Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
bcworld
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 1:28 am

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:29 pm

ydahman wrote:
I read the article on CNN.com and I think the report is inaccurate when they stated that the flight time from JFK to LHR was about 2 hours shorter than normal. I dont think the flight takes more than 6 hours on that route. I actually flew IAD to LHR in about 6 hours in the past. It takes about 7 hours the other way around. Does anyone else agree?


https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ba112

The typical time is in excess of 6 hours.
 
flilot
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:45 am

Re: New York to London - New Flight Time Record

Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:39 pm

Arion640 wrote:
It still doesn’t change the fact the blackbird holds the fastest transatlantic crossing time.


Not in the context of a normal flight, it doesn't. Which is what this thread is referencing. The Blackbird flight was in no way "normal". Point to point IN THE AIR, without takeoff and landing at the mentioned airports is not a normal way of measuring a flight time between those two airports. Stop being utterly moronic and pretending that it is.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:47 pm

Arion640 wrote:
You are incorrect. The blackbird holds the ACTUAL record.
JibberJim replied.....
Arion640 wrote:
Doesn’t change a thing. The blackbird still holds the fastest crossing, regardless of wherever it took off from.
cpd replied....
Arion640 wrote:
The blackbird still holds the fastest crossing, regardless of where it took off.
Turnhouse1 repled...
Arion640 wrote:
It still doesn’t change the fact the blackbird holds the fastest transatlantic crossing time.
LAX772LR replied...

I think you will find that the SPACE SHUTTLE probably edges it over the SR-71, if we are not to bothered about trivial little details, like taking-off & landing.

But by all means continue your efforts to re-configure the thread discussion to meet the exact parameters required for the SR-71 to come out on top. You'll be wanting to include "air breathing manned operational aircraft" along with "not including taking-off or landing". :banghead:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
7673mech
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 10:10 am

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:57 pm

ydahman wrote:
I read the article on CNN.com and I think the report is inaccurate when they stated that the flight time from JFK to LHR was about 2 hours shorter than normal. I dont think the flight takes more than 6 hours on that route. I actually flew IAD to LHR in about 6 hours in the past. It takes about 7 hours the other way around. Does anyone else agree?


It’s not inaccurate. Typical taxi times at JFK add time as does air traffic planning heading from Northeast. JFK and IAD to London flights typically have the same scheduled flight times.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:41 pm

cpd wrote:
And the SR-71 would still likely beat Concorde if takeoff and landing was included (from KJFK TO EGLL), but it wouldn’t be as big a time difference. The Blackbird would probably immediately refuel after takeoff (they takeoff with a light fuel load normally), while Concorde can go pretty much flat out right away if cleared to do so (which I think it did going from NY).
There is no "probably" about that initial refuelling, and I believe that overall the contest would have been a wash.
The SR-71 couldn't reach anywhere in Europe even subsonic without reheat, hence I strongly suspect that in-flight refuelling occurred a number of times, not just immediately after take-off. Those J58s are going to drink fuel at an alarming rate on full bore. But in principle you are correct in that the SR-71 certainly refuelled just before accelerating past New York, in order to exclude that first slow-down.

For example, in 1971 the SR-71 was awarded both the Mackay and Harmon Trophy for a much longer flight, clearly involving deceleration for multiple refuellings, and consequently the average speed was considerably reduced to "only" 1428 mph.
Applying that figure would immediately extend the NY-London time to 2hrs25mins, and yet still not include fair allowance for take-off and landing.

