Interesting jetstream later this week

Comhrá

Sorry if this is a slightly OT subject here but a peek at

http://www.stormsurfing.com/cgi/display_alt.cgi?a=natla_250

shows some very strong jetstream over the N.Atlantic later this coming week:

Kenny2012

When I see the Title I thought I was in for a nice BAE 31 Jetstream

Calibos

What ground speed would that mean for W-E? Would that mean near Concorde journey times? or does it just mean schedules stay the same but they save a literal fcuk- tonne of fuel

squonk

Fuel I'd imagine. Concorde type journey times would require concorde like speeds which I think would push the limits of regular passenger aircraft, if not exceed these limits.

mr.anonymous

I've seen 250kts over the Pacific before. It's rare to see >200kts over the Atlantic.

The Eastbounds will get a good ground speed but the Westbound tracks will probably be moved further south to avoid the headwinds.

owenc

Calibos wrote: »

What ground speed would that mean for W-E? Would that mean near Concorde journey times? or does it just mean schedules stay the same but they save a literal fcuk- tonne of fuel

Um to be honest I don't think its fuel just faster, don't think it will be concorde speeds. The limit for flights from NYC etc seems to be 4.5 hours.

And there is no need to curse, its unprofessional.

owenc

mr.anonymous wrote: »

I've seen 250kts over the Pacific before. It's rare to see >200kts over the Atlantic.

The Eastbounds will get a good ground speed but the Westbound tracks will probably be moved further south to avoid the headwinds.

I find that the descent and ascent times prevent a lot of records being beat. Also I noticed when planes come into Dublin they make a turn and go over the Irish sea instead of flying straight in which admittedly adds on about 10 minutes to the journey.

irish gent

Will I need inhaler .

L1011

owenc wrote: »

I find that the descent and ascent times prevent a lot of records being beat. Also I noticed when planes come into Dublin they make a turn and go over the Irish sea instead of flying straight in which admittedly adds on about 10 minutes to the journey.

That's dependent on the wind at the time in Dublin, it can happen that there's a strong jetstream on the way over but landing on 10

Tenger

owenc wrote: »

.....

And there is no need to curse, its unprofessional.

This isn't a professional debate, its casual amateurs.
And any decision on use of language would be a mod/admin decision.

shedweller

Theres a few planes going up by nova scotia (on flightradar24) now in what looks like the start of that epic jet stream and they are doing 640kts. Is that much above normal?
Planes going the opposite way are going further south and doing 540kts or thereabouts. Always going to be less going west i know, so is it as normal or due to the building jetstream?

owenc

L1011 wrote: »

That's dependent on the wind at the time in Dublin, it can happen that there's a strong jetstream on the way over but landing on 10

Yea well i've watched and most of the landings are over the Irish sea. It happened me when I came in from EWR too.

owenc

Tenger wrote: »

This isn't a professional debate, its casual amateurs.
And any decision on use of language would be a mod/admin decision.

Um well ok but I prefer if people wouldn't curse. This is an aviation forum and theres no need to be cursing.

And it doesn't matter if it wasn't a professional debate. My parents raised me not to curse and disrespect other people's views through vulgar language.

owenc

shedweller wrote: »

Theres a few planes going up by nova scotia (on flightradar24) now in what looks like the start of that epic jet stream and they are doing 640kts. Is that much above normal?
Planes going the opposite way are going further south and doing 540kts or thereabouts. Always going to be less going west i know, so is it as normal or due to the building jetstream?

Yes I think its pretty normal to be 650-700mph. I've yet to see 750 though.

pepe the prawn

owenc wrote: »

Um well ok but I prefer if people wouldn't curse. This is an aviation forum and theres no need to be cursing.

And it doesn't matter if it wasn't a professional debate. My parents raised me not to curse and disrespect other people's views through vulgar language.

*remove chip from shoulder*...

pepe the prawn

owenc wrote: »

Yea well i've watched and most of the landings are over the Irish sea. It happened me when I came in from EWR too.

It's solely dependent on wind direction. Yesterday Dublin airport arrivals and departures were being switched from 28 to 10 all day because of varying Wind direction

L1011

owenc wrote: »

Yea well i've watched and most of the landings are over the Irish sea. It happened me when I came in from EWR too.

I've lived under the flight path since 10/28 opened - you're basing it on one day on FR24 and one flight...

Comhrá

Originally Posted by owenc View Post
Um well ok but I prefer if people wouldn't curse. This is an aviation forum and theres no need to be cursing.

And it doesn't matter if it wasn't a professional debate. My parents raised me not to curse and disrespect other people's views through vulgar language.

+1. Bad language seems to be more and more acceptable on Irish forums.

It would be nice if people could learn to express themselves sufficiently without silly vulgarity and thinly disguised profanities. This is generally a very civilized forum and it would be nice to keep it that way, imho.

Some mods don't seem to bother about it or try to discourage though.

lord lucan

The poster used a four letter word to illustrate an unusual/excessive amount, hardly the end of the world and not exactly an expletive ridden reply. Yet again another thread gets dragged off topic, back to the jetstream please.

Comhrá

Speedbird B772 making progress East at 656 kt:

owenc

lord lucan wrote: »

The poster used a four letter word to illustrate an unusual/excessive amount, hardly the end of the world and not exactly an expletive ridden reply. Yet again another thread gets dragged off topic, back to the jetstream please.

Well I am a christian and really offended by the use of curse words. Its not funny.

I'd dare you to say that it is a 'four letter word' to a religious person's face to see the reaction you get.

tippman1 wrote: »

+1. Bad language seems to be more and more acceptable on Irish forums.

It would be nice if people could learn to express themselves sufficiently without silly vulgarity and thinly disguised profanities. This is generally a very civilized forum and it would be nice to keep it that way, imho.

Some mods don't seem to bother about it or try to discourage though.

Well I go on other forums and this behaviour wouldn't be tolerated but on this forum they seem to think its perfectly acceptable. I disagree, it makes me angry that this is tolerated and laughed at. Its the fact that the person cursed in an everyday sentence not at something they were angry at.

owenc

L1011 wrote: »

I've lived under the flight path since 10/28 opened - you're basing it on one day on FR24 and one flight...

Well i've been looking the past few nights and weeks and they have done that each time.

Cookiemunster

owenc wrote: »

Well i've been looking the past few nights and weeks and they have done that each time.

I think his 20 years of living under the flightpath trumps your few weeks looking at FR24.

lord lucan

owenc wrote: »

Well I am a christian and really offended by the use of curse words. Its not funny.

I'd dare you to say that it is a 'four letter word' to a religious person's face to see the reaction you get.


Well I go on other forums and this behaviour wouldn't be tolerated but on this forum they seem to think its perfectly acceptable. I disagree, it makes me angry that this is tolerated and laughed at. Its the fact that the person cursed in an everyday sentence not at something they were angry at.

And still you persist in ignoring instruction and taking a thread off topic again.

cml387

From reading PPRUNE over the years, 230kts seems to be about the fastest, giving a possible groundspeed of maybe up to 800kts.

andy_g

Right..... where do i even start on this thread.
I know my Co Mods have already been on this. But here are the examples of how to drag a thread off topic.

owenc wrote: »

Um well ok but I prefer if people wouldn't curse. This is an aviation forum and theres no need to be cursing.

And it doesn't matter if it wasn't a professional debate. My parents raised me not to curse and disrespect other people's views through vulgar language.

If you have a problem with a mod decision you have been asked before to take it up with them via the pm channels, this is standard as to not drag the thread off topic as it is now.

tippman1 wrote: »

+1. Bad language seems to be more and more acceptable on Irish forums.

It would be nice if people could learn to express themselves sufficiently without silly vulgarity and thinly disguised profanities. This is generally a very civilized forum and it would be nice to keep it that way, imho.

Some mods don't seem to bother about it or try to discourage though.

Some mods and remember that all the mods on board.ie are volunteers, and would be up to discretion. If you wish to use profanities im sure there's a forum for that somewhere within the boards domain.

owenc wrote: »

Well I am a christian and really offended by the use of curse words. Its not funny.

I'd dare you to say that it is a 'four letter word' to a religious person's face to see the reaction you get.


Well I go on other forums and this behaviour wouldn't be tolerated but on this forum they seem to think its perfectly acceptable. I disagree, it makes me angry that this is tolerated and laughed at. Its the fact that the person cursed in an everyday sentence not at something they were angry at.

Well Fcuk sake please use the Christian forum and not drag a thread off topic. Ownec your history here with the mods on the forum doesnt help your case. And as of right now you are only here by the skin of your teeth, I'd advise you and everyone not to try drag perfectly good threads off topic and down the drain.

Furthermore and this is to everyone. If you have a problem with a mod decision use the Pm system to have a chat with them regarding their decision it may overturn it/it may not,
But at least it wont cause a train wreck of a thread.
If i see it on any thread it will be an instant weeks holiday so be warned.

pm.

Very well put andy... What is the top speed ( safe speed ) of a commercial jet ?

I was on a FR flight back from EDI a couple of weeks ago, the pilot said there was a very strong headwind and that our ground speed was 220mph, the engines seemed to be flat out, would head winds slow a plane down that much ? we where flying at 24,000ft ( i think )

cml387

pm. wrote: »

Very well put andy... What is the top speed ( safe speed ) of a commercial jet ?

I was on a FR flight back from EDI a couple of weeks ago, the pilot said there was a very strong headwind and that our ground speed was 220mph, the engines seemed to be flat out, would head winds slow a plane down that much ? we where flying at 24,000ft ( i think )

Yes. The pilots airspeed indicator might indicate 250 kts airspeed which would equate to about 450 kts ground speed if there were no headwind.
But in the case of a headwind of 150 kts the wind speed is subtracted from that 450kts figure to give an actual ground speed of only 300kts.

Growler!!!

pm. wrote: »

Very well put andy... What is the top speed ( safe speed ) of a commercial jet ?

I was on a FR flight back from EDI a couple of weeks ago, the pilot said there was a very strong headwind and that our ground speed was 220mph, the engines seemed to be flat out, would head winds slow a plane down that much ? we where flying at 24,000ft ( i think )

The two speeds pilots look at are indicated airspeed (IAS) and ground speed (GS).

Without going into too deep an explanation the airplane doesn't know it has a head wind or tailwind. In the example below the airplane is travelling at 100mph with no wind. The speed the pilot can see in the cockpit is 100mph and its speed over the ground is 100mph. IAS = GS

Now with a tail wind of 20mph the airplane is still travelling in the air at 100mph (same speed in the cockpit, IAS) but now the air it is flying in is moving at 20mph. So on the ground, a Garda with a speed gun will see the airplane moving at 100mph +20mph = 120mph Ground Speed.

With a headwind the opposite is true, the airplane is travelling 100mph (IAS)but now the wind is moving against the airplane at 20mph so the Garda will see a speed of 100mph - 20mph = 80mph (GS).

Hope this helps a bit. There's a lot more to it than that though:D

Simon Gruber Says

I like to think of a tailwind like one of those travelator things in an airport terminal. It moves at about walking pace so, if you stand still on it, your "ground speed" is walking pace but "airspeed", in this case relative to the platform you're standing on, is zero. Now, if you start walking on it, your ground speed is near running pace but you're only using only the effort to walk.

Walk the wrong way on it and there's your tailwind. Need a lot more effort just to attain walking pace.

eatmyshorts

Simon Gruber Says wrote: »

I like to think of a tailwind like one of those travelator things in an airport terminal. .

But could a plane take off from one?..

I'll get my (fcuking) coat....

Growler!!!

eatmyshorts wrote: »

But could a plane take off from one?..

I'll get my (fcuking) coat....

It worked on mythbusters!!!!

Sort of:pac::pac:

Comhrá

Emirates big 'bus is fastest of the pack at the moment... 670 kt+

Calibos

My concorde remark was somewhat tongue in cheek (Mach 2). However could one attain a Mach 1+ groundspeed. If a cruising airliner generally does Mach 0.8 then would such a fast jetstream tailwind not put its groundspeed into the Mach 1+ area? And if so wouldn't that not be a problem for the aircrafts design limits because its airspeed would still be within its flight envelope?

Growler!!!

Calibos wrote: »

My concorde remark was somewhat tongue in cheek (Mach 2). However could one attain a Mach 1+ groundspeed. If a cruising airliner generally does Mach 0.8 then would such a fast jetstream tailwind not put its groundspeed into the Mach 1+ area? And if so wouldn't that not be a problem for the aircrafts design limits because its airspeed would still be within its flight envelope?

An aircraft is only concerned with its airspeed. It will not be travelling faster than the speed of sound in the parcel of air it occupies.

