Simviation Forum - What is the fastest Civil Airliner flying today??

Feb 8^th, 2005 at 11:36am

supernova45849850l Offline
Colonel
where'd this Yabb crap
come from?
Brighton, UK

Gender:
Posts: 98

just curious as to which civil airliner is the fastest.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Feb 8^th, 2005 at 11:39am

eno Offline
Colonel
Why you shouldn't light
your farts!!
Derbyshire UK

Posts: 7802

The Boeing 747...... I can't remember the speed but I'm sure someone will provide it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Feb 8^th, 2005 at 12:08pm

chomp_rock Offline
Colonel
I must confess, I was
born at a very early
age.

Gender:
Posts: 2718

The Boeing 747-400 is the fastest airliner with a long-range cruise speed of 490kts and a max cruise speed of 507kts.

AMD Athlon 64 3700+&&GeForce FX5200 256Mb&&1GB DDR400 DC&&Seagate 500Gb SATA-300 HDD&&Windows XP Professional X64 Edition&&&&That's right, I'm now using an AMD! I decided to give them another try and they kicked the pants off of my P4 3.4!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Feb 8^th, 2005 at 1:52pm

jimclarke Offline
Colonel
So many add-ons....so
little time.....
Arizona

Gender:
Posts: 636

I heard on a documentary that the 747 has broken mach 1 in tests. Maybe someone out there can verify this.

Jim

No God? Know God!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Feb 8^th, 2005 at 2:49pm

Mr. Bones Offline
Colonel

Posts: 4304

Quote:

I heard on a documentary that the 747 has broken mach 1 in tests. Maybe someone out there can verify this.

Jim

Indeed, but that was during a dive (got it from Discovery Channel) Wink

Raw power...the J-58.&&&&&&My Anet collection.&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Feb 8^th, 2005 at 6:01pm

TacitBlue Offline
Colonel
That's right, I have my
own logo.
Saint Joseph, Missouri, USA

Gender:
Posts: 5391

wow, I wonder if they could give it bigger engines, and cruise at mach 1?

A&P Mechanic, Rankin Aircraft 78Y

Aircraft are naturally beautiful because form follows function. -TB

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Feb 8^th, 2005 at 6:05pm

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

No.
Not aerodynamically designed to go mach 1. its only possible in a dive, and doesnt exactly do the airframe any good.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Feb 8^th, 2005 at 6:10pm

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Quote:

No.
Not aerodynamically designed to go mach 1. its only possible in a dive, and doesnt exactly do the airframe any good.

..or the worlds oil reserves... Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Feb 8^th, 2005 at 6:48pm

Nexus Offline
Colonel
The greater of two evils...

Gender:
Posts: 3282

The parasite drag will greatly increase when the aircrafts exceeds mach1.
The rather blunt nose of the 744 will lead to energy consuming bow shocks (=drag), which are a combo of a normal and oblique shock waves, not to mention the high cambered wings (shockwaves again) and relative low sweep angle (compared to the concorde) which are ill-suited for supersonic flight.

A normal subsonic wing has the centre of lift about one foirth chord line back from the leading edge, which basicly means the wing produces 50% of the lift by that point. As the wing approaches mach 1, the centre of lift moves farther back. So we need more speed to make up for the lack of lift, but the Mach drag rise will prevent the 744 to go supersonic in level flight.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Feb 8^th, 2005 at 7:23pm

Rocket_Bird Offline
Colonel
Canada

Gender:
Posts: 1214

Ive heard a China Airline's 747 went mach 1 once. Im not sure if it actually went THAT fast, but apparently, they were flying to california across the ocean, during descent, the pilots forgot to disengage the autopilot, the thing stalled, dove, oversped big time, and the pilots pulled like 7 G's out of it to recover Shocked

. They got it on the ground with an extremely bent airplane, bloody ears, and a bunch of passengers who probably want their money back. Grin

I just got the story from one of my teachers so i cant say the facts... Grin

Cheers,
RB

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Feb 8^th, 2005 at 7:32pm

Nexus Offline
Colonel
The greater of two evils...

Gender:
Posts: 3282

Anybody know the ultimate load factor on the 744?
7 g's sounds ridiculously much, but then again I'm not an engineer Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #11 - Feb 8^th, 2005 at 7:43pm

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001214X35672&key=1
guessing thats the incident.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #12 - Feb 8^th, 2005 at 7:45pm

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/162693/M/
thats the plane.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #13 - Feb 8^th, 2005 at 8:34pm

TacitBlue Offline
Colonel
That's right, I have my
own logo.
Saint Joseph, Missouri, USA

Gender:
Posts: 5391

Is it just the wide angle lense, or is that 747 shorter than normal?