The SR-71 NY=LON record flight began and ended with supersonic flight thru' imaginary gates at 80,000 feet over NY and London (the effect of sonic booms being mitigated by the extreme altitude). It might not have been at Mach 3 in both cases, but lower transonic speeds were certainly possible even over such built-up areas.
In contrast, Concorde didn't just have to slow down on final approach to Heathrow, but would already have to slow down to subsonic speeds 450 miles out as soon as it crossed the Irish coast (or adopt a longer more southerly routing, but reducing speed well before reaching the Bristol Channel, still 250 miles out from LHR)

[Technical note; SR-71 data isn't always easy to find, but an SR71 at Mach 3 at 80,000 feet is only generating 43% sonic boom pressure compared to Concorde at Mach 2 at FL480. Indeed, there comes a point where high altitude sonic booms become inaudible at ground level. Unfortunately Concorde was too large an aircraft to ever enjoy that luxury.]
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
Vasu
Posts: 3153
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:34 am

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:23 am

dmstorm22 wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
On those short flights, one barely had time to take nap and your might arrive well before you can check in at your hotel.


Yeah, while it is cool to see JFK-LHR done it that speed, I would have HATED to be on that flight. What little rest you could potentially have gets cut by a good 90 minutes.

Back when I was taking SFO-EWR weekly it would get me so, so angry how basically every week there would always be good tailwinds.

Give me a nice little headwind on those short red-eyes for once!


My friend was on that Norwegian JFK-LGW flight that got diverted to CPH. He described it as “people were just throwing up everywhere”. They were meant to land first thing this morning but are only now on their way from CPH to LGW.
 
cpd
Posts: 6371
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:46 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
cpd wrote:
And the SR-71 would still likely beat Concorde if takeoff and landing was included (from KJFK TO EGLL), but it wouldn’t be as big a time difference. The Blackbird would probably immediately refuel after takeoff (they takeoff with a light fuel load normally), while Concorde can go pretty much flat out right away if cleared to do so (which I think it did going from NY).
There is no "probably" about that initial refuelling, and I believe that overall the contest would have been a wash.
The SR-71 couldn't reach anywhere in Europe even subsonic without reheat, hence I strongly suspect that in-flight refuelling occurred a number of times, not just immediately after take-off. Those J58s are going to drink fuel at an alarming rate on full bore. But in principle you are correct in that the SR-71 certainly refuelled just before accelerating past New York, in order to exclude that first slow-down.

For example, in 1971 the SR-71 was awarded both the Mackay and Harmon Trophy for a much longer flight, clearly involving deceleration for multiple refuellings, and consequently the average speed was considerably reduced to "only" 1428 mph.
Applying that figure would immediately extend the NY-London time to 2hrs25mins, and yet still not include fair allowance for take-off and landing.

The SR-71 NY=LON record flight began and ended with supersonic flight thru' imaginary gates at 80,000 feet over NY and London (the effect of sonic booms being mitigated by the extreme altitude). It might not have been at Mach 3 in both cases, but lower transonic speeds were certainly possible even over such built-up areas.
In contrast, Concorde didn't just have to slow down on final approach to Heathrow, but would already have to slow down to subsonic speeds 450 miles out as soon as it crossed the Irish coast (or adopt a longer more southerly routing, but reducing speed well before reaching the Bristol Channel, still 250 miles out from LHR)

[Technical note; SR-71 data isn't always easy to find, but an SR71 at Mach 3 at 80,000 feet is only generating 43% sonic boom pressure compared to Concorde at Mach 2 at FL480. Indeed, there comes a point where high altitude sonic booms become inaudible at ground level. Unfortunately Concorde was too large an aircraft to ever enjoy that luxury.]


Very rarely, SR-71 did actually take off with a full fuel load. This it did on the missions over Libya. As for speed, M3.5 was possible, though not normal procedure. It did that speed apparently with absolute smoothness! Impressive.

Still doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t hold the record from KJFK to EGLL. That remains with Concorde and for subsonic planes, this 747 is the quickest unless something else goes a bit faster.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5574
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New York to London - New Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:15 am

Arion640 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
The blackbird still holds the fastest crossing, regardless of where it took off.

So I guess the whole concept of anecdotal comparison is lost on you? Fair enough.

While we're at it, let's call Boeing's 77L marketing flight the "longest passenger service," and the Operation Solomon 747 the "busiest pax service" ....


