Fastest airliner ?
Walter Baeck
Could anyone tell me what the fastest reported speed is for an
airliner till now ? (Could you express this speed in mph or km/hr
instead of Mach numbers..?)
Actually, I am interested int the fastest air speed reached for any
plane, but I fear that reports on military prototypes might be biased.
Therefore, I'd like to restrict the query to planes you can fly with
yourself (if you've got money enough, that is). But if there are
scientific projects which are solidly thrustworthy, could you
mention those too, please ?
Thanks!
Walter Baeck.
Karl Swartz
>airliner till now ? (Could you express this speed in mph or km/hr
>instead of Mach numbers..?)
Obviously Concorde and the Tu-144 will be tops on that metric, but I
suspect that's a little more obvious than what you had in mind! Both
cruise at roughly 1,400 mph or Mach 2.1.
The Convair 990A Coronado was one of the fastest subsonic jetliners.
The 747SP, which is slightly faster than the other 747 models, is the
only jetliner I can think of which matches or at least comes close to
the Coronado -- it cruises at about 645 mph, I believe.
While definitely not a hot-rod by the book, I think a DC-8 holds the
speed record for a "subsonic" jetliner -- during a test flight, one
went very slightly supersonic, which depending on altitude was around
700-750 mph or so. I'm not sure if a 707 has accomplished that feat
or not. (The China Air 747SP which went into a dive over the Pacific
on February 19, 1985, after flaming out all four engines, is often
speculated to have gone supersonic, but the accident report concludes
that the aircraft probably stayed subsonic.)
--
Karl Swartz |INet k...@ohare.chicago.com
1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls
|Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA
Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airl...@chicago.com
Anthony Mackay
: >Could anyone tell me what the fastest reported speed is for an
: >airliner till now ? (Could you express this speed in mph or km/hr
: >instead of Mach numbers..?)
I think that the Trident Three of BEA (British Airways) and others might
rate a mention in this category. I understand that it was very close
to transonic in the cruise.
Niels M. Sampath
> While definitely not a hot-rod by the book, I think a DC-8 holds the
> speed record for a "subsonic" jetliner -- during a test flight, one
> went very slightly supersonic, which depending on altitude was around
> 700-750 mph or so. I'm not sure if a 707 has accomplished that feat
I read it was a DC-8-40 (R-R Conway engines) later delivered to
Canadian Pacific.
--
Niels
Richard Shevell
(Karl Swartz) wrote:
> >Could anyone tell me what the fastest reported speed is for an
> >airliner till now ? (Could you express this speed in mph or km/hr
> >instead of Mach numbers..?)
> The Convair 990A Coronado was one of the fastest subsonic jetliners.
> The 747SP, which is slightly faster than the other 747 models, is the
> only jetliner I can think of which matches or at least comes close to
> the Coronado -- it cruises at about 645 mph, I believe.
The 747SP cruise speed is much less than stated above. The 747SP being a
lighter airplane with the original large wing certainly cruises at or above
35,000 ft. The speed of sound at that altitude is 660 mph. Thus 645 mph
would be a Mach number of 0.977. The never exceed Mach No. for the 747SP
is 0.92 and the cruise speed is significantly less. Jane's (1989) gives
the max level flight speed at 30,000 ft.(inefficiently low altiude, higher
speed of sound) as 619 mph. and this is max thrust not the normal cruise
speed. Assuming a cruise Mach No. of 0.87, (the probable maximum) at the
normal cruise altitudes the speed would be 574 mph. Stretching to 0.88
would give 581 mph.
I do not think the Coronado was that fast. It gained a higher drag
divergence Mach No. through the use of Whitcomb bumps, carefully shaped
bodies placed aft on the wing. While the 'bumps' raised the Mach No. for
sharp drag increase, they added so much parasite drag that they did not
increase range and were never used again. The Convair 990 was not a
successful airplane.
Transport speed data published in the press are often exaggerated by the
manufacturers who list maximum level flight speeds occurring at lower,
inefficient altitudes, with higher speeds of sound, and max thrust which
push he airplane up the drag divergence curve, a procedure never used by an
airline because of sharply higher fuel consumption.
