Fastest NY (JFK or EWR) to SNN

knockon

Who holds the record? I have a vague recollection that EI did 4 hrs 45 mins with a big tail wind from JFK to SNN in a 747-100 in the early '90's. Is that the record does any one know? A buddy if mine did 5.05 last week in a 757-200 out of EWR. Just curious.

mr_edge_to_you

Christophe Mueller will have to introduce a Fuel Burn League Table. He won't want boy racers flying his aircraft!;

phonypony

A few years ago I was on a 752 EWR-DUB that took 4.45. It was slightly spoiled by the taxi/queue for de-ice/re-fuel and taxi. But it still made it into Dublin in time to have to wait for a stand.

coylemj

I can't remember the flight duration but we landed on an EI JFK-DUB flight over an hour early in Nov 2007. On the ground in JFK the co-pilot said 'welcome to the rocky road to Dublin' at which point my blood froze. He explained that we would have a strong following jetstream and would be early in Dublin but that it might be a bit bumpy!

Fortunately there was hardly any bumps - just a gentle rumble almost all the way which didn't even bother a nervous flyer like me. We landed in Dublin over an hour early but nobody had told the baggage handlers so the carousel didn't start until 50 minutes after we landed and my bag was last off meaning I hit the early morning traffic!

keith16

coylemj wrote: »

We landed in Dublin over an hour early but nobody had told the baggage handlers so the carousel didn't start until 50 minutes after we landed and my bag was last off meaning I hit the early morning traffic!

How bloody frustrating is that?

adlima

knockon wrote: »

Who holds the record? I have a vague recollection that EI did 4 hrs 45 mins with a big tail wind from JFK to SNN in a 747-100 in the early '90's. Is that the record does any one know? A buddy if mine did 5.05 last week in a 757-200 out of EWR. Just curious.

I was on the EI JFK-SNN flight last thurs and it did it in 5:05 as well. One of the cabin crew remarked that it was the fastest crossing she had done in over a decade with the company!

keroseneboy

The fastest transatlantic airliner flight was from New York JFK to London Heathrow on 7 February 1996 by British Airways' G-BOAD in 2 hours, 52 minutes, 59 seconds from takeoff to touchdown.(wikipedia)

keroseneboy

The SR-71 Blackbird holds the "Speed Over a Recognized Course" record for flying from New York to London distance 3,508 miles (5,646 km), 1,435.587 miles per hour (2,310.353 km/h), and an elapsed time of 1 hour 54 minutes and 56.4 seconds, set on 1 September 1974 while flown by U.S. Air Force Pilot Maj. James V. Sullivan and Maj. Noel F. Widdifield, reconnaissance systems officer (RSO).[78] This equates to an average velocity of about Mach 2.68, including deceleration for in-flight refueling. Peak speeds during this flight were probably closer to the declassified top speed of Mach 3.2+. For comparison, the best commercial Concorde flight time was 2 hours 52 minutes, and the Boeing 747 averages 6 hours 15 minutes.(source wikipedia)

martinsvi

keroseneboy wrote: »

The fastest transatlantic airliner flight was from New York JFK to London Heathrow on 7 February 1996 by British Airways' G-BOAD in 2 hours, 52 minutes, 59 seconds from takeoff to touchdown.(wikipedia)

don't forget to mention that G-BOAD is a Concorde..


I think I read somewhere in this forum (probably ask the pilot thread) where one fellow claimed he did the route in less that 4h when there was a very important lady about to give birth? too lazy to look it up now

owenc

keroseneboy wrote: »

The fastest transatlantic airliner flight was from New York JFK to London Heathrow on 7 February 1996 by British Airways' G-BOAD in 2 hours, 52 minutes, 59 seconds from takeoff to touchdown.(wikipedia)

Thats the Concorde so it doesn't really compare.

owenc

I would like to know this myself because I often track the planes and they come quite quickly.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/EIN134/history/20130816/2315Z/KBOS/EINN
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL25/history/20130618/2330Z/KEWR/EINN
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/EIN134/history/20130617/2315Z/KBOS/EINN

From BFS we had 5 hours and 24 minutes the other day.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL77/history/20130816/0125Z/KEWR/EGAA
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL77/history/20130620/0125Z/KEWR/EGAA

I am sure shannon is quicker. I notice that belfast is often 10 or more minutes longer which seems a bit weird. What I find odd is that the British airways flights are often faster than the flights from dublin to boston which seems a bit odd as dublin is 500 miles closer to boston.

Another thing that I find odd is that the Aer lingus flights from Shannon to Boston sometimes fly well over 4,000 miles when it is 2,800 miles. If they flew direct they could do it in 5 hours surely?
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/EIN135/history/20130818/1120Z/EINN/KBOS

simon_24

British Airways would be faster to London AFAIK because the 744 cruises at a faster speed than say a 752 or 763

keroseneboy

owenc wrote: »

Thats the Concorde so it doesn't really compare.

I could't agree more. Having had the privilege of being on Concorde, there is no doubt in my mind nothing really compares...

owenc

simon_24 wrote: »

British Airways would be faster to London AFAIK because the 744 cruises at a faster speed than say a 752 or 763

Oh really? I thought they were the same speed.

So what would the shannon to boston be on a 747-400 5 hours?

owenc

keroseneboy wrote: »

I could't agree more. Having had the privilege of being on Concorde, there is no doubt in my mind nothing really compares...

I can't imagine it must be amazing to be able to fly to New york in the time it takes to get to Spain!

keroseneboy

simon_24 wrote: »

British Airways would be faster to London AFAIK because the 744 cruises at a faster speed than say a 752 or 763

The 747-8i is even faster... super-critical wings and GENX2 Engines make big difference.

simon_24

owenc wrote: »

Oh really? I thought they were the same speed.

So what would the shannon to boston be on a 747-400 5 hours?

Yeah I'd say you could, I've been watching the flight times myself recently, and some of the 757s have been arriving in 5hr30 on average

Shamrock231

747 cruises at about .86 Mach IIRC and others around .82 Mach.

martinsvi

from the last few comments here I got an impression that you have forgotten about jet stream?

owenc wrote: »

I would like to know this myself because I often track the planes and they come quite quickly.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/EIN134/history/20130816/2315Z/KBOS/EINN
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL25/history/20130618/2330Z/KEWR/EINN
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/EIN134/history/20130617/2315Z/KBOS/EINN

From BFS we had 5 hours and 24 minutes the other day.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL77/history/20130816/0125Z/KEWR/EGAA
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL77/history/20130620/0125Z/KEWR/EGAA

I am sure shannon is quicker. I notice that belfast is often 10 or more minutes longer which seems a bit weird. What I find odd is that the British airways flights are often faster than the flights from dublin to boston which seems a bit odd as dublin is 500 miles closer to boston.

Another thing that I find odd is that the Aer lingus flights from Shannon to Boston sometimes fly well over 4,000 miles when it is 2,800 miles. If they flew direct they could do it in 5 hours surely?
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/EIN135/history/20130818/1120Z/EINN/KBOS

please don't compare flight durations for flights that cross the Atlantic in opposite directions, East to West will always be longer at least by an hour. Sometimes when winds are particularly strong, airlines will choose routes that are geographically longer but have less headwind.

keroseneboy wrote: »

The 747-8i is even faster... super-critical wings and GENX2 Engines make big difference.

doesn't matter. If 747-8i, a330 and a 757 had a race where they all leave at the same time from the same location in USA heading East, the winner would be the plane that gets the biggest advantage from jet stream. You have to be at the right track at the right time.

bazzachazza

Shamrock231 wrote: »

747 cruises at about .86 Mach IIRC and others around .82 Mach.

Depends on CI (cost index) for each airline. Average 747 cruise is .85, 767 .80, 777 is .84, Airbus are slower due to wing design but newer airbus A380 and A350 by customer demand will fly faster to compete with Boeing models.

But each aircraft can fly faster or slower depending on CI and the airlines bias towards speed/time v fuel/emissions. So you might see Lufthansa flying their 747s at .86 whereas BAs 747s will start off at .84 but finish off at .85 after they have burnt a good portion of their fuel.

martinsvi

here, have a read -

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056378654&page=9 post #128, doesn't get any more informative than that!

eatmyshorts

Did LAX-DUB in 8 hours 20 mins one night. Then waited an hour for a stand in Dublin.

eatmyshorts

martinsvi wrote: »

here, have a read -

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056378654&page=9 post #128, doesn't get any more informative than that!

Except that the whole thing is bullsh1t, posted by a known spoofer.

martinsvi

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Except that the whole thing is bullsh1t, posted by a known spoofer.

I can't defend ones internet identity, and certain specific events, but as a frequent flyer and matured "armchair pilot" everything he says regarding flight duration and other elements is true. If you think otherwise please, let's discuss specific facts from his comments that you think are not true!

NewSigGuy

martinsvi wrote: »

I can't defend one's internet identity, and certain specific events, but as a frequent flyer and matured "armchair pilot" everything he says regarding flight duration and other elements is true. If you think otherwise please, let's discuss specific facts from his comments that you think are not true!

He was a known spoofer, amongst a significant amount of other garbage, he stated that he had to "throttle back" to stay Subsonic due to a tailwind..

Most of his other posts also contained inaccuracies that just did not collate with his claimed profile. I could go on..

martinsvi

NewSigGuy wrote: »

He was a known spoofer, amongst a significant amount of other garbage, he stated that he had to "throttle back" to stay Subsonic due to a tailwind..

Most of his other posts also contained inaccuracies that just did not collate with his claimed profile. I could go on..

have you ever been on a flight across the Atlantic with a heavy tail wind? have you ever taken a look at what speed monitors are showing and have you ever listened what engines are doing entering jet stream? that sentence makes perfect sense to me.

Shamrock231

Supersonic speed is not related to ground speed, it's speed through air. Ground speed is shown in the cabin, airspeed is the same with a 50kt tail wind, a 100kt tail wind or a 100kt head wind, your speed through air won't change, just that over ground.

I do think though that XWB may have been using hyperbole in that comment...

martinsvi

Shamrock231 wrote: »

Supersonic speed is not related to ground speed, it's speed through air. Ground speed is shown in the cabin, airspeed is the same with a 50kt tail wind, a 100kt tail wind or a 100kt head wind, your speed through air won't change, just that over ground.

I do think though that XWB may have been using hyperbole in that comment...

it's actually more complex than that, you can't simply add wind speed to speed of sound constant to get your speed of sound in a given location, there was a complex formula for this...

but whatever, I agree with you - it might have been a hyperbole, the fact is, planes really can indeed travel really fast with a help of wind so that pilots really do have to slow down the engines (wether it's to save costs or to protect the airframe, I don't really know), I wouldn't call someone a spoofer just for that..

NewSigGuy

Shamrock231 wrote: »

Supersonic speed is not related to ground speed, it's speed through air. Ground speed is shown in the cabin, airspeed is the same with a 50kt tail wind, a 100kt tail wind or a 100kt head wind, your speed through air won't change, just that over ground.

I do think though that XWB may have been using hyperbole in that comment...

You are correct, airliners fly at constant Mach numbers and Concorde was the only one capable of supersonic flight. All others are firmly subsonic, as stated Ground Speed is different as it is affected by head/tail wind, but the speed will always be subsonic as it relates to the Local speed of sound. I have seen Ground Speed of over 650Kts but we were still subsonic and our Mach Number was constant at 0.85..
A qualified airline pilot would know the differences with regard to Mach No/True Air Speed/Indicated Air Speed/Ground Speed, and would not make the mistake that many armchair enthusiasts make.

There were other statements that were also equally incorrect, not least of which were statements about gliding an airliner to a ditching and the range of SAR services in the North Atlantic, which he stated were mentioned in the EI Ops manual... all untrue!
I also PM'd him and asked hime specific questions in relation to his claims of flying Transatlantic flights at the time and his status as a "retired EI Pilot"...

Suffice it to say he was a Bluffer.

martinsvi

NewSigGuy wrote: »

You are correct, airliners fly at constant Mach numbers and Concorde was the only one capable of supersonic flight. All others are firmly subsonic, as stated Ground Speed is a different as it is affected by head/tail wind, but the speed will always be subsonic as it relates to the Local speed of sound. I have seen Ground Speed of over 650Kts but we were still subsonic and our Mach Number was constant at 0.85..
A qualified airline pilot would no the differences with regard to Mach No/True Air Speed/Indicated Air Speed/Ground Speed, and would not make the mistake that many armchair enthusiasts make.

There were other statements that were also equally incorrect, not least of which were statements about gliding an airliner to a ditching and the range of SAR services in the North Atlantic, which he stated were mentioned in the EI Ops manual... all untrue!
I also PM'd him and asked hime specific questions in relation to his claims of flying Transatlantic flights at the time and his status as a "retired EI Pilot"...

Suffice it to say he was a Bluffer.

as I said, I'm not interested in defending anybody, perhaps you're right.

what is your own qualification, btw?
In a desperate attempt to return this derailed topic back on track, can you confirm that a slightly bigger Mach speed does not guarantee a faster journey and that wind is the main factor in flights duration?

NewSigGuy

martinsvi wrote: »

as I said, I'm not interested in defending anybody, perhaps you're right.

what is your own qualification, btw?
In a desperate attempt to return this derailed topic back on track, can you confirm that a slightly bigger Mach speed does not guarantee a faster journey and that wind is the main factor in flights duration?

Think of it this way, if two aircraft travel the same route in the same wind conditions the one with the higher mach number will have a shorter flight time.

The global jetstreams are complex and in fact the Transatlantic tracks are changed on a daily basis to maximize the tail wind traveling East bound and minimize the headwind traveling westbound. On very long flights Flight Planning will often send the aircraft on a longer Ground Miles route to achieve the same result.

In general terms the short haul narrow body aircraft travel at around Mach 0.78 and the wide body long haul aircraft cruise in the range Mach .80-.86 depending on the type, the technical reason for the differences is the wing design and long haul aircraft typically have a higher wing sweep.

Does this Help??

I am currently typed on the A-380

martinsvi

NewSigGuy wrote: »

Think of it this way, if two aircraft travel the same route in the same wind conditions the one with the higher mach number will have a shorter flight time.

The global jetstreams are complex and in fact the Transatlantic tracks are changed on a daily basis to maximize the tail wind traveling East bound and minimize the headwind traveling westbound. On very long flights Flight Planning will often send the aircraft on a longer Ground Miles route to achieve the same result.

In general terms the short haul narrow body aircraft travel at around Mach 0.78 and the wide body long haul aircraft cruise in the range Mach .80-.86 depending on the type, the technical reason for the differences is the wing design and long haul aircraft typically have a higher wing sweep.

Does this Help??

I am currently typed on the A-380

the point I was trying to make is that wind conditions are never the same thus the differences in duration of the flights..

owenc

simon_24 wrote: »

Yeah I'd say you could, I've been watching the flight times myself recently, and some of the 757s have been arriving in 5hr30 on average

Really?

The belfast one took 7,5 hours the other day the earliest i,ve seen is 6 hours.

owenc

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Did LAX-DUB in 8 hours 20 mins one night. Then waited an hour for a stand in Dublin.

That must be the most irritating thing ever.

owenc

martinsvi wrote: »

from the last few comments here I got an impression that you have forgotten about jet stream?



please don't compare flight durations for flights that cross the Atlantic in opposite directions, East to West will always be longer at least by an hour. Sometimes when winds are particularly strong, airlines will choose routes that are geographically longer but have less headwind.



doesn't matter. If 747-8i, a330 and a 757 had a race where they all leave at the same time from the same location in USA heading East, the winner would be the plane that gets the biggest advantage from jet stream. You have to be at the right track at the right time.

I have to disagree the heathrow flights are always faster and they are 747s.

owenc

keroseneboy wrote: »

The 747-8i is even faster... super-critical wings and GENX2 Engines make big difference.

Maybe 5 hours on that then. Westbound.

TPMP

owenc wrote: »

Really?

The belfast one took 7,5 hours the other day the earliest i,ve seen is 6 hours.

I flew JFK-SNN in May and it was barely over 5 hours.

owenc

No I mean the other way.

The journey there is more important.

Bessarion

owenc wrote: »

No I mean the other way.

The journey there is more important.

Not necessarily. Eye of the beholder and all that.....