BA 777-236ER Reaches 745 MPH!

Boeing778X · Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:29 am

A BA 777-236ER, operating Speedbird 114 from JFK to LHR on Janurary 7th hitches a ride on the jetstream and gets propelled to 745 MPH, which is near supersonic at the altitude the aircraft cruised at.

The flight was only 5h16min!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/tr...near-supersonic-speeds-745mph.html

[Edited 2015-01-09 16:49:08]

DocLightning · Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:39 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Thread starter):
A BA 777-236ER, operating Speedbird 114 from JFK to LHR on Janurary 7th hitches a ride on the jetstream and gets propelled to 745 MPH, which is supersonic at the altitude the aircraft cruised at.

The flight was only 5h16min!

In March of 2008 I was on a BA 772 from EWR to LHR that exceed 800 MPH ground speed at times and made the trip in 4:46.

karadion · Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:41 am

Near supersonic, not at supersonic speed.

gr09 · Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:45 am

Facepalm on that Dailymail title: New York flight goes SUPERSONIC.
No, it did not go supersonic neither it flew significantly closer to the speed of sound than usually.

aloges · Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:10 am

Quoting Karadion (Reply 2):
Near supersonic, not at supersonic speed.

Quoting gr09 (Reply 3):
No, it did not go supersonic neither it flew significantly closer to the speed of sound than usually.

That is just its

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
ground speed

and doesn't mean the aircraft came any closer to supersonic airspeed than usual. In fact, the pilots may have reduced airspeed to save fuel and still arrived far ahead of schedule.

cedarjet · Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:14 am

It's Mach number will have been whatever BA normally operate at, 0.8, 0.81, 0.82, somewhere round there. No closer to the sound barrier than normal. There is no fixed "speed of sound" anyway — it varies with density and temperature.

And 5h16m isn't even remarkable, I've done it in 5h25m on a VS 747 including two holds over Biggin. I did it on Jan 4 2015 on a BA 747 in 5h30m.

egph · Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:26 am

I read this article and knew it was likely to be the normal Daily Mail sensationalism.

On a tech note, if an airliner did approach Mach 1, would it not cause great structural stress to the frame?

prebennorholm · Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:39 am

There were two rather deep low pressures in mid Atlantic along roughly 60N latitude between Northern Scotland and Nova Scotia. They gave a nice tailwind.

Nothing really unusual for this time of year.

They pass rather fast eastwards, and here they are identified as winter storms Dagmar and Egon.

Dagmar passed today, turned over some trees in northern Germany, injuring a few people. In southern Denmark one large truck was turned over on the motorway.

Egon will pass here tomorrow afternoon.

The only slightly unusual thing is that two such systems ligned up giving this BA bird tailwind on practically all way on its route.

Cadet985 · Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:15 am

Quoting EGPH (Reply 6):
On a tech note, if an airliner did approach Mach 1, would it not cause great structural stress to the frame?

Yes, and as there are currently no passenger planes designed for supersonic flight, as it would get NEAR Mach 1, you can bet it would become very shaky inside, and those "puke bags" would be used pretty quick.

In terms of structural damage, the friction alone would cause great damage to the flight control surfaces, rendering the plane nearly unflyable, and almost certainly unlandable.

I'm remembering this from an aviation class from about fifteen years ago...if anyone has more current information, please feel free to correct me.

Marc

steeler83 · Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:24 am

That's crazy how the jet stream can impact flights across the pond.

"When this baby gets up to 88 mph, you're going to see some serious shit!"

[humming theme from "Star Wars]

I am such a dork!

Cadet985 · Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:28 am

Quoting steeler83 (Reply 9):
"When this baby gets up to 88 mph, you're going to see some serious shit!"

[humming theme from "Star Wars]

Wrong movie

Marc

FlyHossD · Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:35 am

As fun as the high groundspeeds are, the westward flights will be in that strong wind longer. So when it's all said and done, no wind is the fastest way to do a round trip.

32andBelow · Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:36 am

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 11):
As fun as the high groundspeeds are, the westward flights will be in that strong wind longer. So when it's all said and done, no wind is the fastest way to do a round trip.

It all pretty much works itself out in the end.

