BAW = Callsign Speedbird - Literally.

Old Aug 21, 2017, 4:17 am
  #16  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Munich, Algarve, Sussex or S.F Bay Area
Programs: Mucci, BA Gold, A3*Gold, AA Plat, HH Gold, IHG Plat Amb, Marriott Plat
Posts: 4,130
My personal record for quickest flight was on a KL 774 from JFK to AMS in 1994 with a wheels up to wheels down time of 05:25. Speed was shown in Km/h but at one stage it was over 1,100. I remember being there almost 2 hours before Mrs Tafflyer was there to collect me.
Tafflyer is offline  
Old Aug 21, 2017, 4:21 am
  #17  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: LHR/ATH
Programs: Amex Platinum, LH SEN (Gold), BA Bronze
Posts: 4,489
Originally Posted by Dave Noble
I have trouble seeing what is particularly unfriendly about Sydney

There are quite a few countries that can use the self service immigration whereas in UK , smeone arriving on an AU passport would have to queue under any passports and not have to queue

With departures, just about all can use self service immigration desks

Domestic departures have very short queues for security (ime) and there is no issue with liquids

What is unfriendly about it?

The curfew is a good thing given how close the airport is to residential properties
I like those 'super' 24 hour airports to be honest. Curfew sounds like a nuisance! Planes keep on getting quieter anyway, have you heard the A320NEO? Insanely quiet, more like a car!
ahmetdouas is offline  
Old Aug 21, 2017, 4:42 am
  #18  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: TLS/London
Programs: BA Gold, SPG Plat
Posts: 442
I vaguely recall arriving at T4 off a BA long haul flight a number of years ago and as we were so far ahead of schedule, although we had been allowed to land there was some rule/curfew about not being able to use the engines all the way onto the gate stand so we had to be towed on by a tug - remember it was the first (and only) time I've seen them use a tug on arrival rather than departure!
ant_west is offline  
Old Aug 21, 2017, 5:10 am
  #19  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,438
Originally Posted by ahmetdouas
I like those 'super' 24 hour airports to be honest. Curfew sounds like a nuisance! Planes keep on getting quieter anyway, have you heard the A320NEO? Insanely quiet, more like a car!
Aeroplanes are a nuisance for those living near the airport. Having a curfew is a reaosnable trade off for having a close airport. Not many people are falling over themselves to book flights at 2am - 11pm to 6am close seems reasonable
Dave Noble is offline  
Old Aug 21, 2017, 6:16 am
  #20  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: LHR/ATH
Programs: Amex Platinum, LH SEN (Gold), BA Bronze
Posts: 4,489
Originally Posted by Dave Noble
Aeroplanes are a nuisance for those living near the airport. Having a curfew is a reaosnable trade off for having a close airport. Not many people are falling over themselves to book flights at 2am - 11pm to 6am close seems reasonable
If you look at Turkish Airlines for example, they generally schedule their 'third world airport flights' e.g. Beiruit at like 2 AM so they can utilise their other planes during the day to Europe and instead of them doing nothing at IST overnight, they fly them over to other countries without a curfew!

I think LHR should make the curfew from 01:00 to 04:00, and allow some more flights while this third runway mess is being dealt with!
ahmetdouas is offline  
Old Aug 21, 2017, 6:29 am
  #21  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by Dave Noble
Aeroplanes are a nuisance for those living near the airport. Having a curfew is a reaosnable trade off for having a close airport. Not many people are falling over themselves to book flights at 2am - 11pm to 6am close seems reasonable
why buy property near a world airport and then complain about the area's major employer?

the alternative is multiple "regional" airports and/or significant restrictions on building new runways/upgrading, etc. look at LAX. there are four parallel runways built too close together as I recall, so at night only two can be used simultaneously. getting any sort of upgrades or appropriate spacing for replacement runways enable two simultaneous night landings on runways next to each other takes decades of discussion with the neighborhood. not to mention the LHR issues.

Last edited by footballfanatic; Aug 21, 2017 at 6:35 am
footballfanatic is offline  
Old Aug 21, 2017, 6:29 am
  #22  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London
Programs: AA EXP, 1MM
Posts: 643
I recorded a ground speed of 762mph on a BA 747 from MIA-LHR in 2014.
Attached Images  
OldFruity likes this.
jlsw7 is offline  
Old Aug 21, 2017, 6:37 am
  #23  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by ahmetdouas
If you look at Turkish Airlines for example, they generally schedule their 'third world airport flights' e.g. Beiruit at like 2 AM so they can utilise their other planes during the day to Europe and instead of them doing nothing at IST overnight, they fly them over to other countries without a curfew!

I think LHR should make the curfew from 01:00 to 04:00, and allow some more flights while this third runway mess is being dealt with!
I think the curfew should be dropped completely. two runways plus a curfew = crazy holding patterns and limitations on growth.
footballfanatic is offline  
Old Aug 21, 2017, 7:28 am
  #24  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: US/UK - and elsewhere
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 2,527
Nothing too specific, but ...

back in 1996 (2nd Feb to be specific!) I was on BA226 ATL-LHR which I recall did the trip in not much more than 5 hours - it was through a US nor-easter with a roller-coaster of a jet stream all the way - the seat belt lights were on for the whole trip (and no food/drink was served!).

1997 (9th July) QF101 AKL-LAX (a 747) - remember doing > 1100 kmh (which I thought was odd for a largely equatorial routing and no significant jet stream).