Richard Shevell
Email: she...@leland.stanford.edu
Jennings Heilig
Don't know about an actual 707 airliner breaking mach, but there are
several documented cases of USAF C-135 variants doing so at various times
throughout their long careers...
Jennings
John Carr
Karl Swartz <k...@ohare.Chicago.COM> wrote:
>While definitely not a hot-rod by the book, I think a DC-8 holds the
>speed record for a "subsonic" jetliner -- during a test flight, one
>went very slightly supersonic, which depending on altitude was around
>700-750 mph or so. I'm not sure if a 707 has accomplished that feat
>or not.
A few years ago an airliner (a 727?) was hijacked. The hijacker shot
the crew and the airplane did a power on dive into the ground. I heard
that it went supersonic in the last seconds. I'm not sure whether to
believe that -- 700 kts at low altitude is probably well above the
structural limit.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
E.A. Singh
>A few years ago an airliner (a 727?) was hijacked. The hijacker shot
>the crew and the airplane did a power on dive into the ground. I heard
>that it went supersonic in the last seconds. I'm not sure whether to
>believe that -- 700 kts at low altitude is probably well above the
>structural limit.
I think maybe your thinking of that BAe 146 when the crew were shot dead
by the sole hijacker (a disgruntled ex-employee of the airline), resulting
in loss of control of the airliner at around 30,000 ft. I think as a result
also security was tightened at all US airports.
Steve Howie
:
: A few years ago an airliner (a 727?) was hijacked. The hijacker shot
: the crew and the airplane did a power on dive into the ground. I heard
: that it went supersonic in the last seconds. I'm not sure whether to
: believe that -- 700 kts at low altitude is probably well above the
: structural limit.
That was a Bae146 owned by a regional airline in the SW of the US
(PSA??). A disgruntled ex-employee of the airline smuggled a gun aboard,
forced his way into the cockpit and shot the flight crew. The plane then
initiated a rather unorthodox descent profile (90 degrees) and screamed
into the ground.
Apparently the largest piece of wreckage left was about the size of your
fist.
I think the chances of being close to 700 Kts. were good, but I can
imagine there would all kinds of factors which would come into play with
that kind of plunge. Were the engines still going or did they flame out?
Air resistance etc.etc.
Scotty
Steve Howie Email: sho...@uoguelph.ca
NetNews and Gopher Admin. Phone: (519) 824-4120 x2556
Computing and Communications Svcs. Fax: (519) 763-6143
University of Guelph
Ed Hahn
>Could anyone tell me what the fastest reported speed is for an
>airliner till now ? (Could you express this speed in mph or km/hr
>instead of Mach numbers..?)
<deletia about SSTs>
The Convair 990A Coronado was one of the fastest subsonic jetliners.
The 747SP, which is slightly faster than the other 747 models, is the
only jetliner I can think of which matches or at least comes close to
the Coronado -- it cruises at about 645 mph, I believe.
====
The 990 in the name possibly refers to a speed of 990 ft/second, or
675 mph/587 knots (see the PS). However, looking at the Standard
Atmosphere, at 40,000 feet, the speed of sound is about 968 feet per
second and stays fairly constant until 69,000 feet or so... Obviously,
the 990 didn't cruise at supersonic speeds.
Since the other figure I've heard for the C990 was a 0.90 Mach cruise
speed, that would make cruise at 871 fps/594 mph/516 knots at FL410
(on a standard day).
Then again, the 990 fps max could come at a lower altitude...
Marketing. Who can tell?
ed
PS. I may be mistaken - the 880 in the C880 definitely was advertised
as the fps cruise speed. I was extending it to the C990, which
obviously may not be valid. On the other hand, it was a darn fast
airplane!
-------- Ed Hahn | eh...@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 --------
The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not
constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation.
Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this.
Brad Gillies
while back but here it is again.
THE SUPERSONIC DIVE OF A DC-8
By William F. Smith, Jr.