It still doesn’t change the fact the blackbird holds the fastest transatlantic crossing time.

I’ll see your SR-71 and raise you a Vostok 1.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2148
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:03 am

747. Still killing it after all these years.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
xwb565
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:35 am

Now this is what I call progress....Meanwhile some ancient museum piece in LHR is laughing at the theatrics.
 
m007j
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 3:05 pm

Re: New York to London - New Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:50 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
So I guess the whole concept of anecdotal comparison is lost on you? Fair enough.

While we're at it, let's call Boeing's 77L marketing flight the "longest passenger service," and the Operation Solomon 747 the "busiest pax service" ....


It still doesn’t change the fact the blackbird holds the fastest transatlantic crossing time.

I’ll see your SR-71 and raise you a Vostok 1.

V/F

I see your Vostok 1 and raise you an Apollo 10
 
USAirKid
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:42 am

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:29 am

jetmatt777 wrote:
Mboyle1988 wrote:
It would be so much more convenient if the prevailing winds were in the opposite direction so the red eye flights were longer and the daytime flights shorter.


This always makes me wonder if airlines would be able to pull off a "sleeper" service. Intentionally flying a slower, longer route to add time to the flight. We have some redeyes out of DEN that depart pretty late in the night for the only purpose of having a 5-6am arrival time. Would be nice to take off earlier and fly slower. I'd take an extra 45 mins of "airplane sleep" over sitting in the bright, sterile concourse hearing announcements every 5 minutes and pondering my existence.


I've also thought about this as well. At least for domestic US flights, I think cost is going to be the determining factor. Redeyes often seem to yield less revenue than a comparable day flight. They're kinda just there to get some additional revenue on a frame that wouldn't be doing anything in the middle of the night. So the airlines aren't going to add extra flight time to a service that they already can't sell at a premium.
 
Longhornmaniac
Posts: 3138
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:33 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:46 am

fxramper wrote:
fxramper


That is a name I haven't heard in a long time. A long time.
Cheers,
Cameron
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5574
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New York to London - New Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:02 am

m007j wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
Arion640 wrote:

It still doesn’t change the fact the blackbird holds the fastest transatlantic crossing time.

I’ll see your SR-71 and raise you a Vostok 1.

V/F

I see your Vostok 1 and raise you an Apollo 10

I was going to say Apollo 10, but their speed record was achieved on the return from the moon, not during earth orbit, so I’m not sure we could say it crossed the Atlantic any faster than any other low earth orbit spacecraft without having the exact orbital data. Something to consider too is that the higher orbit you are in, although you will be travelling faster through space, you will be taking a longer time to cover a path over the ground. Low earth orbit can have you going right the way around in 90 minutes; head up to 36,000km (the Clarke Orbit) and it will take you 24 hours to do a complete orbit - with the ground moving under you so you actually never move across the ground!

None of which takes away from the record set by BA.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 1773
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

Re: New York to London - New Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:35 am

StrandedAtMKG wrote:
bcworld wrote:
LGWGate49 wrote:
I was following Norwegian DI7016 on Flightradar24 (aircraft G-CKWT), and she would have broken it at 4 hours 54 minutes but had to do a go-around (due to high winds!).

Oddly she is currently now heading over the North Sea back at 37,000ft, so will keep an eye where she is being diverted to.

DI7018 diverted to CPH.


Imagine being a family of American tourists (Norwegian's core clientele), maybe Mom and Dad, a couple teenagers, and Grandma visiting London for Grandma's 75th birthday, and instead of dropping you off into the waiting arms of Cousin Arthur and his wife Jennifer in London they divert you to Copenhagen, half a continent away.


It's not that bad. It's just a one hour flight away and since Norweigan have a base there, you'd probably end up have a free meal at the airport or a free stay for one night at an airport hotel in Copenhagen, then a short flight to London the next day. Worse things have happened at sea.
 
chimborazo
Posts: 308
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:51 pm

Re: New York to London - New Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:49 am

StrandedAtMKG wrote:
bcworld wrote:
LGWGate49 wrote:
I was following Norwegian DI7016 on Flightradar24 (aircraft G-CKWT), and she would have broken it at 4 hours 54 minutes but had to do a go-around (due to high winds!).

Oddly she is currently now heading over the North Sea back at 37,000ft, so will keep an eye where she is being diverted to.

DI7018 diverted to CPH.


Imagine being a family of American tourists (Norwegian's core clientele), maybe Mom and Dad, a couple teenagers, and Grandma visiting London for Grandma's 75th birthday, and instead of dropping you off into the waiting arms of Cousin Arthur and his wife Jennifer in London they divert you to Copenhagen, half a continent away.



Yes. It would be much better for cousin Arthur to go and pick them up from a London hospital 2 weeks later when they’ve recovered from the injuries sustained sustained in the crash because the pilots were forced to put it down instead of go-around :-)

I take your point about it being a loooooong way from the destination, even so, better than being scraped off the runway.
 
User avatar
AMIKI
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 1:06 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:04 am

now it is faster to fly from London to New York if you fly eastwards :duck:
 
gokmengs
Posts: 1281
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:48 am

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:13 am

Its amazing how this thread is about the subsonic commercial flight that takes of from NYC and lands in LON, yet so many posts are about a military jet, and one that doesn't even land that is making an Atlantic crossing. Learned a lot sure but come on:)))
Yaşa Mustafa Kemal Paşa Yaşa, Adın Yazılacak Mücevher Taşa
 
User avatar
JannEejit
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:04 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:34 am

So to upsum, the SR-71 holds the fastest record, Concorde the fastest civil aircraft record and the BA 747, the fastest subsonic civil record. When Concorde smashed the civil record did it also benefit from fast moving jetstreams ? Did it not traditionally fly higher than those ?
 
noviorbis77
Posts: 1002
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:14 am

Imagine if a VC10 was flying transatlantic yesterday.
 
TC957
Posts: 3780
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:25 am

I'm surprised VS let BA beat it - that minute less counts - as we know how much VS loves publicity when it comes to getting one over BA.
 
FGITD
Posts: 858
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:02 pm

noviorbis77 wrote:
Imagine if a VC10 was flying transatlantic yesterday.


Better yet, a cv990.
 
EWRandMDW
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:28 am

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:01 pm

Let's see, JFK to LHR set a subsonic speed record. Passengers probably wondered what to do with extra time. Can they check into their hotels early? Drag their baggage to a cafe for coffee?
I haven't seen anyone mention the poor saps flying westbound from London. To JFK is usually about 45 - 60 minutes longer than eastbound. But maybe the westbound time was > 60 minutes, perhaps 90, 120, more?
 
chimborazo
Posts: 308
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:51 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:25 pm

JannEejit wrote:
So to upsum, the SR-71 holds the fastest record, Concorde the fastest civil aircraft record and the BA 747, the fastest subsonic civil record. When Concorde smashed the civil record did it also benefit from fast moving jetstreams ? Did it not traditionally fly higher than those ?



Could refine it even further to put the 747 into second position: that BA flight was the fastest crossing by an aircraft not fitted with reheat.*

:-)

*I’m assuming here that every supersonic aircraft has/had reheat(afterburners) - whether or not they can supercruise.
 
sgbroimp
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 6:35 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:37 pm

Many years ago my wife and I were on a Swissair MD-11 flight that did JFK-ZRH in 5 Hours 40 minutes. Everybody was remarking about how early we landed. One crew told me it was not their record, that being 5:20, probably in either an MD-11 or 747.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:11 pm

FGITD wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
Imagine if a VC10 was flying transatlantic yesterday.

Better yet, a cv990.

Not necessarily..
The VC-10 would have landed at LHR with fuel to spare, even after using higher throttle settings to give it an edge..

If the CV-990 used anything higher than econ cruise, it would have turned into the Gimli Glider and been lucky to make Shannon. :duck:

Wikipedia wrote:
Modern Air reduced the CV-990's [cruise] speed from Mach .85 to Mach .78, reducing fuel burn by 30% per hour and increasing the aircraft's range by 20% permitting non-stop transatlantic flights from the eastern seaboard of the US to Central Europe, such as Philadelphia to Vienna for example, with a full payload
[edited for brevity]

(In essence, it's the Concorde vs SR71 situation all over again; one is faster but needs to slow down to save fuel (or re-fuel), whilst the other can keep going...)
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
cjg225
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:59 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:30 pm

My boss flew to DUB from PHL yesterday evening. Said they arrived 50 minutes ahead of schedule. Barely got in a nap.
Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
 
m007j
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 3:05 pm

Re: New York to London - New Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:52 pm

VirginFlyer wrote:
m007j wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
I’ll see your SR-71 and raise you a Vostok 1.

V/F

I see your Vostok 1 and raise you an Apollo 10

I was going to say Apollo 10, but their speed record was achieved on the return from the moon, not during earth orbit, so I’m not sure we could say it crossed the Atlantic any faster than any other low earth orbit spacecraft without having the exact orbital data. Something to consider too is that the higher orbit you are in, although you will be travelling faster through space, you will be taking a longer time to cover a path over the ground. Low earth orbit can have you going right the way around in 90 minutes; head up to 36,000km (the Clarke Orbit) and it will take you 24 hours to do a complete orbit - with the ground moving under you so you actually never move across the ground!

None of which takes away from the record set by BA.

V/F


Fair point, I do posit though that Vostok 1 got a bit of help from crossing nearer to the poles than the NATs. Shall we call the Space Shuttle the winner and end the bickering that's occurring elsewhere in the thread? :lol:
 
FGITD
Posts: 858
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:05 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
FGITD wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
Imagine if a VC10 was flying transatlantic yesterday.

Better yet, a cv990.

Not necessarily..
The VC-10 would have landed at LHR with fuel to spare, even after using higher throttle settings to give it an edge..

If the CV-990 used anything higher than econ cruise, it would have turned into the Gimli Glider and been lucky to make Shannon. :duck:

Wikipedia wrote:
Modern Air reduced the CV-990's [cruise] speed from Mach .85 to Mach .78, reducing fuel burn by 30% per hour and increasing the aircraft's range by 20% permitting non-stop transatlantic flights from the eastern seaboard of the US to Central Europe, such as Philadelphia to Vienna for example, with a full payload
[edited for brevity]

(In essence, it's the Concorde vs SR71 situation all over again; one is faster but needs to slow down to save fuel (or re-fuel), whilst the other can keep going...)


Oh being ambitious and hoping to even make Shannon, are we?!
Maybe they can build enough altitude by Iceland that it can glide the rest of the way.

I've always been a fan of the 990 purely because of how absolutely all out for speed the design went, forgoing such ideas as efficiency, or even sales.

I mean, it's engines alone tell the story. A non afterburning commercial version of an engine designed for fighters, bombers, and a supersonic cruise missile. Including the f104, f4, and B58.
 
N649DL
Posts: 922
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:16 pm

26point2 wrote:
What about the poor buggers going the other direction? A different sort of record I suppose


Lot's of cancellations at least on LHR-EWR. That might be a record: https://flightaware.com/live/findflight ... ation=KEWR

Westbound looks to be around 8 hours. That can't be pleasant. Really odd I had a dream about being on a Concorde last night and wake up to this news story.
Last edited by N649DL on Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
PaxPicti
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:37 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:18 pm

EWRandMDW wrote:
I haven't seen anyone mention the poor saps flying westbound from London. To JFK is usually about 45 - 60 minutes longer than eastbound. But maybe the westbound time was > 60 minutes, perhaps 90, 120, more?