BiggerJetsPlz · Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:37 am

This was coming home from Taiwan on a CI 747 late last year, we actually got over 740mph ground speed but I didn't get a pic:

zkncj · Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:49 am

It's not un-common for flights to reach speeds like this in an decent jet stream, most of the year there is an very decent jet stream that runs from Sydney to Auckland.

While the flight time is meant to be 3hours, its not uncommon to knock 30-60minutes off the flight time.

I've done SYD-AKL in an NZ 763ER at only 2hr10minutes plenty of times

[Edited 2015-01-09 18:50:44]

steeler83 · Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:15 am

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 10):
Wrong movie

Ok, smartass...

Dunnnn-dunnn-DUNNN. da-da-DUN-da-da-DUNN!

Daaaaa da-da-DAA Da-da-DAAA

In case you're wondering... that's me trying to spell out the melody from the Back to the Future theme!

AA777 · Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:01 am

I've flown IAD-LHR in just over 6 hours. Normally 6 HR 30 MIN. I remember being stunned seeing the ground speed over 700 mph. But those tail winds def. help

RJ321 · Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:18 am

Quoting EGPH (Reply 6):

My thoughts exactly

NorthstarBoy · Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:26 am

Steeler83-the theme song for Back to the Future is The Power of Love by Huey Lewis and the News. Also, the theme song you spelled out is Darth Vader's theme, not the Star Wars theme.

Anyway.....

I would imagine that with a ground speed of 745 miles an hour the ride would be rather....uncomfortable for the passengers.
I say this because just about every transatlantic flight i've taken that had those kinds of tail winds has been moderately if not massively turbulent for at least part of the journey. On the obverse, flying the opposite direction into the wind the flights are always smooth.

lapper · Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:14 am

I'm surprised the passengers weren't screaming in terror...

idlewildchild · Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:35 am

UA110, EWR-LHR, Tuesday before Thanksgiving, 723mph (snapped a pic with my cam, don't know how to post in on airliners.net) and unfortunately pretty heavy chop which was VERY disconcerting. It lasted 45 minutes and then suddenly we had a head wind. Was the oddest series of turbulence, tail winds and head winds, in one flight, I've ever experienced (flying 45+ years). How fast, with tail winds, can the average Boeing or Airbus aircraft fly before it becomes unsafe?

EMAman · Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:50 am

Quoting AA777 (Reply 16):
I've flown IAD-LHR in just over 6 hours. Normally 6 HR 30 MIN. I remember being stunned seeing the ground speed over 700 mph. But those tail winds def. help

Ditto I flew on UA920 in 1999 and did it in 6 Hrs 05 - remarkably quick. The ground speed was 720mph plus for much of the atlantic crossing.

As stated earlier in this thread, the mach number is the same e.g. 0.80 - 0.82 range, as the speed of sound is relative to the air density and temperature. The ground speed is high.

An airliner would not get to mach 1 - it would probably stall before and is not structurally designed to withstand the sonic boom. The operating ceiling for most airliners is 0.78 - 0.82.

I have also flown CLT - LGW on a US A330 and that was a much slower journey!

LatAmFlyer · Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:56 am

Quoting EGPH (Reply 6):
I read this article and knew it was likely to be the normal Daily Mail sensationalism.

Did you also notice in the headline where it says the flight took 5:19 yet in the story itself the writer said the flight duration was 5:16?

r2rho · Sat Jan 10, 2015 11:30 am

There are some crazy winds over the North Atlantic this weekend. We are certainly feeling it here on ground in Northern Germany.
Also, it's important to differentiate ground speed from airspeed, which was nowhere near 700mph for this flight. And that's what's gonna give you the Mach number that the airplane is seeing, which was probably fairly normal.

covert · Sat Jan 10, 2015 11:38 am

Quoting EGPH (Reply 6):
On a tech note, if an airliner did approach Mach 1, would it not cause great structural stress to the frame?

The figures you guys are quoting are groundspeed, which in the ops world is only relevant to how long it takes you to get to the destination. I bet you this aircraft was cruising somewhere around the normal TAS of 460 knots, which comes to the neighborhood of around Mach .80 in typical conditions.

To put that in layman's speak, relative to the air that the aircraft was flying through, nothing was faster than usual, and that the aircraft wasn't "approaching" the speed of sound which is a relative (not absolute) measure which varies constantly.

aca36 · Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:39 pm

First post on A.net!

FAIL! Take a look at the flightaware screenshot they posted! Though it reached near "supersonic" speeds, the plane was still delayed for 1 hour and 20 minutes from scheduled arrival :P

Natflyer · Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:56 pm

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 18):
I would imagine that with a ground speed of 745 miles an hour the ride would be rather....uncomfortable for the passengers.
I say this because just about every transatlantic flight i've taken that had those kinds of tail winds has been moderately if not massively turbulent for at least part of the journey. On the obverse, flying the opposite direction into the wind the flights are always smooth.

Wrong. Plain and simple. It just varies. A lot. Flew a transatlantic flt eastbound the night of Jan 7th, average around 80 kts, up to about 140 kts. on the tail. Smooth as silk.

usair330 · Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:03 pm

Quoting aca36 (Reply 25):
First post on A.net!

FAIL! Take a look at the flightaware screenshot they posted! Though it reached near "supersonic" speeds, the plane was still delayed for 1 hour and 20 minutes from scheduled arrival :P

LoL Good eye! Welcome.

affirmative · Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:04 pm

Funny that the shorter flight times and fast speeds become news. I'd be more interested in the opposite since that headwind would be quite bothersome on a westbound flight.

Also interesting to see that the 31st Dec flight was 4:46 but got less press. Must be a slow news day.

Quoting idlewildchild (Reply 20):

There's not limit really. The jet stream can attain 200+ knots so you add that to the speed of the aircraft. There's no danger since this concerns speed over ground and not the speed of the aircraft through the air. And normally you get some turbulence in and around the edges of the jet stream since the difference in speed between the airmasses that create eddies.

vv701 · Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:28 pm

Quoting aca36 (Reply 25):
FAIL! Take a look at the flightaware screenshot they posted! Though it reached near "supersonic" speeds, the plane was still delayed for 1 hour and 20 minutes from scheduled arrival

Welcome! But do not believe all you read. Unfortunately the data on the Flightawre screen shot is clearly wrong.

Flightaware says the 'Scheduled' time at JFK was 21:30 EST. It says the 'Scheduled' time at LHR was 07:46 GMT. This is impossible as, unlike North America, in the UK all flights are scheduled to the nearest five minutes. So if Flighaware had nearly got it right the Scheduled time at LHR would have been either 07:45 or 07:50 GMT. Further the Scheduled times Flightaware actually used mean that the scheduled flight time of this flight would have been exactly the same as its actual flight time, namely 5 hrs 16 mins!

According to the BA timetable the actual scheduled departure time of BA114 from JFK is indeed 21:30 EST. However it gives the scheduled arrival time of this flight at LHR as 09:20 GMT. So if the rest of the Flightaware data is correct I make it that this flight departed from JFK 80 minutes late and arrived at LHR 14 minutes early.

But hey! If Flightaware got the scheduled arrival time so very wrong are their actual departure and arrival times accurate?

conaly · Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:42 pm

www.groundspeedrecords.com/

Maybe some of you didn't know this site yet. A nice database for high ground speeds of airliners. The 772 there is confirmed with a record of 735 knots groundspeed (= 846mph or 1361km/h - at ground level this would be mach 1.1). Seems like this speeds happen from time to time. Still getting scary if you also notice, that there are winds with 200 knots or more blowing around your aircraft.

And even the Concorde has two records listed there!

mjlewis · Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:25 pm

Quoting conaly (Reply 30):

www.groundspeedrecords.com/

Maybe some of you didn't know this site yet. A nice database for high ground speeds of airliners. The 772 there is confirmed with a record of 735 knots groundspeed (= 846mph or 1361km/h - at ground level this would be mach 1.1). Seems like this speeds happen from time to time. Still getting scary if you also notice, that there are winds with 200 knots or more blowing around your aircraft.

And even the Concorde has two records listed there!

I was going to chime in about this site as well. Hopefully the pilots of this BA flight were on top of their game and took a photo. My dad has a speed submitted on that site!

larshjort · Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:26 pm

Quoting conaly (Reply 30):
Still getting scary if you also notice, that there are winds with 200 knots or more blowing around your aircraft.

Why? The forces are the exact same on the aircraft whether it is flying 400 kts over the ground with 0 wind or if it is flying 600 kts over the ground with a tailwind of 200 kts.