The article in the Fall 1990 American Aviation Historical Society Journal
by Dr. Richard K. Smith in which he states the Pan Am Boeing 707 reached
.94 "a speed record that has not been exceeded successfully by another
subsonic airliner" is not so.
On August 21, 1961, Douglas DC-8, N9604Z, was flown to a true mach of
1.012 at a pressure altitude of 41,088 feet. The speed was attained in a
dive in the Edwards Air Force Base area. The airplane was a DC-8-43 with
Rolls-Royce Conway Mark 512 engines modified to Mark 509 thrust rating.
The dive was initiated at a pressure altitudeof 50,029 feet (geometric
height of 52,090 feet). The purpose of this test was to achieve an altitude
of 50,000 feet and sonic speed. The airplane was a standard series 43
except for flight test instrumentation, a test airspeed boom on the right
wingtip. The wing had the four percent leading edge extension. At the
maximum altitude, the gross weight was 170,600 pounds (a w/s of 1,493,000).
A pushover of 0.5g was held for approximately 15 seconds (22 degrees
pitch) and no airframe buffet was experienced during the acceleration to
mach 1.0. Takeoff thrust was used throughout the entire maneuver including
the pullout. The maximum true airspeed of 662.5 mph was attained at 39,614
feet pressure altitude. Prior to the dive, the stabilizer was trimmed such
that approximately a 50-pound push force was required to maintain the
stabilized dive. This was done to aid recovery because of the low elevator
effectiveness. The Askania Range at Edwards AFB was used to provide
geometric height. The maximum observed mach on the production system
did not exceed .96 in the true mach 1.0 area.
Recovery at 42,000 feet with full up-elevator gave no change in load
factor (also stabilizer trim would not function with this condition).
The pilot relaxed the elevator and changed the stabilizer trim from 0.5
degrees a.n.u. to 1.5 degrees a.n.u. This gave a 1.7 "G" and by 36,000
feet the airplane was recovered and decelerating below .95.
This airplane became the property of Canadian Pacific where it operated
for many years. A plaque attesting to this accomplishment was displayed
on board the airplane. Its whereabouts today is unknown as the airplane
was ferried to Miami where it resided for a time awaiting sale.
The C.G. of 27 percent MAC provided an additional aid for recovery. An
F-100 photo chase plane and an F-104 pacer airplane accompanied the flight.
A few interesting items during recovery. Buffet was experienced at 35,000
feet as the airplane was decelerating through .94 mach. During descent
through 42,000 feet at mach 1.0, rudder pedal buzz was noticed and
disappeared at 36,000 feet while decelerating. The rudder tab frequency
was 28 CPS, but the rudder surface was negligible. Aileron tab buzz of 36
CPS was also noted. The dive recovery was accomplished in about 5,000
feet.
This flight was Bill Magruder's idea and he was the pilot. Bill also
planned a weight-lifting record but this was not done. I am always
surprised so few people were aware of this accomplishment. However, Douglas
did little to publicize the flight. Our friend, Joe Tomich, was the flight
engineer.
Later...
Brad
AME(Canada), A&P(US)
Soon to be PP-ASEL
Steve Lacker
>I do not think the Coronado was that fast. It gained a higher drag
>divergence Mach No. through the use of Whitcomb bumps, carefully shaped
>bodies placed aft on the wing. While the 'bumps' raised the Mach No. for
>sharp drag increase, they added so much parasite drag that they did not
>increase range and were never used again. The Convair 990 was not a
>successful airplane.
True, the Coronado wasn't a 'success' by the standards of the 727, etc.,
but I have read widely that it is, in fact, the fastest-cruising airliner
of all time, except for the Concorde and TU-144 (which was truly a
failure). Convair spent a lot of time and money (too much, according to
most people) in obtaining that distinction, including adding the anti-shock
bodies you mention in an effort to get the plane to perform up to their
goals. In terms of utilization, I think the Coronado was as much of a
success as the Concorde. Quite a few Coronado's were flying into the '80s
(with Spantax, I think...), and I wouldn't be too surprized if a few were
still flying today. The only one I've ever seen firsthand was in the
process of being cut up at Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International (Florida)
about 4 years ago. I was amazed at how small the Coronado actually is
(DC-9ish in size) since it was competing with the 707, 720, and DC-8.
