Fastest Civil aircraft

[Guest]

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

[Guest Shalomar]

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

[michal 44]

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

[KevinAu 441]

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.

[KevinAu 441]

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

[michal 44]

>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

[KevinAu 441]

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.

[michal 44]

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.

[KevinAu 441]

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.

[RFields5421 1]

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.

[KevinAu 441]

>>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.>When you read a coffeetable book giving you some "maximum cruise speed" number and what not, you really have no idea what that number represents. Is it the fastest cruise speed? Is it the fastest economical cruise speed? Is it the fastest the plane can actually go? Is it Mmo at optimal altitude? Is it Mmo at normal cruising altitude? You don't know which. The only way to tell how fast something is approved to go is to look at the Limitations section of that aircraft's manual.>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.>The Limitations in the POH/AOM are not approximate. Vmo is Vmo. Mmo is Mmo. Vne is Vne. We're not talking about how fast a "new" plane can go versus how fast an "old" plane can go on new or overhauled engines. We're not talking about how a test pilot flies it versus how you would fly it. We're simply talking about the limitations of a plane. Which one has the highest limitation. That's all.Also, no aircraft can be flown past their limitations. To do that would be "illegal". Planes are built to "survive" limited excursions past their published limitations...but not to be flown "slightly" over them. Seriously, do you actually fly your Cessna 172 "slightly" past her Vne?

[Guest Shalomar]

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!I know how complicated it can get, that is why my question was so limited: Maximum mach. I consider it the best yardstick because to me, as long as you are willing to fly lower but still high enough so VNE is not a problem, you can make full use of your mach. Also, higher mach restrictions are more useful than high indicated airspeed especially in the US- can't do more than 250 below 10,000 anyway.A jet with higher mach restrictions can always fly faster than one with a lower one at the same altitude and conditions, assuming both are able to get full MMO.No, economy isn't one of my considerations for this thread...I have never flown the payware, but I actually think the freeware Avanti is a better choice for the race. From the review, you can't use autopikot in climbs or descents. I set the mach hold to a low enough number (forget exactly) that I could engage autopilot, 2900 FPM VSI, autothrottle and Mach hold soon after gear up. I acelerated according to a schedule, reaching mach .69 eventually- if I had room on the barber pole or if it looked like I would overspeed I adjusted cruising altitude.The only times I ever had overspeed breakups was when I reset mach to get me back below overspeed. I was always fine by shutting off autothrottle with my joystick set back to zero throttle right after engaging it. Then keep speed from dropping too much by manual throttle, reset mach and reengage the hold.Dial back and slowed to .65 just before descent on a 3 to one path, kept an eye on the barber pole keeping it within a few needle widths.Could never get the IAS hold to work, but the mach was useful right down to the aproach.I enjoy the handflying experience, but in race conditions applying the lower workload more autopilot modes being active gives you to situational awareness is the way to go IMO.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

[Guest jboweruk]

Boeing 727 = 0.95 still in service mostly with cargo hauliers. DHL/UPS etc.BTW according to Janes the 747-400 only gets mach 0.88777 mach 0.89md11 0.945Even the Citation X only does 0.91So I guess the 727 has it then......

[Staffan 12]

This topic has been discussed over and over again. ;-)It still remains that in fact it is the TU 154M which is the fastest civilian aircraft flying today. :-hahFly safe,http://www.scandicair.com/images/as_banner.jpg

[michal 44]

>This topic has been discussed over and over again. ;-)Yeah, but mostly by people who know little about flying except reading some aviation magazines. I tend to agree with what KevinAu (airline pilot) writes above.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg