Commercial Jet speed question

SixPapaCharlie

May the force be with you
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
16,070
Display Name

Display name:
Sixer
What determines the speed at which a Jet flies?
So us prop guys fly pretty close to redline en route.

What about Jets?
Is a commercial leg then determined by the type of aircraft?
Like does a 757 go faster than a 737 and so that plane gets picked for longer legs or a pilot hopes to get X type of plane because it can to a trip faster.

Or is it more like most commercial jets will fly mach 1 but we keep them at no more than X and so trip time is not specific to type of aircraft?

Thanks.
 
They're all pretty close actually and it's really more about economy and staying in line. None of them can go Mach 1
 
Weight, altitude, and temperature all contribute to what cruise speed the airplane is capable of flying on a particular day. The wing is designed to be most efficient at a particular range of speeds. Older jets, and those designed for long-haul flying, will have wings designed for somewhat higher cruise speeds. Usually M.80-M.85. Shorter range jets will typically be in the M.75-M.80 range.

As you go higher, or temperature increases, the range of speed choices narrows. Vmo/Mmo is our equivalent to a piston airline's redline though it is never higher than what would be the top of your green arc (Vno). We call it the barber pole as it is a red/white striped needle. The barber pole moves as conditions change so at lower altitudes it will represent Vmo (max speed in KIAS) and at higher altitudes it will represent Mmo (max speed in Mach). Our low-speed buffet (beginning of a stall) speed (KIAS) increases dramatical at altitude and will often be over 200 KIAS. Our Mmo is based, among other things, on our high-speed buffet (high-speed stall from the airflow separation due to the transonic flow over the wing). If we climb too high (for the wing) there isn't enough room between the low and high-speed buffets to have a comfortable margin. This is why on longer flights we'll start out at a lower altitude then step-climb throughout the flight as fuel is burned off.

The speed that we actually fly, within the range of available speeds, will vary based on a cost index. The cost index is entered into the FMS and represents the operator's preference for speed vs. economy. If a flight is running late, or into stronger headwinds, a higher cost index is used which results in a higher cruise mach and higher fuel burn. The operator can also adjust the cost index based on the cost of fuel vs. the other direct operating costs of the flight. This would result in higher speeds when fuel is relatively cheap, to save on maintenance costs, and lower speeds when fuel is expensive, to save on fuel cost.

In the B737 we typically fly around M.78 but are usually capable of M.80. In the B767 we were usually no less than M.80 and sometimes as high as M.82. The DC8 didn't have an FMS to do a cost index calculation. We used M.80 as a long-range cruise and M.82 as a high-speed cruise. The E145 that I commute to/from work on usually comes up with an economy cruise speed around M.67 on the FMS but they typically fly around M.76-M.78.
 
We fly M0.84, which is as slow as the cruise performance tables go. 747SP. Most of the time we land where we took off from, so there is little point in going fast.
 
The "going home" leg is usually the fastest, at least when I flew at the airline it was. If I remember right something like .84, .85 for the CRJ 900. ;):D
 
Last edited:
We fly M0.84, which is as slow as the cruise performance tables go. 747SP. Most of the time we land where we took off from, so there is little point in going fast.
SP is a badass jet as far as performance goes. Fry's is the last one in the US, right?
 
SP is a badass jet as far as performance goes. Fry's is the last one in the US, right?
Maybe the last one sold....

It isn't the last one.

See 747sp.com if you want to know how every last one of them is doing. It shows two in service with N registrations and three more with C registrations. An additional two N registered models are in storage.

Only 12 of these are left in service. Too bad; they really look odd in person. Too short, with oversized control surfaces.
 
Last edited:
From what I have seen stated, Air Force One can come very close to mach 1.0.
 
I seem to remember before the Arab energy crisis, airliners were doing .87 or thereabouts and when Carter implemented his energy conservation agenda, many throttled back to .76.

Larry, I've been .92 in a KC-135A (late for a rendezvous), so if Boeing used the same wing on the 747 that makes sense. Big EPR and big Fuel Flow, but we were certainly hauling the mail.
 
Delta and Delta Connection airlines are using what they 'econ cruise', which supposedly allows a flight to arrive on time but at a slower cruise speed saving fuel. Some of these speeds that the 'puter puts out gets pretty slow. Part of the recent problem at SkyWest where the FAA put restrictions on CRJs. Not singling SkyWest out here, just pointing out if one isn't careful getting too slow in a jet bad things can happen.
 
Just trivia, but I recall hearing a DC8 exceeded Mach 1, at altitude, diving. Not at cruise, and not in commercial opearation with pax; some test or pub stunt back in the day. I could be wrong. . .
 
A 747SP got oversped, inverted and diving. No idea if it was supersonic, but it was fast enough to rip the tips off the elevator and tweak all the engine nacelles.

China Airlines 006. Insane CF, lost 30,000 feet in something like 20 seconds, thinking all the engines flamed out, when in reality only one did.
 
Go home leg or overnight leg the cost index gets ignored. It's a known operational "procedure". Typically the cost index wants us at .68. Go home leg is typically around .78.
 
The E145 that I commute to/from work on usually comes up with an economy cruise speed around M.67 on the FMS but they typically fly around M.76-M.78.

Yeah and I bet you know how close to the red line that might or might not be... ;)
 
Go home leg or overnight leg the cost index gets ignored. It's a known operational "procedure". Typically the cost index wants us at .68. Go home leg is typically around .78.
.68 has to feel painfully slow. I have started to think .80 is a bit slow.
 
.83-.84 is the sweet spot for the 777.

Unless someone has a tight commute. Then it's .85. That will knock off a few minutes on a 14hr flight.
 
.68 has to feel painfully slow. I have started to think .80 is a bit slow.

It feels like your a snail. It's funny how your perception of time vs. speed changes. I'll actually catch myself looking at my watch.
 
.83-.84 is the sweet spot for the 777.

Unless someone has a tight commute. Then it's .85. That will knock off a few minutes on a 14hr flight.
This clears up a question I had. We were coming across the Atlantic at .84 which is slow (usually .88) and got passed very slowly by a 777. I didn't know the 777 liked to go that fast on long legs.
 
It feels like your a snail. It's funny how your perception of time vs. speed changes. I'll actually catch myself looking at my watch.
I dread long distances commuting on a 737. Its not exactly the fastest thing in the sky. The seating isn't that great for 3+ hrs either. Unless you get the exit row seat without a seat in front of you.
 
I dread long distances commuting on a 737. Its not exactly the fastest thing in the sky. The seating isn't that great for 3+ hrs either. Unless you get the exit row seat without a seat in front of you.

I actually can't stand sitting in the back now. I use to love it as an actual passenger. Now I make sure I have enough movies or tv shows to fill up my entire commute.

Most of my commutes to EWR were via Delta 88s and DC9s. So I could watch their personal device entertainment plus I know how to back door the internet via a glitch. Connecting via Houston really sucks because it's a good three and half hour flight in a 737. I really liked Atlanta because it splits the trip into two 1.5 hour flights, if not a little less. Either way double legging commute is death...
 
Whatever....
There are many engineering things that dictate how fast an airplane will go.
There are also, at times, restrictions set forth by the company (either cost index that was mentioned, or general policy)

I flew the fastest civilian airplane in existence, and I flew it balls to the wall.
 
Whatever....
There are many engineering things that dictate how fast an airplane will go.
There are also, at times, restrictions set forth by the company (either cost index that was mentioned, or general policy)

I flew the fastest civilian airplane in existence, and I flew it balls to the wall.
Fastest when? There was a period of time when the fastest civilian aircraft would only do like 30kts ;-)
 
Just trivia, but I recall hearing a DC8 exceeded Mach 1, at altitude, diving. Not at cruise, and not in commercial opearation with pax; some test or pub stunt back in the day. I could be wrong. . .
It was an intentional supersonic flight.

http://www.airspacemag.com/history-...hen-the-dc-8-went-supersonic-27846699/?no-ist


Yeah and I bet you know how close to the red line that might or might not be... ;)
I am checked out on both the slam-latch and the operation of the aft F/A seat!