Quoting conaly (Reply 30):
www.groundspeedrecords.com/

Maybe some of you didn't know this site yet. A nice database for high ground speeds of airliners. The 772 there is confirmed with a record of 735 knots groundspeed (= 846mph or 1361km/h - at ground level this would be mach 1.1).

Similiarly this aircraft wasn't flying at mach 1.1 even if it had been flying at ground level as the only thing relevant to the sound barrier is the true airspeed of the aircraft.
Looking at his picture, it shows a TAS of 508kts, this equals a tailwind of 227kts.
If we use 573kts as the speed of sound at cruise altitude, he was cruising at mach 0.88. This is still fast compared to what they normally cruise at so presumably the temps were higher than ISA at that altitude and therefore the speed of sound was faster than 573kts which would end up in a lower mach number.
http://www.groundspeedrecords.com/in...t&view=category&id=444&Itemid=1771

/Lars

tguman · Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:39 pm

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 12):

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 11):
As fun as the high groundspeeds are, the westward flights will be in that strong wind longer. So when it's all said and done, no wind is the fastest way to do a round trip.

It all pretty much works itself out in the end.

The effects of a headwind weigh heavier than the effect of a tailwind because it takes much longer to do a flight in strong headwinds. Here is an example below.

200 wind
500 Airspeed

Eastbound (Tailwind) - 700 groundspeed
Westbound (Headwind) - 300 groundspeed

Distance: 1200 miles
Eastbound - 1.7 hours
Westbound - 4 hours
Roundtrip - 5.7 hours
No Wind - 4.8

As FlyHossD says, it would have been brutal to fly the opposite direction in those winds. My guess is that the westbound routes would have gone out of their way to not be in winds like that.

TGUman

BA0197 · Sat Jan 10, 2015 5:59 pm

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 11):

As fun as the high groundspeeds are, the westward flights will be in that strong wind longer. So when it's all said and done, no wind is the fastest way to do a round trip.

Indeed. Recently did a BRU-PHL return trip on a US 757, which resulted in the aircraft being unable to complete the journey on one tank of fuel. Combined with a refueling stop at BOS, it turned a 7h30 min journey into a 10 hour one. The return was very quick indeed- arriving at BRU over an hour early.

Be forewarned anyone travelling on that route- the fuel stop seems to be a daily occurrence.

CALTECH · Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:12 pm

Quoting EMAman (Reply 21):
An airliner would not get to mach 1 - it would probably stall before and is not structurally designed to withstand the sonic boom. The operating ceiling for most airliners is 0.78 - 0.82.

Quoting EGPH (Reply 6):
On a tech note, if an airliner did approach Mach 1, would it not cause great structural stress to the frame?

Well, for two examples, Concorde and the TU-144 did it without suffering structural failure. And a DC-8 did it during testing. And a few other airliners also went Mach and survived.

TWA Flight 841

China Airlines Flight 006, though it ended up with the wings permanently bent up a few inches with Boeing signing off on it.

Groundspeed does not equal Airspeed. BA 777-236ER, operating Speedbird 114 did not break Mach.

theaviator380 · Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:15 pm

2 things,

1. Most of C and J class pax would have loved LHR- US trips as BA115 took nearly 8 hrs !

2. Does this much of tail wind can cause any harm to aircraft or structure as such?

Thanks.

SAAFNAV · Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:24 pm

Quoting conaly (Reply 30):

Maybe some of you didn't know this site yet. A nice database for high ground speeds of airliners. The 772 there is confirmed with a record of 735 knots groundspeed (= 846mph or 1361km/h - at ground level this would be mach 1.1). Seems like this speeds happen from time to time. Still getting scary if you also notice, that there are winds with 200 knots or more blowing around your aircraft.

No, the only wind blowing around your aircraft is the airspeed from the plane moving forward in the air.

The whole air mass, with the aircraft itself inside it, is moving at 200kts

flyenthu · Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:56 pm

Just flew transpacific on the 7th on SQ16 from ICN-SFO. The jet stream caused some good shaking. The captain came on and mentioned that it was the usual jet stream and I think he said he was going to take the plane above or a bit north of it. Can't remember which as I was woken up from sleep and was drowsy. If I had to guess, it would be above. No?

zkncj · Sat Jan 10, 2015 7:05 pm

Quoting theaviator380 (Reply 36):
2. Does this much of tail wind can cause any harm to aircraft or structure as such?

Not really Airlines are operating in tail winds like this everyday flying from Australia to New Zealand

FlyHossD · Sat Jan 10, 2015 7:14 pm

Quoting conaly (Reply 30):
Still getting scary if you also notice, that there are winds with 200 knots or more blowing around your aircraft.

No need to be frightened. If you swim in middle of a river that's moving smoothly at 10 knots, is the water turbulent? No.

Now getting into or out of that smooth center core of water might be less smooth, then again, the transition might be entirely smooth. And so it is with the jetstream. Generally, once in the jetstream, the rides are pretty good.

Quoting Larshjort (Reply 32):
Why? The forces are the exact same on the aircraft whether it is flying 400 kts over the ground with 0 wind or if it is flying 600 kts over the ground with a tailwind of 200 kts.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 35):
Groundspeed does not equal Airspeed.

This seems to be a hard concept for some to understand.

SelseyBill · Sat Jan 10, 2015 8:16 pm

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 5):
And 5h16m isn't even remarkable,

.....now, don't go telling Michael O'Leary that; he'll be busy trying to work out if he can get 2 x LON-NY round-trips a day out of one aircraft !!!!!!!!!

n800nn · Sat Jan 10, 2015 8:24 pm

how was the plane able to fly that fast with out break up?

[Edited 2015-01-10 12:31:32]

BiggerJetsPlz · Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:05 pm

Quoting n800nn (Reply 42):
how was the plane able to fly that fast with out break up?

it's ground speed, not airspeed. If the wind is 25 mph over the ground, and you're up in the air doing 35 mph over the ground in the same direction as the wind, your speed through the air around you is only 10 mph.

edit: already explained 20 times above. sorry for being redundant.

[Edited 2015-01-10 13:07:18]

dlednicer · Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:39 pm

Imagine you were flying in the Concorde, at M=1+ and a fly took off from the galley at the rear of the cabin and flew forward. Relative to the ground, it is traveling at very high speed. Relative to the atmosphere outside the airplane, it is traveling at very high speed. Relative to the air mass it is actually flying in, it is moving at very low speed. This latter measurement is what matters aerodynamically to the fly and determines the Mach number it is flying at (very low).

Along the same lines, the earth is spinning at .000694 RPM, giving a surface speed at the equator of about 1036 mph. Plus, the earth is orbiting the sun at .0000019026 RPM or about 66,705 mph. Plus, outer solar system is orbiting the Milky Way at about 514,000 mph. Relative to a fixed point in outer space, the fly is moving very, very fast.

Bottom line: whether or not you are supersonic depends on your speed your are traveling relative to the air mass that is providing you aerodynamic forces.

GregsterYUL · Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:57 pm

As usual The Daily Mail= The Daily Fail

A332DTW · Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:29 pm

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 8):
I'm remembering this from an aviation class from about fifteen years ago...if anyone has more current information, please feel free to correct me.

Took an advanced aerodynamics class last year. You are correct. Another anomaly would very hot temperatures. I don't know what the heat limit is on the 777, but the plane itself would get very very hot. Drag of course also starts to increase significantly in the transonic region.

Simply put, the 777 is not a supersonic aircraft and the article is misleading.

hz747300 · Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:30 pm

So, was the return flight 12 hours?

I've been on a few with 200mph+ tailwinds, trans-Pacific of course. It's awesome.

Viscount724 · Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:48 pm

Quoting EGPH (Reply 6):
On a tech note, if an airliner did approach Mach 1, would it not cause great structural stress to the frame?

A Canadian Pacific DC-8-43 went supersonic during a dive from 50,000 feet on a Douglas test flight before delivery in 1961. No damage resulted. I flew on that aircraft several times when I worked for CP. There was a plaque somewhere in the forward entrance mentioning the supersonic flight, the first commercial aircraft to exceed Mach 1, although not by much.

http://www.airspacemag.com/history-o...8-went-supersonic-27846699/?no-ist
http://www.dc-8jet.com/0-dc8-sst-flight.htm

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

psolk · Sun Jan 11, 2015 12:24 am

Came over to LHR on UA922 on Wed. We left an hour late, got in 1/2 hour early. 5 hours 40 minutes with a 20 minute hold in a 76/3. Not bad! Coming back to EWR today was 8 hours right on the nose.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net