Flying-b773 From Singapore, joined Apr 2001, 390 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 618 times:
no concorde here....
the speed of the planes are kinda acording to size.
though the biggest, the 747 and 777 flies the faster..... followed by the A330/340 , the A310/300 and the B757/767 almost the same, than by the smaller A320/B737. as the size gets smaller, the speed decreases as well.
a flight from akl to sin may jolly well create a difference of more than 30 minutes if it were to be flown by the 747 and the 767/340.
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7791 posts, RR: 23 Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 579 times:
The 744 is the fastest subsonic jet, it has a higher cruise speed than all other aircraft, the 777 comes second, therefore the flying time is slightly decreased. Maybe someone can elaborate a bit more?
Strickerje From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 723 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 550 times:
I'm no expert, but I'll give it a shot -
You've said that the fastest aircraft are the 777 and 747, followed by the A330/A340. You might also notice that these are also the longest range. For a regional jet, MD-80, or 737 flying 1000 miles or less, speed is not imperative because most of the scheduled time is cusioning for traffic and delays. On intercontinental flights, the relatively small difference does make a difference.
Eg: 565 miles per hour is the published cruise speed of the 747-400, and I'll estimate 500 miles per hour for a smaller regional aircraft.
* ATL-GPT (351 miles) - @500mph = 0:37, @565mph = 0:42
Once you add the time to takeoff and climb and waiting in traffic, that's almost no difference.
* ORD-HKG (7793 miles) - @500mph = 15:35, @565mph = 13:48
Time to takeoff and climb and waiting in traffic is roughly the same whether you're going 500 miles or 5000, so here the near 2 hour difference makes a big difference. So you can see why, for the larger and longer range aircraft, it is worthwhile to put forth the extra research and development time and money in squeezing out the highest cruise speed possible without harming the fuel economy.
Strickerje From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 723 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 541 times:
After all that editing and proofreading, seems I can't make one post without screwing something up...
Slawko From Canada, joined May 1999, 3799 posts, RR: 10 Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 508 times:
I think strickerje got it right, the smaller aircraft can fly slower because the flights that they are used for are relatively short. If you look back in time speed was a much more important factor to companies, the 727 for example is very very fast as compared to current aircraft that serve the same role, same goes for the 707, DC8, TU-154, IL62. Back then fuel was cheap and speed was more important, today airlines have higher fuel costs, and so going M.80 instead of M.84 on a short flight will save millions of dollars each year in fuel costs, while only costing the airline 3 or 4 mins per flight on the schedule.
"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
Sponsor Message: 
From Singapore, joined Apr 2001, 390 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7791 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 723 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 1999, 3799 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 510 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
