This is probably a stupid question, but how is "ground speed" measured? Is it how quickly the airplane moves past a fixed point at it's altitude, or along the earth's surface? I.e. the plane is effectively moving along the surface of a sphere, but if the plane is 30,000 ft up, then the radius of the plane's sphere is 30,000 ft greater than the radius of the "ground" so traveling at the same angular velocity will requ…
Boeing 787 Reaches 801 MPH as a Jet Stream Packs Record-Breaking Speeds
81–90 of 191 posts
Re: Boeing 787 Reaches 801 MPH as a Jet Stream Packs Record-Breaking Speeds
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not an expert. But my understanding is that the "maximum propulsion" speed (587 mph) is limited by the "critical mach number" of the airframe, which for jetliners is something like 0.85. Faster than that, air around portions of the plane may start moving faster than the speed of sound (even though the airframe as a whole is going slower than the speed of sound), and this wreaks havoc in terms of lift, drag, contr…
When I was getting my pilots license I stumbled into a really cool video NASA did showing exactly what happens when you reach a fluttering condition like what you described. This is a link to the NASA recording if anyone is interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEOmCkZyXzk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhwLojNerMU (Older with music, kinda funny old-school science video from NASA) Edit: formatting.
Re: Boeing 787 Reaches 801 MPH as a Jet Stream Packs Record-Breaking Speeds
#83So what if they suddenly left the jet stream, for example flew a bit below or besides... If that's possible... and happened to be in normal wind speed, the plane would disintegrate due to sonic boom?
I would expect the jet stream not to end abruptly, but there is likely a gradient you have to cross before reaching "still" air. When leaving the stream, airspeed will increase, because of inertia, and so will drag. This will quickly bring the plane back to its cruising speed. I had a debate with a friend on this one the other day, but I am pretty sure something like 80% of the engine power is there to combat drag, w…
That is if the thrust vector of the engine is 100% level and the airspeed is constant, then 100% of the engine power applied is offset by drag.
Re: Boeing 787 Reaches 801 MPH as a Jet Stream Packs Record-Breaking Speeds
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me on a trip right now, I have: 2h drive to ORD 2h airport security Theater 4h Flight to SFO 1h to deplane get an Uber to someplace So 9 hour total journey on a direct flight. A 50% faster flight would make it be 8 hours instead of 9? I don't think I would pay anything for that.
2h airport security? In Zürich im usually done in 10 or 15 minutes...
Re: Boeing 787 Reaches 801 MPH as a Jet Stream Packs Record-Breaking Speeds
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. The plane has to fly sufficiently fast (to avoid stall), and sufficiently slow (to avoid "Mach tug"). As one flies higher (air density sinks), these two speeds converge, forming the dangerous "coffin corner". Now, in general, planes don't fly as high as possible, I'd say, so that there is some leeway in terms of chosen airspeed. 2. For given airspeed, the plane flies less time with a tailwind than a headwind. So,…
You have a typo here (it's "Mach tuck").
Re: Boeing 787 Reaches 801 MPH as a Jet Stream Packs Record-Breaking Speeds
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
It saves fuel for the downwind leg of the trip. However, it's worth noting that if the outward (downwind) and return (upwind) legs are affected by the same wind, the outward savings are more than offset by the extra fuel needed for the return. Suppose the journey in your example is 200 miles. With no wind, that's an hour each way, so 2 hours total cruising time. With the 100mph wind, the outward journey only takes 40…
I distinctly remember my CFI in flying school brow beating it into us rookie pilots that "what you lose in a headwind, you never regain in the tailwind on the way back", and explaining it to us long handed on the blackboard. Seems illogical, but the math stacked up as in your illustration above.
Re: Boeing 787 Reaches 801 MPH as a Jet Stream Packs Record-Breaking Speeds
#87This is probably a stupid question, but how is "ground speed" measured? Is it how quickly the airplane moves past a fixed point at it's altitude, or along the earth's surface? I.e. the plane is effectively moving along the surface of a sphere, but if the plane is 30,000 ft up, then the radius of the plane's sphere is 30,000 ft greater than the radius of the "ground" so traveling at the same angular velocity will requ…
Then came DME, distance measuring equipment. I don't know if DME ever took altitude into account or if the error resulting from altitude was just ignored, but analog DME radios would just tell distance at first and then digital versions had a groundspeed feature. At least instrument rated pilots were aware of the increasing error the closer to the NAVAID.
At some point in the ATC radar system, a controller's screen could show groundspeed. Pilots can ask ARTCC what ground speed is, although I would never ask approach or departure control such a question. This would have the same error as DME.
Today it's a value reported by GPS. I don't know if this is based on the plane's movement, or its shadow, or if there's a regulation that dictates it for aviation certified GPS. From a pilot perspective we don't distinguish between kinds of ground speed, whereas we do distinguish between kinds of airspeed: indicated, calibrated, and true. Mainly groundspeed is important navigationally to know if there's an unexpected headwind that'll lengthen enroute time and thus impact fuel management. And while there can be big enough error between estimated winds aloft and actual that this computation will affect enroute planning, I tend to only care about tens of minutes or hours, not seconds.
Re: Boeing 787 Reaches 801 MPH as a Jet Stream Packs Record-Breaking Speeds
#88This makes me think that some time in the distant future, when we're really great a terraforming, we could influence the weather of the planet specifically to create functional jet streams that we could use to make travel faster, and then plan air routes specifically to use them. A more serious question: I assume this kind of event doesn't actually save fuel because the airplane still has to maintain the same airspee…
1. The plane has to fly sufficiently fast (to avoid stall), and sufficiently slow (to avoid "Mach tug"). As one flies higher (air density sinks), these two speeds converge, forming the dangerous "coffin corner". Now, in general, planes don't fly as high as possible, I'd say, so that there is some leeway in terms of chosen airspeed. 2. For given airspeed, the plane flies less time with a tailwind than a headwind. So,…
Doing a little digging, it seems that there's also a significant risk of entering an overspeed condition during recovery, and inducing a structural failure! Makes sense considering that we're talking about speeds near Mach 1 to begin with.
Re: Boeing 787 Reaches 801 MPH as a Jet Stream Packs Record-Breaking Speeds
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
No you are right. In case of tailwind, it is KIAS + WS whereas headwind is KIAS - WS KIAS: Knots Indicated Airspeed (i.e. the speed at which air is hitting the pitot tube) WS: Wind speed
Slight, but important (if you don't want to run out of fuel) nit, indicated airspeed (KIAS) is not the same as true airspeed (KTAS). To calculate ground speed (as required for navigation and fuel planning) you need true airspeed (not indicated) as well as wind direction and speed. See some discussion here: https://www.quora.com/In-aviation-what-is-the-difference-bet...
IAS is what the pilots care about while flying because it’s what matters for aerodynamics (ie stall speed)
Re: Boeing 787 Reaches 801 MPH as a Jet Stream Packs Record-Breaking Speeds
#90That is 1289.085 kilometres per hour! The title should be updated on to include a measurement used by the rest of the world including the scientific community.
Even better yet, 361 m/s. km/h is a derived unit. ;)