As I recall, the Cornado was powered by GE's first attempt at a turbofan,
which actually had the fan mounted *aft* of the engine.... interesting.
--
Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas
512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029
sla...@arlut.utexas.edu
Doug Moss
for Douglas Aircraft Company by the way. (My desk is just down
the hall from his).
--
Doug Moss
75500...@compuserve.com
Bob Hendrich
the ground radioed that they wanted our airspeed. The pilot replied 490
knots, to which the ground controller replied "wow", and asked him to slow
it down. We were an hour late leaving Chicago and the pilot had said that
we were going to try to "make up some time".
What is the "normal" airspeed for airliners over the continental U.S.?
Bob Hendrich
SunSoft, RMTC
Walter Baeck
If going supersonic in an airliner requires all the four engines to fail,
or implies a hijacker shooting the crew, I'd rather NOT verify that myself,
though.
Walter.
eir...@ix.netcom.com
>Could anyone tell me what the fastest reported speed is for an
>airliner till now ? (Could you express this speed in mph or km/hr
>instead of Mach numbers..?)
>Actually, I am interested int the fastest air speed reached for any
>plane, but I fear that reports on military prototypes might be biased.
The fastest airliner ever flown to date was the Tupolev Tu-144, (flew
rev. svs from 1977 to 1983 with Aeroflot), with a top speed of m2.4 or
about 1550mph. and a cruis alt of 60000 - 65000ft
My Uncle flew Blackbirds over the former Soviet Union from Japan in
the early 80's. He says that they regularly reached m4.4 or about
2800 mph. Further still, according to Janes Defence Almanac
(c.1986-7) the famed USAF X-15 rocket plane reached speeds in excess
of m6.2 (3900mph!) - JCD USAF AVMAINT
Mark Brader
> (The China Air 747SP which went into a dive over the Pacific
> on February 19, 1985, after flaming out all four engines, is often
> speculated to have gone supersonic, but the accident report concludes
> that the aircraft probably stayed subsonic.)
In "The Final Call: Why Airline Disasters Continue to Happen",
(Pantheon, 1990, ISBN 0-679-40174-1), author Stephen Barlay
spends several pages on that incident. He says that while the
crew *thought* they had suffered a quadruple flameout, the NTSB
investigation came to quite a different conclusion.
The incident occurred near the end of a nonstop flight from Taipei to
San Francisco. It began with a bit of clear air turbulence, causing
the airspeed to fluctuate. At some point the autopilot "decided" to
increase engine power to maintain speed, but #4 engine did not respond.
The flight engineer soon decided that it had flamed out, but according
to Barlay paraphrasing the NTSB, it actually "was in a hung condition
due to the way it had been operated".
Now the real mistake: the pilot did not turn off the autopilot.
According to an account I remember from somewhere else, its priority
was to maintain altitude, but the plane's altitude of 41,000 feet
was higher than its ceiling for flight on 3 engines. In any case,
the airspeed dropped to the point where the pilot feared a stall,
and he responded by putting the nose down *via the autopilot controls*.
The autopilot was now way outside its operating parameters, and the
plane went out of control, rolling inverted and then diving, with
heavy G-forces, into clouds. The crew became disoriented and did not
realize just what was happening. The flight engineer reported flameouts
on the other three engines, but (according to the NTSB according to
Barlay) he was again wrong about that.
The ground came into view at 11,000 feet, and the pilot was than able
to correct its attitude and pull out of the dive. An engine restart
was performed, apparently successfully (well, the engines were working
after it) and the flight proceeded to San Francisco.
--
Mark Brader \"The age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, econ-
m...@sq.com \ omists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto \ of Europe is extinguished for ever." -- Burke, 1792
This article is in the public domain.