Don't the westbound flights try to stay out of the jetstream as much as possible, unlike the eastbounds which try to ride it?

If so the extra time might not be anywhere near as bad.
 
aviatorcraig
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:34 pm

JannEejit wrote:
When Concorde smashed the civil record did it also benefit from fast moving jetstreams ? Did it not traditionally fly higher than those ?


The jetstream is much less prevalent at the altitudes that Concorde flew at.
The main thing that limited Concorde's cruising speed was kinetic heating of the airframe, which was made from an aluminium alloy rather than titanium or exotic materials. Hotspots like the tip of the nose were not allowed to exceed (if I remember correctly) 126 deg C. Thus a fast crossing was less likely to be due to tailwinds and more likely to be due to a lower than normal outside air temperature (OAT).
707 727 Caravelle Comet Concorde Dash-7 DC-9 DC-10 One-Eleven Trident Tristar Tu-134 VC-10 Viscount plus boring stuff!
 
User avatar
JannEejit
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:04 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:16 pm

aviatorcraig wrote:
JannEejit wrote:
When Concorde smashed the civil record did it also benefit from fast moving jetstreams ? Did it not traditionally fly higher than those ?


The jetstream is much less prevalent at the altitudes that Concorde flew at.
The main thing that limited Concorde's cruising speed was kinetic heating of the airframe, which was made from an aluminium alloy rather than titanium or exotic materials. Hotspots like the tip of the nose were not allowed to exceed (if I remember correctly) 126 deg C. Thus a fast crossing was less likely to be due to tailwinds and more likely to be due to a lower than normal outside air temperature (OAT).


Very interesting, thank you.
 
sw733
Posts: 5881
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:19 am

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:22 pm

EWRandMDW wrote:
Let's see, JFK to LHR set a subsonic speed record. Passengers probably wondered what to do with extra time. Can they check into their hotels early? Drag their baggage to a cafe for coffee?
I haven't seen anyone mention the poor saps flying westbound from London. To JFK is usually about 45 - 60 minutes longer than eastbound. But maybe the westbound time was > 60 minutes, perhaps 90, 120, more?


The flight was already an early morning arrival, I imagine most people figured they wouldn't get in to their hotel rooms anytime soon anyways. Those connecting got more time to sit around LHR, whether that be good or bad. I think it would be worst for locals who either planned on being picked up (by a ride that wouldn't have been there for quite a while later) or taking public transport home, which may or may not have been as accessible that much earlier in the morning.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5578
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:34 pm

aviatorcraig wrote:
JannEejit wrote:
When Concorde smashed the civil record did it also benefit from fast moving jetstreams ? Did it not traditionally fly higher than those ?


The jetstream is much less prevalent at the altitudes that Concorde flew at.
The main thing that limited Concorde's cruising speed was kinetic heating of the airframe, which was made from an aluminium alloy rather than titanium or exotic materials. Hotspots like the tip of the nose were not allowed to exceed (if I remember correctly) 126 deg C. Thus a fast crossing was less likely to be due to tailwinds and more likely to be due to a lower than normal outside air temperature (OAT).


127C which interestingly is 400K. Interesting because it’s an easy number to use on slide rules
 
Raptormodeller
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:51 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:05 pm

Since we're talking about the SR-71 right now. Remember that any record set before 1968 by the Blackbird is more likely to held by the less known A-12 Cygnus/Oxcart. The Blackbird and/or YF-12 were simply used as a cover story due to their cosmetic similarities. Although don't get me wrong there are still pre 1968 records held by the SR-71 and not its CIA twin.
As a sidenote, the A-12 could theoretically fly higher and faster than the SR, but in practice, the Blackbird holds all the records. I believe there are a few reports from pilots being very vague about speeds above mach 3.3 in the way only someone who's done it but doesn't openly admit it does.
A380 A330 A318 A319 A320 A321 B737 B757 B767 B747 MD80 E185 E195 Q400 EF2000
AF BA QF SQ HOP LT AA BE
 
User avatar
aeromoe
Posts: 1128
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:34 am

Re: New York to London - New Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:39 pm

BlueberryWheats wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
The word "subsonic" should appear somewhere in this title, and obviously Concorde continues to hold the ACTUAL record.


