Sign in to follow this  
Rottenlungs

Fastest Civil aircraft

Recommended Posts

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!As far as I know, with a redline of Mach .92 the 747 is the fastest airliner currently in service.What does the Citation X redline at? It actually cruises at .92, doesn't it? If the Citation X isn't the fastest civil passenger aircraft based entirely on Mach redline, what is? There is supposedly a Mach 1.5 Falcon bizjet in the works, but I just want those currently in service.No two seaters need apply!!!Best Regards, Donny:-wave

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I thought the fastest civil jet now that the concord is gone was the CX. I also thought .98 in the dive was the fastest certified/tested on the CX but cruised at .96.

Share this post


Link to post

There are some civilian F100 Super Sabres, and I've seen a civilian Saab J35 Draken.

Share this post


Link to post

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!Yeah, civil. Plus I said no two seaters need apply!:-lol So it seems like Cessna- whooda thunk that would ever happen?Of course, for its class the 310 ain't no slouch either.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

Share this post


Link to post

What about the 'Vickers VC-10' still used by the R.A.F. for their personel?It was the second fastest after Concorde.Dave T. .........On the lovely warm Devon Riviera and active 'FlightSim User's Group' member at http://www.flightsimgrpuk.free-online.co.uk/

Share this post


Link to post

Those aren't two seaters, they're single seaters :(If I'd included two seaters I'd have mentioned the NASA T-38s which can reach near Mach 2.You also nowhere claimed they must be initial civilian designs.

Share this post


Link to post

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!Since when is a single seater a "passenger aircraft?"Maybe, if the pilot has multiple personality disorder, but isn't that stretching the definition?You're right, I didn't specifically mention civil designs from the ground up though:-) Best Regards, Donny:-wave

Share this post


Link to post

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!Was that before or after the 747 and Citation X that it was the second fastest?If I'm not mistaken, some models of the Gulfstream Bizjets use the same engines.Can't award "fastest airliner" in service if no airliners are using it, but it still has a shot at "fastest civil passenger aircraft" since someone could possibly get their hands on it for a personal jet- AND it seats more than the rules of this thread call for:-)Do you know what Mach the VC-10 redlines at?Best Regards, Donny:-wave

Share this post


Link to post

they did experiment with pods under the wings of a Harrier to transport passengers (special forces troops actually) :)Not sure if that would have worked well under an F100, would have been quite a ride lying prone in a metal cylinder under the wing of a jet at Mach 2.

Share this post


Link to post

>Donny AKA Shalomar>Do you know what Mach the VC-10 redlines at?>>Best Regards, Donny:-wave VNE on a VC-10 is Mach 0.94 according to my RAF source although they would never fly it that fast in reality and certainly not at it's current age. Some say the Trident was faster and of course there was the Russian "Concordski" but that never was in proper use only flying a test route for a short time I believe.Dave T. .........On the lovely warm Devon Riviera and active 'FlightSim User's Group' member at http://www.flightsimgrpuk.free-online.co.uk/

Share this post


Link to post

IAS maybe, but the 744 has a higher ceiling so it'll get you there faster :)

Share this post


Link to post

I'm confused now. You said "redline" at first. Now it is "true airspeed". Both are different things. If it is just a higher Vmo, then it may or may not be faster than something else depending on altitude and Mmo. To comparatively figure out how fast two civil jet airliners are to each other, the only way to compare is to have the VMo and Mmo figures.TAS is not a redline. TAS is some figure you've figured out for information purposes from the current conditions. I would place very little stock in those "maximum cruising speed" figures that you find in books and airliners.net because it is a variable thing and also you do not know whether or not that quoted brochure figure is actually at indicated speed limits. And also, higher does not necessarily mean faster either. The fastest point that a jet travels is when Vmo and Mmo are equal. Which is usually in the upper twenties for most planes. At higher altitudes, the Mmo limitation makes the plane slower as you go higher since the speed of sound decreases with temperature.The figures for the classic 747 are a Vmo of 390kias, Mmo of .92 Mach and a ceiling of FL450. The 747-400 has lower limitations. That would mean at a density altitude of FL230 on a standard day, the 747 classic maxes out at 560kts TAS. That is approximately where 390kias equals .92M. Any lower and the plane could have gone at a higher TAS, any higher and the plane would lose forward velocity from the Mmo limitation. This was figured from an old fashioned E-6B. If somebody has an electronic one, you are more than welcome to refine it. If somebody has the information for the Tu-154, then a factual comparison can be made, otherwise, the discussion is meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll see if I can find something in an old copy of Janes when I get home tonight.

