Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Recap About Airliners Cruising Speed  
User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2684 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4879 times:

Hi all,

I would like to make a recap about airliners cruising speed according to the type:

Boeing:
707: ?
717: ?
727: ?
737 Classic: ?
737NG: mach 0.785
747Classic: Mach 0.84
744: Mach 0.85
757: mach 0.80
767: mach 0.80
777: mach 0.84

Airbus:
A300: ?
A310: ?
A32X: mach 0.79
A330: mach 0.82
A340: mach 0.82
A380: mach 0.86 (IIRC)

MDD:
DC8: ?
DC9: ?
DC10: ?
MD80s: ?
MD90: ?
MD11: ?

Lockheed:
L1011: ?

Avro:
Bae 146: ?

Il:
Il86:?
Il 96:?

Tu:
Tu 154:?
Tu 204:?


If you could fill the ? with the speed in mach only!!! It could be a nice recap (and if you have more airliners that come to your mind...)

Regards

Sacha

PS: this is the continuation of this older thread:
Official Cruising Speed Of Each Airliner (by LY777 Nov 27 2007 in Tech Ops)
but it woul be better if we have a list.


אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4829 times:

Boeing 707....M.82

L1011.... M.85


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4525 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4790 times:

When the 727 was initially flying in the early days with cheap fuel .84-.86 Mach cruising was common and quite comfortable with a maximum of .92.



Later on as fuel prices rose most operators would cruise at .8 Mach.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9033 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4765 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

MD11: normally 0.82. Up to 0.85 possible

wilco737



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineCX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6605 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4753 times:

It is very hard to just pick a speed, especially of a 777. In a lightly loaded 777-200 on a short flight at relatively low altitude, the FMC might recommend only 0.79 as a cruising speed. A heavy 777-300 near it's maximum altitude might cruise at 0.85 so it does depend on the day. The fastest I have been is 0.88 on a medical diversion.

User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2143 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4735 times:

There are different CRZ figures, even for one aircraft/engine combination.
CRZ econ, CRZ long range, high speed CRZ.
These CRZ settings are calculated by the FMC/FMS/PMS installed, and are a function of aircraft weight, altitude, wind speed and direction, air temperature.
In the early jet age (with low fuel prizes) high speed crz was often used and was a fixed mach number at high altitude or a speed value on lower altitudes..
As an example : For the 747-100/200, high speed crz speed was M.860. This was also done to get speed stability, because on early jet aircraft no auto throttle was used during cruise.
Later on, with increasing fuel prizes, all kinds of graphs were used during flight to calculate optimum cruising speeds, until the computers took over.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3474 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4692 times:



Quoting LY777 (Thread starter):
737NG: mach 0.785

I've operated in cruise anywhere between 0.72m - 0.815m. Most commonly seen on transcons today: 0.795m.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2760 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4624 times:

Though not on the list, typical at my airline for the CRJ-200 is .74. The airplane is a real dog above 20,000 ft.

Quoting LY777 (Thread starter):
Avro:
Bae 146: ?

I don't know the exact number, but I'd wager it has a minus sign at the front of it.  Big grin



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2684 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4586 times:



Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 7):
I don't know the exact number, but I'd wager it has a minus sign at the front of it.

lol
on Air France magazine, they say 0.70 mach: why such a low cuising speed?!



אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
User currently offlineXXXX10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 777 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4414 times:

I have the BAE 146 brochure, it claims that because of the short sector length the M 0.70 had little effect on flight times and I presume it allows them to design a wing for very slow take-offs and landings.

I thought that the 747-400 was the fastest pax a/c and could cruise at M0.88


User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1610 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4410 times:



Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 7):
Though not on the list, typical at my airline for the CRJ-200 is .74. The airplane is a real dog above 20,000 ft.