Bsal

This is an interesting website for ground speed records

http://groundspeedrecords.com/index.htm

ProfessorPlum

L1011 wrote: »

I've lived under the flight path since 10/28 opened - you're basing it on one day on FR24 and one flight...

owenc wrote: »

Well i've been looking the past few nights and weeks and they have done that each time.

Cookiemunster wrote: »

I think his 20 years of living under the flightpath trumps your few weeks looking at FR24.

To be fair to Owen, he's right. The vast majority of landings at DUB are on 28. That's because the prevailing winds are south westerly, and the preferential runway at Dublin is 28. Even with up to a 5kt tailwind, 28 is preferential. For the few early TA arrivals, if there's no conflicting traffic, ATC might change it over if requested.

L1011

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

To be fair to Owen, he's right. The vast majority of landings at DUB are on 28. That's because the prevailing winds are south westerly, and the preferential runway at Dublin is 28. Even with up to a 5kt tailwind, 28 is preferential. For the few early TA arrivals, if there's no conflicting traffic, ATC might change it over if requested.

There's a difference between the all being claimed by owenc and the "most" which is the case. I'd say that it was a far lower % than normal this year due to the amount of summer mornings where 10 was in use though.

ProfessorPlum

owenc wrote: »

I find that the descent and ascent times prevent a lot of records being beat. Also I noticed when planes come into Dublin they make a turn and go over the Irish sea instead of flying straight in which admittedly adds on about 10 minutes to the journey.

L1011 wrote: »

There's a difference between the all being claimed by owenc and the "most" which is the case. I'd say that it was a far lower % than normal this year due to the amount of summer mornings where 10 was in use though.

Ah come on. He just said he noticed stuff landing 28 when 10 would be shorter. Give the guy a break.

L1011

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Ah come on. He just said he noticed stuff landing 28 when 10 would be shorter. Give the guy a break.

Followed by an attempt to claim that [from a tiny amount of observation] that they always land on 28.

ProfessorPlum

L1011 wrote: »

Followed by an attempt to claim that [from a tiny amount of observation] that they always land on 28.

Nah, he just claimed he'd noticed stuff landing 28, and it added about 10 mins. That's all.

FWVT

So much drivel in this thread.

Back on topic, no flights will pick up the full strength of jet stream due to the turbulence encountered entering the core of strongest winds. Look at C.A.T. 6 on tomorrow's 6 am chart. Moderate to severe turbulence from FL190-350 to the north of the 160-190-knot jet.

pepe the prawn

FWVT wrote: »

So much drivel in this thread.

Back on topic, no flights will pick up the full strength of jet stream due to the turbulence encountered entering the core of strongest winds. Look at C.A.T. 6 on tomorrow's 6 am chart. Moderate to severe turbulence from FL190-350 to the north of the 160-190-knot jet.

[Img][/img]https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/606708/334018.png

Where did you gt that weather?? Looks like sporting conditions!

ProfessorPlum

FWVT wrote: »

So much drivel in this thread.

Back on topic, no flights will pick up the full strength of jet stream due to the turbulence encountered entering the core of strongest winds. Look at C.A.T. 6 on tomorrow's 6 am chart. Moderate to severe turbulence from FL190-350 to the north of the 160-190-knot jet.

Eastbound tracks tonight planned with the most northerly pretty much at the core, so I'd say there'll be plenty of aircraft taking advantage. The turb forecast is moderate occasionally severe, and as mentioned is on the polar side of the jet.

Tenger

FWVT wrote: »

So much drivel in this thread.
....

Unlike some other aviation forums we do allow freewheeling discussion and tangential debates. Using drivel to decribe the input of others posters may be a little strong.

b757

FWVT wrote: »

So much drivel in this thread.

You should see the flightradar thread....

Comhrá

This morning's speed checkpoint: Fastest I've seen - 683 kt. (786 mph)

Comhrá

690 kt (794 mph)

Zonda999

Check out the attachment, Emirates A388 managing a nifty 670 kts (771 mph)! That's the quickest I've ever seen on FR24

FWVT

250 knots later tonight, with 80 knots from FL600 to FL050

I've never seen 250 over the Atlantic before.

FWVT

Zonda999 wrote: »

Check out the attachment, Emirates A388 managing a nifty 670 kts (771 mph)! That's the quickest I've ever seen on FR24

There was a 693 knots earlier today.