A&P Mechanic, Rankin Aircraft 78Y

Aircraft are naturally beautiful because form follows function. -TB

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #14 - Feb 8^th, 2005 at 8:36pm

Nexus Offline
Colonel
The greater of two evils...

Gender:
Posts: 3282

Yeah the lense screws up the angle, but that particular 747 is the SP (stands for Special Performance I believe) version, which is considerably shorter than its siblings

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #15 - Feb 8^th, 2005 at 8:46pm

TacitBlue Offline
Colonel
That's right, I have my
own logo.
Saint Joseph, Missouri, USA

Gender:
Posts: 5391

oh, interesting.

A&P Mechanic, Rankin Aircraft 78Y

Aircraft are naturally beautiful because form follows function. -TB

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Feb 8^th, 2005 at 8:48pm

Rocket_Bird Offline
Colonel
Canada

Gender:
Posts: 1214

Quote:

Anybody know the ultimate load factor on the 744?
7 g's sounds ridiculously much, but then again I'm not an engineer Grin

7 g's is rediculously much, the plane i believe is a write off. Aircraft are built however to withstand more than what the books and limitation says. Its just that extra step for safety

Cheers,
RB

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Feb 8^th, 2005 at 10:00pm

Nexus Offline
Colonel
The greater of two evils...

Gender:
Posts: 3282

Limit load factor is that extra buffet.

Ultimate load factor is when the aircraft's wings and fuselage will start to deformate, and I talk about permanent deformations Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Feb 9^th, 2005 at 6:02am

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

the plane wasnt a write off, it flew after the incident.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Feb 9^th, 2005 at 8:55pm

Saratoga Offline
Colonel
757/767 Captain Major,
USAF
Dallas-Ft. Worth Intl. (KDFW)

Gender:
Posts: 571

Which is why the picture is there. Ya the SP is much much shorter than the rest of them, especially the -400.

But on the topic, the 747 is currently the fastest airliner flying. It can do Mach .85 (trying to use Mach as a reference since it is stable). The fastest production non-military use plane I know of us the Citation X, Mach .92 cruise.

In addition to what Nexus said, the fact that also prevents the 747 from cruising supersonically is the huge drag incurred between Mach .96 or so and Mach 1.4. Even the most aerodynamic airplanes such as the Concorde need afterburners to get through this region. Some military airplanes, the F-22 comes to mind, are capable of supercruise, cruising supersonically without using afterburners, but take a look at the F-22. Not exactly a 747 in any shape, form, or fashion. Tongue

Pilot for a major US airline certified in the: EMB-120, CRJ, 727, 737, 757, 767, and A-320 and military, T-38, C-130, C-141, and C-5 along with misc. other small airplanes. Any questions, I'm here for you.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Feb 10^th, 2005 at 6:47pm

Mobius Offline
Colonel
Highest Point in the Lightning
Storm
Wisconsin

Posts: 4369

The engines on aircraft like that aren't designed to exceed mach 1 either. Jets engines don't work with supersonic airflow so it would be impossible to cruise at or above mach 1. Drag also increases dramatically as an airplane approaches mach 1 so it wouldn't be very economical either. I think, please correct me if I am wrong on this, many of you seem more educated on the subject matter than I am.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Feb 10^th, 2005 at 6:50pm

Nexus Offline
Colonel
The greater of two evils...

Gender:
Posts: 3282

Now tell me, what kind of engines does the Concorde have?
It sure aint pistons, it was turbojets

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Feb 10^th, 2005 at 6:53pm

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

the big differance being the way the airflow was directed into the engine. The air at and near supersonic speeds, needs to be directed into the engines or else they wont get enough air or too much, can never remember which. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #23 - Feb 10^th, 2005 at 10:23pm

Saratoga Offline
Colonel
757/767 Captain Major,
USAF
Dallas-Ft. Worth Intl. (KDFW)

Gender:
Posts: 571

That's why they were mounted flush with the bottom of the wing, so the air would naturally enter the engines, and why they had the doors at the front of the engine to control the amount of air entering it.

Turbojets are perfectly capable of exceeding Mach 1, it just seems hard due to the high amounts of drag. A 747 was never intended to go this fast, hence the huge amounts of frontal area. The extremely sharp-nosed Concorde even has trouble getting up in speeds and it is exceedingly good at aerodynamic efficiency, it's just really hard to get a plane to go that fast. Military airplanes are capable of fast speeds even with bombs and what not by pure horsepower, larger airliners, to save fuel and cost less, have to actually be semi-aerodynamic. But a turbojet is perfectly happy at supersonic speeds.