This is all correct. But I have seen, in winter on a cold ISA day, .82 in level flight at FL320. Still a pig.... but not quite as bad.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineBrains From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4332 times:

I jumpseat fairly regularly on the A300, and if I recall they cruise around M.80


Brains
User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2638 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4330 times:



Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 9):
I have the BAE 146 brochure, it claims that because of the short sector length the M 0.70 had little effect on flight times and I presume it allows them to design a wing for very slow take-offs and landings.

The BAE146 has a lower cruising altitude, which probably cuts down on the speed as friction would be greater at FL240. IIRC, the aircraft has window seals that don't allow higher altitudes.


User currently onlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1361 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4220 times:

This discussion will never be able to yield a single number applicable for each of the types you have listed. There are simply too many variables, some of which have already been mentioned.

We drive the aircraft at the speed our lords and masters (the beancounters) tell our Chief Pilot to tell us.

We comply by punching the required Cost Index* into the box, and the electronic brain will do the rest. Updates always tell us to put a lower number in the box, I've never seen them increase it. So we're generally going slower and slower, and most of us are now flying at the very low end of Cost Index numbers.

But that's for OPS normal. There are literally thousands of different scenarios that may result in a correction of the cruising speed. And just like the beancounters always revise downwards, pilots always tend to revise upwards; any excuse to go faster

B757 Short-/medium haul: .78
Nowadays, B757 short-medium is more like .78, but the autothrottle is not the best so in reality it's .78-.81 (it rarely seems to go below set speed, only above). Well, that's what the bean-counters in one outfit I'm familiar with has dictated anyway. They're flying on a Cost Index of 10 or thereabouts.

In my days on a Roller powered 75 we used to drive them at a CI of 40-50, which was around .80-.81 depending on weight, height, temp, wind etc.

A300: .78
B717: .74-.76
B737Cl: .74-.76
E-jet: .74-76
MD80: .76-.78
Tu204: .78

I'm sure there's got to be some sort of aerodynamic sweet-spot, for a short- to medium-haul aircraft/wing combination, right around the .76 mark, give or take a .02 Mach. Not only taking into consideration fuel-burn, but the total operating costs. But I'm neither a beancounter nor an aerodynamicist, so I'll just have to take my own word for it - unless someone can prove me wrong of course.

A306: .80
B707: .84

* Cost Index is Boeing speak, not sure if Msrs Airbus, Bombardier et al use the same expression.

[Edited 2009-10-05 12:25:03]

[Edited 2009-10-05 12:27:22]


From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4179 times:



Quoting B777LRF (Reply 13):
We drive the aircraft at the speed our lords and masters (the beancounters) tell our Chief Pilot to tell us.

Not at my company they don't.
I am the Chief Pilot, and I mention to my line Captains that the speed that they desire to cruise at is their business...most use M.84....which, as it happens, is the LRC mach number for most weights.
Type, L1011.


User currently onlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1361 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4126 times:

... but at least we agree line skippers fly the speed they're told, or told to decide for ourselves in your case. Which must be nice, but that sort of freedom has forever been eroded with the vast majority of operators.


From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineCX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6605 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4101 times:

We input the Cost Index which is of course decided by the company and changes with regards to fuel price and maintenance costs etc.. Having said that, there are times when we input a speed manually into the FMC is we see the need to beat someone to a certain waypoint if we know that being number 2 to them is going to delay us further down route.

User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3150 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4049 times:



Quoting B777LRF (Reply 13):
E-jet: .74-76

Vmo on the 170/175 is .82

I've only done it a couple times because it burns a lot more fuel than it does at .78 (where we file) and doesn't have much of an effect on any of the legs we fly, even the longer ones. If we push off early going to a hub and show that we're way early I'll pull it back as far as .68 to try avoiding waiting for a gate in the penalty box. This will save a few hundred pounds per hour over .78.

Going fast is fun and all, but we're paid by the minute  Smile



DMI
User currently offlineCuriousflyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 694 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3986 times:

Dont forget:

Aérospatiale Concorde: M 2.


