|
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”... |
Does anyone have enough insight into this to know if BA operated the flight at maximum practical CI to go after the record?
|
Originally Posted by Miraz
(Post 10683939)
Does anyone have enough insight into this to know if BA operated the flight at maximum practical CI to go after the record?
Anilv |
Originally Posted by Miraz
(Post 10683939)
Does anyone have enough insight into this to know if BA operated the flight at maximum practical CI to go after the record?
I have yet to hear how long it took the record breakers to get allocated a stand after landing...:E:E |
Originally Posted by Miraz
(Post 10683939)
Does anyone have enough insight into this to know if BA operated the flight at maximum practical CI to go after the record?
|
Originally Posted by 8driver
(Post 10683949)
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.
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by Jumpjim
(Post 10684001)
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.
|
Originally Posted by Miraz
(Post 10683939)
Does anyone have enough insight into this to know if BA operated the flight at maximum practical CI to go after the record?
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 |
Originally Posted by RogueOne
(Post 10683479)
The Virgin 350 did it burning 22,000kg less fuel than the BA.
|
Originally Posted by Dufo
(Post 10684081)
Citation X can do it even faster burning even less than A350.
In fact the weight of the fuel burned by the Airbus would be higher than the Citation's MTOW. |
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.
|
Originally Posted by Dufo
(Post 10684081)
Citation X can do it even faster burning even less than A350.
|
Originally Posted by Seat3Dplease
(Post 10684138)
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.
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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by ACA856
(Post 10684372)
I also thought the VC10 still held the record until this weekend for JFK-LHR.
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. |
What did these winds do to folks going the other way?
Related, wonder what the slowest LHR-JFK flight has been? (jet) |
Originally Posted by Dufo
(Post 10684081)
Citation X can do it even faster burning even less than A350.
|
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!
|
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:08. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.