Pilot for a major US airline certified in the: EMB-120, CRJ, 727, 737, 757, 767, and A-320 and military, T-38, C-130, C-141, and C-5 along with misc. other small airplanes. Any questions, I'm here for you.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #24 - Feb 11^th, 2005 at 2:52am

SilverFox441 Offline
Colonel
Now What?
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

Gender:
Posts: 1467

It's actually correct to say that a turbojet cannot exceed M1...at least the incoming airflow can't exceed that speed. The most common method of slowing the incoming airflow is to use compression control in the upstream airflow.

Steve (Silver Fox) Daly

&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #25 - Feb 11^th, 2005 at 8:45am

Saratoga Offline
Colonel
757/767 Captain Major,
USAF
Dallas-Ft. Worth Intl. (KDFW)

Gender:
Posts: 571

oh no a pure turbojet cannot, it would stall with the supersonic air. I didn't even stop to think about that, eh either way. Anyone know how the Concorde pulls it off? Wink

Pilot for a major US airline certified in the: EMB-120, CRJ, 727, 737, 757, 767, and A-320 and military, T-38, C-130, C-141, and C-5 along with misc. other small airplanes. Any questions, I'm here for you.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #26 - Feb 11^th, 2005 at 12:33pm

Mobius Offline
Colonel
Highest Point in the Lightning
Storm
Wisconsin

Posts: 4369

Fighters and the Concorde and others uses moving panels and ramps in the intakes. As an airplane goes through mach 1, a shockwave is formed off the leading edge of wings, horizontal stabilizers, etc. The shock waves are also what cause a sonic boom. The air infront of these shockwaves is moving at supersonic speeds while the air behind it is moving at subsonic speeds. The panels and ramps in the inlets create shockwaves which slow the incoming air down to subsonic speeds so the engine can function properly. As an airplane moves faster and faster, the angle between the wing and the shockwave decreases, so at higher speeds the air moving into the engine would eventually be mostly supersonic again so conventional jet engines have a built-in "speed limit" around Mach 3.5 or so (I think, don't quote me on that), which is why the NASA and other organizations are developing Ramjets and Scramjets.

Fighters and high speed airplanes use elliptical wings instead of wings shaped like an airfoil so they created lift with AOA mostly instead of a pressure difference. I am not sure about this part though, so don't believe me completely

. I also don't think it makes a difference whether the air is moving supersonic or subsonic in creating lift between airfoils and elliptical wings, although I really am not sure.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, I am not completely sure on all of this...

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #27 - Feb 12^th, 2005 at 12:15am

TacitBlue Offline
Colonel
That's right, I have my
own logo.
Saint Joseph, Missouri, USA

Gender:
Posts: 5391

That would probably explain why the XB-70 toped out at mach 3.something. That really is an amazing aircraft by the way, if you havnt been to Wright Patterson (USAF museum), you should go and see it.

A&P Mechanic, Rankin Aircraft 78Y

Aircraft are naturally beautiful because form follows function. -TB

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #28 - Feb 12^th, 2005 at 8:14am

Ivan Offline
Colonel
No, I'm NOT Russian, I
only like Russian aircraft
The netherlands

Gender:
Posts: 6058

i think the fastest Airliner (not actually a civil one) is Air Force One, A 747-200 with the engines of the 747-400. is said to have a M.9 cruise speed

Russian planes: IL-76 (all standard length ones), Tu-154 and Il-62, Tu-134 and An-24RV&&&&AI flightplans and repaints can be found here

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #29 - Feb 15^th, 2005 at 8:13am

Ivan Offline
Colonel
No, I'm NOT Russian, I
only like Russian aircraft
The netherlands

Gender:
Posts: 6058

Quote:

The panels and ramps in the inlets create shockwaves which slow the incoming air down to subsonic speeds so the engine can function properly.

Prevents overspeeding the fan...

Quote:

so conventional jet engines have a built-in "speed limit" around Mach 3.5 or so (I think, don't quote me on that), which is why the NASA and other organizations are developing Ramjets and Scramjets.

A conventional jet engine whitout intake ramps (MiG-25 recce version) will survive a one-way trip to M 3.2. Consider the engines scrap metal after that.

Russian planes: IL-76 (all standard length ones), Tu-154 and Il-62, Tu-134 and An-24RV&&&&AI flightplans and repaints can be found here

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: