Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 09:43:22 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
Subject: Re: Is it just me, or are airliners slower than they used to be?
From: Andrew Chaplin <ab.chaplin@yourfinger.rogers.com>
References: <atmdnflHdvmgMqDInZ2dnUU7-ImdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Organization: Not if I can help it.
Message-ID: <XnsA48E6D3CB4AECHortenzyFortensnort@216.166.97.131>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 09:43:22 -0500
Lines: 36
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-8sXd0Gvuxkv1aSBRpIup3y5t8JGdLDg/Wv9wl8arBu4IetpqgS/1enJzNOcF9jw/+5KliAxkd5rVdiV!OWNeiSSaBUFyoP+JO2u0Znw3mcwyWG/K1nJmSX8mf+aOmUR+0h8h1AGOlyJ2FdmpmQ0CXqN+6zkp!NzM=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2698
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1448983349
X-Received-Bytes: 3048
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.pictures.aviation:1546
"Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> wrote in
news:atmdnflHdvmgMqDInZ2dnUU7-ImdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
> The average Southwest flight only travels 653 miles for an average of
> one hour and 55 minutes
>
> Fortunately Airbus and Boeing have both remembered how important speed
> is and this is reflected in their latest models where .85 Mach seems to
> be the minimum standard cruise speed.
>
> A lot better than the 'bad old days' of the 737 'Classic' 300, 400 and
> 500 series which crawled along at an agonizing .74 Mach, with their
> accompanying terrible ride in turbulence a long flight into a headwind
> was like cruel and unusual punishment.
>
> That's an interesting datapoint.
>
> I speculate here, but perhaps back in the day the "senior" models (707,
> 747, DC-8) got the more refined "cruise wing", while "junior" models
> like the 737 Jurassic were seen to only do rather short flights where
> higher mach numbers were not seen as important. And so the wing was
> optimized more for shorter runways and less for cruise speeds. And then
> the 737 started doing 4+ hour flights. Aaaarrrgh...
>
> Again, just a thought I'm having. No hard data to support it.
>
> Thankfully nowadays supercritical wing profiles and so forth ensure you
> can get both M0.85 and decent field performance. A far cry from those
> gorgeous, sharp 60s wings like on the DC-8, but it works.
The Convair 880 cruised at .89 Mach and the 990 a little faster, but they
could not compete with Douglas and Boeing.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
|
|