
Storm Ciara helps plane beat transatlantic flight record - mpweiher
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-51433720
======
RcouF1uZ4gsC
>The fastest transatlantic crossing belongs to BA Concorde, which flew from
New York to London in two hours 52 minutes and 59 seconds in 1996 - hitting a
top speed of 1,350 mph.

That was the fastest commercial flight. The fastest transatlantic crossing by
an aircraft was the SR-71 in 1974:

1 hour 55 minutes Average speed over 1800 mph

[https://tacairnet.com/2015/09/02/the-sr-71s-record-
breaking-...](https://tacairnet.com/2015/09/02/the-sr-71s-record-breaking-
transatlantic-crossing/)

~~~
themodelplumber
> 1 hour 55 minutes Average speed over 1800 mph

It felt weird that my first reaction was to wonder what took so long. For some
reason I was thinking that surely the Blackbird could make the crossing about
60 minutes faster than listed.

Looking at a map, I saw that the air line distance from Fortaleza to Dakar is
just over 1,900 miles though. So I'm thinking "transatlantic" must mean more
than my own basic definition. (Plus I don't know if these locations would have
enough runway for the SR-71, or if the reason we haven't heard of faster is
because US taxpayers aren't footing the gas bill to arrange a shorter route)

~~~
smoyer
The blackbirds have to show down to refuel.

~~~
themodelplumber
I don't understand. Are you saying they refueled over the Atlantic while
setting this record?

~~~
chipsa
Most long distance Blackbird flights involved taking off at low fuel weights,
then refueling shortly after take off. So yes, the record probably involved
refueling over the Atlantic.

~~~
anonsivalley652
They refilled _immediately_ after takeoff.

Then, if they got a full tank of JP-7 around NYC, that gives them a one-way
range of 3250 miles, which is less than the 2999 nautical miles of LGA -> LHR.
The SR-71's range is a hair over 3200 nautical miles. Getting a full tank of
the special JP-7 or landing around LHR would be do or die time, because that
would be just about bingo fuel.

~~~
jsjohnst
Is the 3200nm range while at cruising speed or for max speed? The link
mentioned it was in afterburner for a long period.

~~~
chipsa
They're approximately the same speed.

------
dghughes
I see people talking about this but they all seem to have a hard time
understanding air speed and ground speed.

The way I like to explain it is imagine a person walking up an escalator. Your
total speed is your walking speed (air speed) plus the escalator speed
combined (ground speed). Just walking up regular stairs would be like an
aircraft flying with no wind.

It can also happen in reverse. If you walked down the up escalator your
walking speed (air speed) may be equal to the escalator. Your total speed
(ground speed) may even be zero. Aircraft leaving London going to NY were
fighting the wind their ground speed was reduced.

~~~
cranium
Also why it's still a subsonic flight even with a ground speed greater than
the speed of sound (~1200 km/h).

Edit: as explained in the article, hum.

~~~
aerodog
Speed of sound is 767 mph. Without the wind, they were at 801 mph, which is
still well over the sound barrier. I still don't understand.

~~~
mcv
The article says it's "slower than 801 mph", but sadly doesn't specify how
much slower. The ground speed was 825 mph, so if Ciara is so impressive, I'd
expect it to give a bigger boost than a measly 24 mph. The article doesn't
specify the unassisted airspeed, unfortunately. Considering the jet stream was
moving at 260 mph, naive math would suggest the air speed was 565 mph.

~~~
rob74
...which is about the commercial cruise speed of a Boeing 747 (570 mph), so
your naive math may be pretty close ;)

------
gorgoiler
If it’s windy enough could they have done a 180 on arrival and landed into
wind blowing at the usual landing speed, coming down near vertically with
respect to the ground?

Here’s a bush plane doing this at 40 knots:

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7vP13XPMNfc](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7vP13XPMNfc)

~~~
JorgeGT
Technically yes, but the jet stream blows at high altitude.

------
jsjohnst
I’ve been on a plane that did this before, only our jet stream current was a
bit slower and thus our ground speed was hovering right around 800mph for most
of the duration.

The turbulence was rough going in and out of the jet stream, but while “in
it”, it was about like any other normal flight.

We ended up shaving over an hour off the flight time (SFO - LHR, might’ve been
90min in fact), but alas, due to the “law of early flights”, we then wasted a
lot of that time penalty boxed waiting for an open gate.

------
madengr
I’m surprised they didn’t slow down to conserve fuel and arrive on-time. In
the USA, if your flight is more than 20 minutes early, you are usually stuck
on the tarmac waiting for a gate.

80 minutes of fuel for that plane must be very expensive. Is it possibly to
fly that plane, at say 200 knots ground speed, and save on fuel? Or are they
stuck at their speed they filed in the flight plan, to keep traffic
separation?

~~~
ReptileMan
I asked similar question about angle of attack (both 737 max and AF447) -
can't they just look at a glass of water to see they are at wrong angle.

But with planes it doesn't work that way - everything is relative to the air
outside, not the ground. With good tailwind you still have to go with your
cruising speed relative to the tailwind. Your ground speed will be insane. The
opposite is with headwind.

~~~
rvnx
Maybe a gyroscope + glass of water ?

~~~
XMPPwocky
No. Angle of attack behaves in some very non-obvious ways-

For example, if you maintain the same attitude, but decrease thrust so that
your forward airspeed drops, and you begin descending... your angle of attack
increases, despite the aircraft not actually rotating.

Why? When you start descending, the air below now seems to be "coming up at
you"\- you go from

    
    
      ---> (===
    

to

    
    
        7  (===
       /
      /
    

if that ASCII art helps at all (equals signs being the wing)

Now consider how roll, yaw, and crosswinds affect this- as the AoA becomes
variable across the wing...

------
heyflyguy
This is nothing, one time I flew from Midland to Dallas in a Cessna 172 in an
hour and 20 minutes. My ground speed exceeded 180 knots at times!

------
jrnichols
The BA callsign isn't "Speedbird" for nothing. :)

------
keyle
> Despite travelling faster than the speed of sound the plane would not have
> broken the sonic barrier as it was helped along by fast-moving air.

It makes sense but that is still fascinating to me...

~~~
jungturk
Well _all_ aircraft are traveling faster than the speed of sound with respect
to much of the universe, but not relative to their surrounding airstreams...

------
agumonkey
Are we entering a future where plane routes are designed to follow storms ?

~~~
pintxo
We already do [1]:

> They are aligned in such a way as to minimize any head winds and maximize
> tail winds impact on the aircraft. This results in much more efficiency by
> reducing fuel burn and flight time. To make such efficiencies possible, the
> routes are created twice daily to take account of the shifting of the winds
> aloft and the principal traffic flow, eastward in North America evening and
> westward twelve hours later.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Tracks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Tracks)

------
8f2ab37a-ed6c
On that note, it seems that the amount of turbulence has been increasing over
the last few decades as a consequence of global warming?

------
t0mas88
Not a record. This flight got to 717kt, but the fastest record for a 747 is
752kt: [https://groundspeedrecords.com/top-3-models/?terms-
filter=15...](https://groundspeedrecords.com/top-3-models/?terms-
filter=15&aircraft-manufacturer=Boeing)

~~~
CrazyStat
It's a flight time record, not a ground speed record.

So yes, a record.

------
rdsubhas
> The four hours and 56 minutes flight arrived at Heathrow Airport 80 minutes
> ahead of schedule on Sunday morning. > According to Flightradar24, an online
> flight tracking service, it beat a previous five hours 13 minutes record
> held by Norwegian.

Extremely poor proofreading there from BBC. 4:56 hour scheduled flight when
the previous record was 5:13? The numbers simply don't make any sense.

Original numbers:
[https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1226395432252780544...](https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1226395432252780544?s=19)

> Fastest across the Atlantic tonight from New York to London so far is #BA112
> at 4hr56m. #VS4 in 4:57, and #VS46 in 4:59.

And average flight time is 6:10

~~~
kitd
The "ahead of schedule" refers to its conventional ETA, not the previous
record.

Which also ties in nicely with your quoted 6:10 average.

~~~
rdsubhas
ah yep, my bad. thanks.