And while here, taxiing: as many know Frankfurt is a rather large airport from end to end, and after an extremely long taxi (on Lufthansa), the German pilot announced something along lines of 'sorry of the inconvenience - we're an aircraft, not a landcraft...'. (so Germans so have a sense of humour!).
CKBA is offline  
Old Aug 21, 2017, 7:47 am
  #25  
Hilton 10+ BadgeAccor 10+ Badge
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rhineland-Palatinate
Programs: *A Gold (A3), HHonor Diamond
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by CKBA
Nothing too specific, but ...

back in 1996 (2nd Feb to be specific!) I was on BA226 ATL-LHR which I recall did the trip in not much more than 5 hours - it was through a US nor-easter with a roller-coaster of a jet stream all the way - the seat belt lights were on for the whole trip (and no food/drink was served!).
Waouh, with ATL-LHR being 4200 miles, that means 767 mph to do it in roughly 5:30 minutes. So a tailwind of 200 mph assuming an airspeed of 570 mph. That must have been really bumpy
fransknorge is offline  
Old Aug 21, 2017, 7:57 am
  #26  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spitalfields, London
Programs: BA Gold, KFC 'The Colonel's Club' Palladium tier, Mucci des Visions Clestes du Nord-Pas-de-Calais
Posts: 2,271
There must be some serious crosswinds across Australia as a recent SYD - PER was over 5 hours and the return was 3h30m
choosethedrew is offline  
Old Aug 21, 2017, 8:05 am
  #27  
Moderator, Emirates
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Where My Heart Is
Programs: BAEC Silver, FB Platinum, KQ Asante Gold, Shebamiles Blue, Emirates Blue
Posts: 3,380
A few years back on BA26 HKG-LHR we had to sit at the gate in excess of an hour once we were closed up due to an expected fast flight time of around 10hrs 30mins.

S
Saltire74 is offline  
Old Aug 21, 2017, 8:15 am
  #28  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: BOS
Programs: BA Silver, Mucci
Posts: 5,289
Originally Posted by Jimmie76
Had a very quick crossing from BOS one year in I think a 747-400 with a tailwind from a storm. We arrived so early that the flight deck let us know that we were getting into LHR well ahead of schedule. Also said they'd have to check the fastest crossing for a 744 to see if we'd beat it. They also said that as there were no BA staff on the ground we'd be doing a tour of the lesser seen parts of the Heathrow whilst we waited for ground staff to arrive/start work. I used the "tour" to get some more sleep (with my seat upright and belt securely fastened before anyone queries it).
We may have been on the same flight - sub 5 hours but I can't remember the exact time. But same tour of LHR and checking the records announcement.

I also had an unusually fast LHR - BOS once when the usual headwind was a tailwind - again, I don't remember the numbers.
Jimmie76 likes this.
HilFly is offline  
Old Aug 21, 2017, 8:33 am
  #29  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Plymouth, UK
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by ahmetdouas
no no, it doesn't work like that. Indicated speed and ground speed are completely different. 745 MPH Ground speed with a 100 MPH tailwind is still 645 MPH indicated speed, so the air indicator would still show like Mach 0.85 or so in the cockpit, nothing near 0.99 MACH indicated! Anything above 0.86 or so MACH in a 777 and you would be getting overspeed warnings which really isn't a good thing, the plane would have to be checked over and the pilots in big trouble.

So it is physically impossible for any commercial jet in the air right now to come anywhere near the speed of sound in level flight no matter how strong the tail wind is, they would have to do a crazy dive.
In one sense you are correct... ground speed does not indicate how fast the aircraft is travelling through the air.

On the other hand, you use the term "indicated airspeed" which is not correct either. As an aircraft climbs into thinner air the air has less effect on the airspeed indicator and so it under-reads... by quite a lot! So the indicated airspeed also won't show the real airspeed either and an adjustment has to be made to allow for the reduced density.

For example... an airliner doing a true airspeed of 500Kts at 38,000ft will likely have an indicated airspeed of around 280Kts!

The Mach meter on the other hand will show the percentage of the speed of sound in the conditions in which the aircraft is flying... the speed of sound depends on the density (and hence temperature) of the air so at sea-level it is about 660Kts and at 35,000 (-55C) it is about 575Kts

Sorry to get technical but it is an interesting topic of Indicated, vs True airspeed vs ground speed vs Mach number.
KARFA likes this.
snaxmuppet is offline  
Old Aug 21, 2017, 8:50 am
  #30  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
Originally Posted by PJSMITH0
That was on a 772 and speeds of up to 745 mph were recorded. Any pilots or technos know what would happen if the extra 25 mph was achieved and the aircraft passed through the sound barrier. Could a 747,77 or 380 take it?
It is called the "sound barrier" because as you get relatively close to the speed of sound, you get an abrupt and substantial increase in drag. For early speed pioneers, the speed of sound really did feel like a barrier that was impossible to overcome.

[Essentially, as the air flows around your aircraft, it is forced to accelerate to get around any kind of obstacles in the way. If the airflow is already very fast, it can become locally supersonic, producing shock waves. These shock waves act as a powerful drag and impose significant stress on the airframe.]

You have to design your aircraft in a completely different way to get through this transonic speed region. In particular you want sharp, not round, edges facing into the flow and a minimal cross sectional area. Basically, the opposite of the whale.
happeemonkee and PJSMITH0 like this.
Calchas is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.