Or subsonic civilian. I think the Blackbird beat the Concorde. :stirthepot:


:checkmark: :checkmark: Hell Yeah! Go USAF!
AA AC AS BA BD BF BN BR(1) BY B6 CO CP(2) DG DL EA EI EN FL FT F9 HA HP ICX JI JQ J7 KE KL KS LH MC NW OC OO OZ(1) OZ(2) PA PI PT QF QQ RM RO RV(1) RV(2) RW SK SM SQ S4 TI TS TW UA UK US UZ VS VX WA WN WS W7 XV YV YX(2) ZZ 9K
 
cpd
Posts: 6371
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:50 pm

aviatorcraig wrote:
JannEejit wrote:
When Concorde smashed the civil record did it also benefit from fast moving jetstreams ? Did it not traditionally fly higher than those ?


The jetstream is much less prevalent at the altitudes that Concorde flew at.
The main thing that limited Concorde's cruising speed was kinetic heating of the airframe, which was made from an aluminium alloy rather than titanium or exotic materials. Hotspots like the tip of the nose were not allowed to exceed (if I remember correctly) 126 deg C. Thus a fast crossing was less likely to be due to tailwinds and more likely to be due to a lower than normal outside air temperature (OAT).


It did benefit from favourable winds too, I heard it was in the climb portion of the flight. That was from a third hand source, but may well be wrong. If the pilot who flew the plane is around, perhaps he can correct this.

As for the TMO limit, that wasn’t very likely in most normal conditions. Only in quite warm conditions (ISA +whatever). Colder conditions do mean the plane climbs more quickly however.

aeromoe wrote:
BlueberryWheats wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
The word "subsonic" should appear somewhere in this title, and obviously Concorde continues to hold the ACTUAL record.


Or subsonic civilian. I think the Blackbird beat the Concorde. :stirthepot:


:checkmark: :checkmark: Hell Yeah! Go USAF!



It didn’t beat Concorde or the 747, as it didn’t takeoff or land at the same airports as the two civil planes.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10261
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:12 am

So to be clear, if VS wants to break BA's record all they need is the assistance of the authorities in New York who will allow them to push back and take off in less than 15 minutes?
Cool.
 
cpd
Posts: 6371
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:48 am

par13del wrote:
So to be clear, if VS wants to break BA's record all they need is the assistance of the authorities in New York who will allow them to push back and take off in less than 15 minutes?
Cool.


I think all these airport to airport records are timed differently as well. The Concorde one would have been from “3 2 1 Now!” and until the clock was stopped at the other end.

From gate to gate is not 2 hours 52 minutes. And for that matter, that also excludes SR-71 (sorry to those people).
 
mcogator
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:51 am

Re: New York to London - New Flight Time Record

Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:51 am

LAX772LR wrote:
BlueberryWheats wrote:
I think the Blackbird beat the Concorde.
mcogator wrote:
Yes, the Blackbird holds the actual flight record at 1 hour, 54 minutes, 56.4 seconds.
Arion640 wrote:
The blackbird holds the ACTUAL record.

Meh.

While no one's going to contend that Concorde could match a Blackbird in speed, it's sorta anecdotal to use that flight as a comparative record when the latter was already at speed, and at altitude, before and after the timing was started and stopped.

Takeoff and landing were not included, as it has in essentially every other flight claiming a record.


mcogator wrote:
Why does someone need to rest on a < 5 hour daytime flight? I'm on LAX-MCO at least monthly, and unless I take the redeye, rest is not on my mind.