Share this post


Link to post

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!I tried a post last night but it got lost. Now I won't repeat what's already been said, but I can confirm thru experimentation during the last RTW race that the freeware Avanti does best at 28,000 feet plus or minus a few thou- unless wind came strongly into play. The Mach hold did not completely keep me safe from rapid IAS jumps when going from one weather station to another. After engaging autothrottle I usually reduced my joystick axis to zero so I could recover quicker by momentarily deactivating it.It was a bit of trial and error to find optimum altitude each flight, a formula will help a lot. It would also be great to know exactly what conditions affecting MAch exist at the next weather station somehow, ATIS range is rather limited.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

Share this post


Link to post

Kevin,You are of course right. "Red line" clearly does not apply to TAS. I am only referring to aircraft specs as were presented on some aviation forums showing Tu-154 to be faster than 747. I don't even know what is a true metric of aircraft speed - there are so many factors here: IAS, altitude, TAS, fuel flow, etc. If speed differences are in the range of mere 20 kts it all becomes very fuzzy.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

If the docs from Roman Skorykh's FS2000 Tu-154B is accurate and apply to the Tu-154M, then it's limitations are Vmo 355kts IAS (650kph IAS) and Mmo 0.88 Mach. I think the 747-100/200 has it beat by a fair margin. I'm not sure why there was even a question. Maybe somebody in a forum forgot that the numbers the Russians quote are in kilometers per hour.

Share this post


Link to post

VC-10 Vmo is 330kias and Mmo is 0.886 Mach.

Share this post


Link to post

>a question. Maybe somebody in a forum forgot that the numbers>the Russians quote are in kilometers per hour.No, no, I saw them compared side by side in knots, 747 and Tu-154M and the latter was faster by about 20kts (TAS). This was in more than one aviation forums, this topic actually returns every so often. If someone looked it up in Jane's it would settle the issue since I think it is a reputable source. I want to find out the truth myself.EDIT: a simple search on google shows max cruising speed for Tu-154M to be 513 kts (950 km/h) whereas for 747-400 it shows 490 kts for max cruise. Perhaps this is it.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

I believe I already mentioned in a previous post that the 747-400 is a slower aircraft than the classic 747 (ie 747-100/200). The 747-400's limitations are Vmo 355kias and Mmo .88M. The 747-100/200, as previously mentioned, has Vmo 390kias and Mmo .92M. The Tu-154B's limitations are Vmo 355kias and Mmo .886M. 355kias equates to your quoted 513ktas cruise speed at FL230. 490kts for max cruise of the 747-400 sounds like a spun number. It approximates to a .86M cruise at high altitude (-54C), which is the fastest table in the flight planning charts for that plane. So what you found on Google is basically comparing the Vmo number of one airplane to Cost Index 100 of some other plane. An apple to an orange.I know you're a GA guy, so the question I pose is do you get your information for the performance capabilities of the planes that you fly from hardbound coffee table books with pictures and "specifications" sections, or do you determine it from the appropriate sections of the plane's POH? Again, I will say I place little faith in the numbers you can glean from even Jane's All the World's Aircraft. Each of those paragraphs about those planes was most likely not written by an actual pilot or manufacturer of the particular aircraft. For development and production histories, variant differences, and operators, I trust that Jane's and Google can provide accurate information. But for operating limitations of any specific plane....I think you should find that info from a POH or AOM.So, if I haven't said it before...use the plane's manual to make these kind of comparisons. Of course, I don't think anybody that posts on this board actually has stick time in a Tu-154, so we're kind of stuck. But I would be willing to bet that the flight manual information that comes with some of the more serious addons here in flightsim, such as the Skorykh Tu154, Frolov Dash-8, Grabowski E145, Dreamfleet planes, PMDG planes, etc. are pretty reliable considering the time they spent researching the subject, developing and testing. I would personally take the limitations info from those sources over the marketing numbers provided to coffeetable book publishers.

Share this post


Link to post

Like I said before, this is a 'fuzzy' comparison and it may very well be like comparing apples to oranges. I never claimed that Tu-154 was the fastest, I only said this is what you often see stated on "popular" aviation forums. Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post

The only reason this comparison is fuzzy is because people start arguing with each other based on things they read in brief descriptions and brochures or heard on TV. Arguing with each about numbers without having any clue whether or not they are based on relevant or identical assumptions.I don't know how any much more clear cut can the numbers be with the provided information of Vmo and Mmo. The 747-100/200 can achieve a maximum speed through a standard condition airmass at its optimum altitude of 560ktas. The Tu-154B can achieve a maximum speed through a standard condition airmass at its optimum altitude of 530ktas.The 747-100/200 is faster than the Tu-154B.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I love the Avanti also - the FSD version. Unfortunately I could not use the Mach hold in the RTW race because I flew too close to the barber pole. About 10 seconds overspeed and the FSD flight dynamics crash the aircraft.Did most of my flying right on the barberpole with my hand on the throttle ready to pull back if the wind shifted.Re: was most likely not written by an actual pilot or manufacturer of the particular aircraft.I think you'll find most of the information in Jane's was written by the aircraft manufacturer company, or taken from the POH. But remember the manufacturer is in the business of selling aircraft (even on govt contracts) and will naturally emphasize the best possible figures.Even the real world POH is only an approximate - different aircraft fly slightly differently. Certification and POH numbers are for optimal conditions. The POH gives you a better idea of what the real numbers might be like - and almost any aircraft can be flown "slightly" over the VNE for a short time.There was a very interesting article on a flight test of the Citation X in the AOPA magazine about a year ago.Two things stuck in my mind - step climbs to max certified cruise altitude are required - and once at max altitude and max speed - the endurance is only about 30-45 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this