OldFruity

Delayed flight BA15 out of Singapore yesterday in part to avoid holding at Sydney due to a projected arrival time earlier than the 5 am curfew. Subsequent flight time of 7 hrs was due to a strong tailwind. Noticed our ground speed and wondered if anyone had been much faster (not counting Concorde of course) >

Pascoe

I remember a flight JFK >> LHR on a 777 a few years back that was insanely quick (tail end of hurricane season iirc).
I think there was talk of some sort of subsonic record but can't remember the exact details. Remember the pilot mentioning it almost apologetically as we neared home.

ahmetdouas

Nice one! Yeah, I heard about that JFK superspeed flight!
Doing some Googling, it seems the record is this one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...cord-time.html

So 745 MPH, not 720 = ) And 5 hours 15 mins JFK-LHR!

Dave Noble

doesn't look overly special

In what way way the callsign literally speedbird though?

Calum

I think the OP is implying that the flight was indeed very fast hence why it was "literally" speedbird...

corporate-wage-slave

I declare that to be an unusual example of correct usage of the word "literally" too.

mikeday1983

A not so unusual example of unnecessarily picking apart a members post for some kind of self-gratification.

PUCCI GALORE

To discuss the issue - I remember a EWR - LHR one night when we were an hour late leaving the gate because the gate mechanism froze - we then went out to the runway and as we are hurtling down it we had an emergency stop. A light indicating something or other stopped the take off roll. We returned to the gate - it was only something minor as matters transpired but it meant a further delay and the snow was starting to fall again. Some people had had enough terror for one night and they got off - so their bags had to be located. We were serving drinks to one and all.

We then went to deice and finally got airborne for a most rocky ride. People were traumatised. Finally we got above the storm and we shot to London like a rocket - my recollection is that it was less than 5 hours. People said that we were going at over 700mph. It was a flight to remember.

Pascoe

I remember departing JFK on another flight and the taxiing to the runway was ridiculously fast. Almost like a yellow cabbie. At one point I wouldn't have been surprised if we'd been up on two wheels as we cornered.

Wondered what the hell was going on until we got airborne and it turned out we seemed to be attempting to outrun a gigantic storm. It was on both side of us as we climbed and headed out over Long Island, full of lightning. Probably the most spectacular weather views I have ever seen from a plan.

Flight was actually surprisingly smooth however (frequent twists and turns notwithstanding) so the pilot was clearly doing an exceptional job that day.

nux

See also:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...st-speeds.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...hr-flight.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...-concorde.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/articles/tr...r-6-hours.html

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?

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.

LTN Phobia

I'm pretty sure I had something like nearly down to 6.5 hours flight time from SIN to SYD. We had to sit on the ground at SIN for quite some time thanks to SYD curfew.

(Can you tell I do not like SYD? Not because of the curfew though. It's a very customer-unfriendly airport although BA station managers are really lovely and QF lounge staff are great.)

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

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).