OBVIOUS ANSWER BEING: maybe others have difference preferences than you? :scratchchin:

Who pissed in your cheerios?

The flight arrived at LHR around 11pm est. Its pretty hard to get rest on such timing.
“Traveling – it leaves you speechless, then turns you into a storyteller.” – Ibn Battuta
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13201
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: New York to London - New Flight Time Record

Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:18 am

mcogator wrote:
Who pissed in your cheerios?

The flight arrived at LHR around 11pm est. Its pretty hard to get rest on such timing.

Not sure what part of this is so difficult for you, but.....

(again) people with different needs/objectives/preferences than you find that it works for them, whether that entails "rest" or any other purpose, and continue to patronize it sufficiently for the airline to keep the timing as it is.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
richierich
Moderator
Posts: 3627
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:56 pm

ydahman wrote:
I read the article on CNN.com and I think the report is inaccurate when they stated that the flight time from JFK to LHR was about 2 hours shorter than normal. I dont think the flight takes more than 6 hours on that route. I actually flew IAD to LHR in about 6 hours in the past. It takes about 7 hours the other way around. Does anyone else agree?


This time of year it can take longer than 7 hours. Obviously they don't fly straight into the strongest headwinds, but that often means going well out of the way (north or south) and that adds time.

I recently flew DUB-JFK and it took 7 hours 10 minutes wheels up to wheels down. This wasn't during particularly stormy weather either, so I think adding 10-15 minutes for London, plus up to another half hour for very strong headwinds, and 8 hours isn't out of the question.
None shall pass!!!!
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:39 pm

Concorde holds the record for the fastest airliner to cross NY to London.

But for the time that we live in, wouldn't it be interesting to find out which flight performed the most fuel economical (per pax) crossing?
 
JibberJim
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:33 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:46 pm

Erebus wrote:
But for the time that we live in, wouldn't it be interesting to find out which flight performed the most fuel economical (per pax) crossing?


Well on the Blackbird example it'll be one of the balloons not needing to care about actually visiting the airports, using very little fuel - possibly almost none if the Blackbird "gate" system was in effect... Kinda slow though.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22296
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:55 pm

Could any of these flights have reached Mach?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
Staralexi
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:27 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:20 pm

I am a little surprised about all this. I was on a British Airways Super VC10 in early October 1976 flying from JFK to LHR. The runway time achieved that night was 4 hrs 45 minutes.
 
744SPX
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:50 pm

Despite cruising at "only" mach 3.0-3.1, The XB-70A could have beaten both the Concorde and the SR-71 -including takeoff and landing- as it has enough range to stay at Mach 3 the entire way without requiring a slow-down and top-up like the SR. It also demonstrated 20 minutes from rotation to Mach 3.
 
744SPX
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:51 pm

...Including takeoff and landing it could probably average close to 1900 mph.
 
eastwood6
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:27 pm

Re: New York to London - New Subsonic Flight Time Record

Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:41 pm

Long time lurker, first time poster. I was on BA112 for the record breaking run. Pre-flight announcement stated that we were going to have some significant tailwinds, but it wasn't until midway in the flight that you noticed on the moving map that we were - using a technical term here - haulin' you-know-what. Meal service, maybe two hours of quiet time, then breakfast. We encountered maybe a half-dozen bouts with turbulence, but they didn't last more than 10 minutes or so each.

Eerie landing in a dark and empty LHR at that early hour. Some crosswinds and short final adjustments to our trajectory but the ship cut through the buffeting like the Queen she is. Cabin steward noted on the post-landing PA that they believed we had just set a new TATL record, but not sure we realized what he meant at the time.

Sadly, shortly after the FIDS started turning red as connections were being cancelled as the winds picked up. I ended up having to stay the night in London before heading to Amsterdam via Eurostar as couldn't get rebooked until two full days out.

Impressive how much media coverage the flight received. Fun to be part of a little piece of aviation history. Cheers.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos