Do planes fly higher to make up delayed time?
Aug 31, 2008 | 7:36 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: China
Posts: 818
Do planes fly higher to make up delayed time?
Was on an MU flight today (A340) and saw on the overhead monitor that we were at 12,000 meters. Seemed a little high to me as i usually see the monitors showing ~10,000 meters. We were behind schedule due to a delay, so i thought they were flying at a higher altitude to try catch up on lost time.
Is this possible?
Is this possible?
Aug 31, 2008 | 8:48 pm
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,543
It's not going to help much at all.
Jetliner speed is limited by the need to stay well clear of Mach 1--a subsonic airframe that busts it might very well go down. Even if you don't actually exceed it you have to be careful of nasty effects if the airflow over any part of the aircraft exceeds it. (And remember that wings are based on making the air flow faster over the top than over the bottom--that's what generates the lift that keeps the plane in the sky.) A U2 at cruising altitude flies so close to the edge that if it turns too fast the inner wing can enter a stall buffet at the same time the outer one enters a mach buffet.
Jetliner speed is limited by the need to stay well clear of Mach 1--a subsonic airframe that busts it might very well go down. Even if you don't actually exceed it you have to be careful of nasty effects if the airflow over any part of the aircraft exceeds it. (And remember that wings are based on making the air flow faster over the top than over the bottom--that's what generates the lift that keeps the plane in the sky.) A U2 at cruising altitude flies so close to the edge that if it turns too fast the inner wing can enter a stall buffet at the same time the outer one enters a mach buffet.
Sep 1, 2008 | 1:07 am
#4
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Miami, FL, USA
Posts: 4,104
It's not going to help much at all.
Jetliner speed is limited by the need to stay well clear of Mach 1--a subsonic airframe that busts it might very well go down. Even if you don't actually exceed it you have to be careful of nasty effects if the airflow over any part of the aircraft exceeds it. (And remember that wings are based on making the air flow faster over the top than over the bottom--that's what generates the lift that keeps the plane in the sky.) A U2 at cruising altitude flies so close to the edge that if it turns too fast the inner wing can enter a stall buffet at the same time the outer one enters a mach buffet.
Jetliner speed is limited by the need to stay well clear of Mach 1--a subsonic airframe that busts it might very well go down. Even if you don't actually exceed it you have to be careful of nasty effects if the airflow over any part of the aircraft exceeds it. (And remember that wings are based on making the air flow faster over the top than over the bottom--that's what generates the lift that keeps the plane in the sky.) A U2 at cruising altitude flies so close to the edge that if it turns too fast the inner wing can enter a stall buffet at the same time the outer one enters a mach buffet.
Sep 1, 2008 | 6:34 am
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: south of WAS DC
Posts: 10,131
what's a MU flight? MUC, from USA? or China Eastern? from somewhere
one can go higher/lower to take advantage of headwind/tailwind.
the speed of sound drops as altitude increases, and planes must fly slower at higher altitudes. this presumes they can fly near speed of sound at lower altitudes, also.
i do not know the exact numbers, but the window between mach1 and stall for say a 747 is very narrow at 35-40.000 feet.
one can go higher/lower to take advantage of headwind/tailwind.
the speed of sound drops as altitude increases, and planes must fly slower at higher altitudes. this presumes they can fly near speed of sound at lower altitudes, also.
i do not know the exact numbers, but the window between mach1 and stall for say a 747 is very narrow at 35-40.000 feet.
Sep 1, 2008 | 10:01 am
#6
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: back to my roots in Scotland!
Programs: Tamsin - what else is there to say?
Posts: 47,843
I've certainly been on long-hauls where they've made up time by going higher and faster.
But then I've also been on long-hauls which are showing a speed exceeding that of the speed of sound due to the tail wind....it's not technically mach though.
But then I've also been on long-hauls which are showing a speed exceeding that of the speed of sound due to the tail wind....it's not technically mach though.
Sep 1, 2008 | 11:13 am
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,543
In the northern hemisphere, going west to east, higher will be faster up until around the tropopause. So, yes, if the conditions are right you can make up time by flying higher due to a tailwind. Loren's comments are not valid, since aircraft at the same airspeed will go faster across the ground with more of a tailwind. Mach implications only apply to airspeed, not groundspeed.
Sep 1, 2008 | 8:09 pm
#9
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: China
Posts: 818
Sep 1, 2008 | 8:39 pm
#10
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Silver. (Former UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat)
Posts: 9,535
You fly as close as you can (considering weight, turbulance, icing and ATC limitations) to the most favorable winds. If wind doesn't change much with altitude then you'd want to fly at the altitude where the air is coldest.
Sep 2, 2008 | 5:52 am
#11
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Programs: BA silver, VS, Jet, Carlson gold, Amex Plat
Posts: 615
Sep 2, 2008 | 7:50 pm
#12
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: TAS
Programs: A3*G, UA 1K
Posts: 9,246
Wirelessly posted (Opera/9.51 Beta (Microsoft Windows; PPC; Opera Mobi/1718; U; en))
Air resistance curve is exponential at speeds closer to mach 1, so flying mach .83 vs mach .85 wil make a big difference in overall fuel consumption on a longhaul, but will only increase flying time very insignificantly.
Air resistance curve is exponential at speeds closer to mach 1, so flying mach .83 vs mach .85 wil make a big difference in overall fuel consumption on a longhaul, but will only increase flying time very insignificantly.