena. And Big Airways have invested a significant wodge of cash in the mods to get the fleet back in the air.
I reckon them both to be jolly significant '47 for the social change it engendered - and it's longevity of production - 33 years and counting -
A Concs for being the sexiest airliner in the sky
Ref the website - Cy Attle's PR Kool aid kid PR types tend to get carried away from time to time its the rain you see
Join Date: May 2002
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE:TU154
Last I heard of that is was being fitted up by Nasa and Rockwell for some tests into SST.
In the 80s I think it was doing some long haul post rounds in russia.
As for concorde..yeah,joe public does get a chance to go on it..they`ve just got to have alot of money
My local radio station does an award ceremony and they let people who have raised money for charity and "local heros" go for a joyride over the bay of biscay nearly every year.
And..part of Concordes niche is that its exclusive,sleek and sexy,its a great PR machine..lets face it..the 747 isn`t exactly exclusive or massively sexy(reminds me of a whale),and there are 1000s of them.the "Mr Smith" of the skies
Last I heard of that is was being fitted up by Nasa and Rockwell for some tests into SST.
In the 80s I think it was doing some long haul post rounds in russia.
As for concorde..yeah,joe public does get a chance to go on it..they`ve just got to have alot of money
My local radio station does an award ceremony and they let people who have raised money for charity and "local heros" go for a joyride over the bay of biscay nearly every year.
And..part of Concordes niche is that its exclusive,sleek and sexy,its a great PR machine..lets face it..the 747 isn`t exactly exclusive or massively sexy(reminds me of a whale),and there are 1000s of them.the "Mr Smith" of the skies
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ETOPS 773, you are probably talking about the Tu 144, the "Concordsky"
I mean the Tu 154M with 3 Engines, T-Tail able for softfield landings (as the gear looks like...)
1000+ airframes were built from 1982 to 1994.
It is going at least M .87 in normal cruise.
And as I remember it is able to cruise with more than M .90 in highspeed cruise.
I mean the Tu 154M with 3 Engines, T-Tail able for softfield landings (as the gear looks like...)
1000+ airframes were built from 1982 to 1994.
It is going at least M .87 in normal cruise.
And as I remember it is able to cruise with more than M .90 in highspeed cruise.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Blighty
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note with interest, that despite admitting in eMail, that Concorde is the "fastest airplane in the sky" (their words), they still haven't changed the website!
They are happy to continue claiming to Joe Public that the 747-400 is the fastest!
What conclusions should be drawn from this ?....!
They are happy to continue claiming to Joe Public that the 747-400 is the fastest!
What conclusions should be drawn from this ?....!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: preston
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the yanks
dont you just love the yanks and the way they claim every thing is bigger and better in the land of the almighty dollar. yet several times since wwii the yank aviation industry has been caught on the wrong foot. they had to build canberras(b57s) under licence, also harriers and hawks. how many american airlines bought viscounts? and as for fast airliners although no longer in airline service what about the vc10? ps i dont dislike americans just the attitude they have at times.