Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 7059 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (13 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1787 times:
I suspect if you compare 747 schedules with DC-8/707s that were flying the same route at the same time the 747 will usually be at least as fast. Maybe the old jets could cruise at 0.84-0.86, but they usually didn't.
High_flyr69 From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 510 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (13 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1704 times:
hey peeps i just checked it up in a book the fastes is the 727 (964kms)then the Ilyushin 86(950kms) then the MD-11(930kms)
hope that answers all ur question i think it goes to show back then things were made for speed :D:D:D:D
thats why the MD-11 is my favourite
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice Doggy' until you find the shot gun
Hurricane From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1444 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (13 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1622 times:
All I can say is, is that the Boeing website doesn't lie. I'll say it again: (From Boeing.com) "the 747 continues to be the world's fastest subsonic jetliner, cruising at Mach .85 -- or 85 percent of the speed of sound," which means it is faster than any commercial aircraft in service today, which includes the TU-154, the MD-11, the 727, and the IL-86, not to mention DC-8s still in cargo operation...
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (13 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1607 times:
Fastest jet at the moment........747-400. The A380 is not yet in service nor has it flown.
What is interesting is that with the introduction of long-range twins, flights actually got longer! The introduction of the 767 and A310 (replacing older widebodies) on trasatlantic flights added 30 to 60 minutes of flying time depending on the route.
Woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1036 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (13 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1568 times:
I think part of why older jets were faster, especially the first generation 707s, DC-8s, 727s, VC-10s etc.....was because of the engines. Those old military derived turbojets were made for speed and the early turbofans with their low/no bypass ratio made them quite fast as well. New high bypass ration turbofans are extremely economical in comparison to turbojets and 1st generation turbofans but they are not efficient to operate at higher speeds due to their high by-pass ratio of air that does not pass through the combusion chanber. Perhaps I should not say "not efficient at high speeds", rather, the faster you go, you need less air bypassing the combustion chamber and those big mouthed engines on 777s (and others) just arent designed for super fast cruise, they are designed for super economical cruise.
We have to remember that a DC-8 was the only subsonic commercial airliner to officially reach a bit beyond mach-1 in a shallow dive back in the 70s. I would guess that the "Vomic Comet" that the USAF and Nasa uses for weightless training may reach mach-1 during their dives????
Another interesting thing to point out is to compare the performance of a 767-200/300ER Transatlantic with a headwind to a tri-jet or quad. I remember in March of 2000 coming from AMS-ATL on a Delta 767-300ER, I watched out the window as just about every other airliner passed us up at different altitudes......BA 747-400, Swissair MD-11, Virgin 747-200, FedEx MD-11 while we lumbered along at something like 405mph accoring to the display, with 90kt headwinds..........adds at least an hour to the flight!