I dread long distances commuting on a 737. Its not exactly the fastest thing in the sky.
Not the fastest, not the slowest. M.77-M.78 is normal. M.80 is usually doable.
 
Who decides the speed for a particular leg? Is it the dispatchers that put the basic plan together and then the folks up front decide to follow or modify for whatever reason (weather, late leaving the gate, etc...)? How much leeway does a pilot get before they get the "talking too" from the company? Interested to know what goes on behind the curtain... :)

Cheers,
Brian
 
So you flew the Concorde? :rolleyes:
The Concorde was not a flying airplane at the time. It was retired. I thought most here would understand that without spelling it out.
 
Fastest when? There was a period of time when the fastest civilian aircraft would only do like 30kts ;-)
LOL!! Exactly.... Timeframe makes a difference.

Let's say the fastest civilian airplane in 2010.
 
Who decides the speed for a particular leg? Is it the dispatchers that put the basic plan together and then the folks up front decide to follow or modify for whatever reason (weather, late leaving the gate, etc...)? How much leeway does a pilot get before they get the "talking too" from the company? Interested to know what goes on behind the curtain... :)

Typically dispatch, and the various speeds will be listed on the flight plan. My airplane is a little different in that we use a standard profile, while other airplanes fly a cost index. The calculations that go into the cost index are pretty interesting - do a little googling and you can learn all about it.

At my company, I won't hear a thing if I fly speeds other than what's profiled/dispatched. We're not *supposed* to stray from the profile unless ATC directed, even if behind schedule. That said, I'm not flying 14 hour legs either. When flying a 3 hour leg, the difference between .78 and .80 (for example) is pretty minimal. So most of us just fly the profile. Nobody seems to care if we stray, though. Well, perhaps if it puts us in a fuel emergency or if we divert they will, but otherwise it's no biggie. ;)
 
The Concorde was not a flying airplane at the time. It was retired. I thought most here would understand that without spelling it out.

You didn't specify when you flew this fast airplane "balls to the wall" so that's on you. Now you're saying 2010 so I'd go with the X too.
 
You didn't specify when you flew this fast airplane "balls to the wall" so that's on you. Now you're saying 2010 so I'd go with the X too.
Yup... There was a brief time when the G650 took the speed title from the X, but I believe Cessna took care of that.
 
As some others have said the company plans the flight a certain way using cost index speeds, this depends on weight, fuel, winds, altitude, etc. I fly the CRJ-200/700/900 often times our econ speeds in the FL's are generally around 270-300 indicated until we transition to mach when we generally see .72-.81 as the econ numbers (TAS's generally in the mid 400's ktas range). the Aircraft itself is capable of .85 (.82 in RVSM airspace) so if we have to fly fast and get back on time, so long as we have the fuel we can do it. Those are just general numbers and I've seen cruise indicated speeds/mach numbers higher or lower than the average. Flying fast isn't always the best/what we look for. At my airline we are paid scheduled block or better so if the flight is scheduled at 1 hour, i get the same pay if it takes 35 minutes, or an hour, but if it takes 1 hour and 10 minutes i now get paid an hour an 10 minutes so some pilots may fly a little faster/some may fly a little slower, some fly the planned econ speed. As long as the last day of my trip ends on time and I am able to make my commute I'm happy, as far as the middle days go I'm at work anyway so not like flying extra fast would benefit me. My goal is to get the passengers there on time, If we are running a little late I will absolutely speed it up (fuel and safety permitting) to help try and get them back on time to make it to their connection etc.
 
We fly a speed that mixes range and speed. Found in our performance manual just like any other plane. We fly 250 below 10k then accelerate and climb at 330. We maintain 330 until the Mach gets to about .83 then climb/cruise at that. If we have a bit more gas we will go up to about .85 or if we need to conserve gas we will run the number to find our long range cruise speed. Once we get above a certain altitude(too tired and don't remember off the top of my head) we transition from flying KIAS to flying Mach values.
 
Yeah and I bet you know how close to the red line that might or might not be... ;)
On our steam gauge airspeed indicator we call that game, "Hide the barber pole"
 
Back
Top