Wikiposts
Search
Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner) If you're not a professional pilot but want to discuss issues about the job, this is the best place to loiter. You won't be moved on by 'security' and there'll be plenty of experts to answer any questions.

Subsonic Atlantic Record

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 9th Feb 2020, 21:34
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 406
Received 31 Likes on 22 Posts
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”...

Last edited by 421dog; 10th Feb 2020 at 00:17.
421dog is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 04:19
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Does anyone have enough insight into this to know if BA operated the flight at maximum practical CI to go after the record?
Miraz is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 04:33
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 157
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Miraz
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
Anilv is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 04:33
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,548
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Miraz
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...
wiggy is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 04:37
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 27N
Age: 59
Posts: 138
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Miraz
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.
8driver is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 05:45
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 8driver
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...
Miraz is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 06:37
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK, South East
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Jumpjim is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 07:55
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,548
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.

Last edited by wiggy; 10th Feb 2020 at 11:40. Reason: spelling
wiggy is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 07:56
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: 5Y
Posts: 597
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Miraz
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


double_barrel is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 08:53
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: D(Emona)
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by RogueOne
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.
Dufo is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 09:36
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,810
Received 199 Likes on 92 Posts
Originally Posted by Dufo
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.

In fact the weight of the fuel burned by the Airbus would be higher than the Citation's MTOW.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 10:08
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: France
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Seat3Dplease is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 11:17
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Runcorn,Cheshire,England
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dufo
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.
3Greens is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 11:39
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,810
Received 199 Likes on 92 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.

Last edited by DaveReidUK; 10th Feb 2020 at 12:03.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 14:08
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Innisfil Ontario Canada
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
ACA856 is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 15:22
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,810
Received 199 Likes on 92 Posts
Originally Posted by ACA856
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.

If it's any consolation, this site 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.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 16:45
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 56
Posts: 1,060
Received 15 Likes on 10 Posts
What did these winds do to folks going the other way?

Related, wonder what the slowest LHR-JFK flight has been? (jet)
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 17:35
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Somewhere South
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dufo
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!
PaulH1 is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 17:53
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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!
frangatang is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2020, 19:04
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
A340Yumyum is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.