User currently offline413x3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3936 times:

what cost indexes are 747-400Fs using these days?

User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4525 posts, RR: 18
Reply 20, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3822 times:



Quoting B777LRF (Reply 15):



... but at least we agree line skippers fly the speed they're told, or told to decide for ourselves in your case. Which must be nice, but that sort of freedom has forever been eroded with the vast majority of operators.

I don't think so, my outfit tells us to use the lowest cost index that will allow an on time arrival (or in the case of pushing the extreme limits of the Aircraft, cost index 0 ! )


However if we are running late or have a good operational reason to go fast it is entirely up to us Captains to do so with no criticism from management.



I would think most operators would still leave this decision to the Captain.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineCX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6605 posts, RR: 55
Reply 21, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3774 times:



Quoting Max Q (Reply 20):
I don't think so, my outfit tells us to use the lowest cost index that will allow an on time arrival (or in the case of pushing the extreme limits of the Aircraft, cost index 0 ! )

We used to be told to reduce the CI zero, ETA permitting. However they worked out that the fuel it saved was offset by the cost of having the engines work for longer so they now tell us to reduce to 20 instead of zero. To be honest it doesn't make much difference!


User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1610 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3769 times:



Quoting CX flyboy (Reply 21):
We used to be told to reduce the CI zero, ETA permitting. However they worked out that the fuel it saved was offset by the cost of having the engines work for longer so they now tell us to reduce to 20 instead of zero. To be honest it doesn't make much difference!



That's similar to what we had when I flew the SAAB2000 at LX. Company figured out it was cheaper, all things added up, to run the airplane at max speed. Fuel burn was not enough less at slower speeds to offset additional run time on maintenance items. But like you say, it doesn't make much difference, especially on the short flights I normally operate. Even our longest route of MCI-PHL probably only makes a few minutes difference between running slow or running at MMO. Things like tailwind, or vectors coming in to PHL, etc. can make a much greater difference.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4525 posts, RR: 18
Reply 23, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3726 times:



Quoting CX flyboy (Reply 21):

We used to be told to reduce the CI zero, ETA permitting. However they worked out that the fuel it saved was offset by the cost of having the engines work for longer so they now tell us to reduce to 20 instead of zero. To be honest it doesn't make much difference!

Point well made CX, however we have some routes that we operate the 757 on westbound across the Atlantic in the winter that are at the extreme range limit of the Aircraft. On these routes literally every drop counts in order to make it back non stop so engine hours really don't matter.

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 22):
That's similar to what we had when I flew the SAAB2000 at LX.

How fast was the -2000, nice flying Aircraft ?


I flew the old A model a lifetime ago and always admired the look of the -2000.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineSQ325 From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 1451 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3660 times:

We used to fly the RJ85 with .70!
.72 is max butr i know quite a few operators are flying .68 as cruising speed!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Recap About Airliners Cruising Speed
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Official Cruising Speed Of Each Airliner posted Tue Nov 27 2007 03:11:06 by LY777
A 747sp True Cruising Speed posted Mon May 28 2007 20:10:04 by 747400sp
What Is The Cruising Speed Of A A300 B4? posted Fri May 26 2006 20:25:43 by 747400sp
Why Has The 727 Lost Cruising Speed? posted Fri May 26 2006 18:39:41 by 747400sp
Airliners Cruising At Low Altitude posted Tue Mar 25 2003 13:18:37 by Il75
Airliners: Vertical Speed posted Wed Mar 12 2003 03:16:49 by Lehpron
About Airliners.net. posted Mon Dec 24 2001 20:56:51 by Alaskaairlines
I Hope To Clarify A Few Points About Airliners posted Sat Nov 24 2001 23:10:56 by Mirrodie
B747-400 Max. Cruising Speed (part 2) posted Mon Oct 1 2001 08:46:32 by BOEING747400
B747-400 Max. Cruising Speed posted Sun Sep 30 2001 01:34:08 by BOEING747400

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format