# Fastest airliner in the world (besides concorde)



## thunder head

This is one topic that is never though off, What is the fastest commercial airliner in the world besides Concorde? I know for sure that the Convair 990 had a cruising speed of Mach 0.9 and was regarded as the world's fastest airliner at the time but that is out of service now. 

WHile flying in a Boeing 777-200ER from Vienna to Melbourne, it maintained a ground speed of 1132 km/h for approx 15 minutes in a tailwind, and above 1000km/h for several hours.

so any commerical airliner flown faster on a scheduled service and what airliner has the fastest average cruise speed?


----------



## BOLSCHOI

Fastest airliner in the world was russian TU-144. . A prototype first flew on December 31, 1968 near Moscow, two months before the Concorde. 

Airline: Aeroflot
Power source: 4 Kuznetsov NK-144 turbofans of 196 kN afterburning thrust 
*Maximum cruising speed: 2345-2500km/h (Mach 2.5) *
Operational ceiling: 18,000 m 
Range with maximum payload: 6,500 km 
Empty weight: 85,000 kg 
Maximum take-off weight: 180,000 kg 
Span: 28.80 m 
Length: 65.50 m 
Crew: 3 
Passengers: 120 
Wing area: 438 m²


----------



## luv2bebrown

thunder head said:


> WHile flying in a Boeing 777-200ER from Vienna to Melbourne, it maintained a ground speed of 1132 km/h for approx 15 minutes in a tailwind, and above 1000km/h for several hours.


i was on a KLM 747-300 at 1160km/h. unless my math is wrong, isnt that faster than the speed of sound?


----------



## Kai Tak

Ground speed and air speed are two different things. You both probably experienced substantial tailwinds (which is common) and thus were able to significantly increase ground speed.

True the speed of sound at crusing altitudes is roughly 1062 kph. But something tells me you weren't actually breaking the sound barrier. You would've noticed it too.


----------



## Kai Tak

I miss the Tupolev 144. Fastest commercial aircraft ever built! Go Russia! :cheers:


----------



## thunder head

Kai Tak said:


> Ground speed and air speed are two different things. You both probably experienced substantial tailwinds (which is common) and thus were able to significantly increase ground speed.
> 
> True the speed of sound at crusing altitudes is roughly 1062 kph. But something tells me you weren't actually breaking the sound barrier. You would've noticed it too.


Yeah those speeds are possible ONLY with a tailwind! Because of the tailwind, the Indicated Airspeed of the aircraft is still around Mach 0.85 thus within safe operable limits at the 1100km/h plus groundspeed we were experiencing, but if there was no tailwind, that would actually be supersonic, probably around Mach 1.1 at 35,000ft so in theory we were cruising at supersonic speed


----------



## Monkey

@Bolshoi
Corcordski was a poor copy and insufficiently tested. She was rushed into flight before she was ready in order to "beat" Concorde, crashed soon afterwards, and the programme was promptly abandoned. Now see the real incomparable thing - one of the most beautiful creations of mankind....


----------



## nicksanderson

Not as quick as Concorde and Concordski - the DC8 went supersonic during testing click here! and I was on a A320 that had a massive tailwind and the pilot announced that we were travelling in excess of 700mph!


----------



## thunder head

How the hell did they get the DC-8 up to 52,000ft? :eek2:


----------



## Effer

Those are some very fast planes!


----------



## The Boy David

Mmmmmmmmmmmm.... Concorde........... Many will try, most will fail.

Concorde was (still should be) the pinnicle of aviation.

For me it always will be.


----------



## Kai Tak

Monkey said:


> @Bolshoi
> Corcordski was a poor copy and insufficiently tested. She was rushed into flight before she was ready in order to "beat" Concorde, crashed soon afterwards, and the programme was promptly abandoned. Now see the real incomparable thing - one of the most beautiful creations of mankind....


I thought the Tu-144 crash at the Paris Airshow was caused by a French spyplane.


----------



## Wezza

I'm pretty sure the 747 is the fastest commercial airliner currently in service? It has alot to do with it's highly swept wing design compared to most other airliners flying today.

Someone mentioned the Convair 990, it was considered the sports car of the skies when it first came into service. Pity there are none flying anymore. There are plans to restore a Convair 880 to flying condition, hope it happens, they were a great looking aircraft.


----------



## Monkey

Kai Tak said:


> I thought the Tu-144 crash at the Paris Airshow was caused by a French spyplane.


That was probably a Russian excuse. Actually they screwed up the software in order to "outperform" Concorde and the plane went beyond its envelope and crashed. Soon afterwards another Tu-144 crash landed (the crew were killed) shortly before entering passenger service. It was a poor and insufficiently tested copy made possible by the Russians spying on the Concorde programme. By contrast a BA pilot, interviewed as Concorde was being retired, said that Concorde had been so extensively tested, and was so aerodynamically perfect, that he could take her off autopilot and control the stick with his little finger even at Mach 2.2 and 60,000 feet high. He could clearly see the curvature of the earth at the edge of space. He would look down and see the small Jumbos far below trundling across the Atlantic and disappearing rapidly behind. His description was so evocative....


----------



## CharlieP

Monkey said:


> @Bolshoi
> Corcordski was a poor copy and insufficiently tested. She was rushed into flight before she was ready in order to "beat" Concorde, crashed soon afterwards, and the programme was promptly abandoned. Now see the real incomparable thing - one of the most beautiful creations of mankind....


Did I ever mention that I've flown at Mach 2 on Concorde?


----------



## Nephasto

Cruising speed for some major airliners:

Boeing 737 : Mach 0.79
Boeing 767: Mach 0.80
Boeing 777: Mach 0.84
Boeing 747: Mach 0.85
Boeing 787: (will be) Mach 0.85

Airbus A330: Mach 0.82
Airbus A340-200/300: Mach 0.82
Airbus A340-500/600: Mach 0.83
Airbus A380: Mach 0.85


----------



## Desven

Monkey said:


> @Bolshoi
> Corcordski was a poor copy


yes,it was a poor copy but it was still faster than the concorde!


----------



## Kai Tak

Monkey said:


> That was probably a Russian excuse. Actually they screwed up the software in order to "outperform" Concorde and the plane went beyond its envelope and crashed. Soon afterwards another Tu-144 crash landed (the crew were killed) shortly before entering passenger service.


I think both are true, the software malfunction and the spyplane, I remember watching a show on TV about it, and they mentioned yes the spyplane was there.

True, the second crash didn't help things either. Overall the oil embargo killed SSTs, which is really really sad. That's why I think the A380 is the next best solution. If you can't get there any faster, at least make the journey more comfortable and plesant.


----------



## Wezza

Nephasto said:


> Cruising speed for some major airliners:
> 
> Boeing 737 : Mach 0.79
> Boeing 767: Mach 0.80
> Boeing 777: Mach 0.84
> Boeing 747: Mach 0.85
> Boeing 787: (will be) Mach 0.85
> 
> Airbus A330: Mach 0.82
> Airbus A340-200/300: Mach 0.82
> Airbus A340-500/600: Mach 0.83
> Airbus A380: Mach 0.85


I didn't think the A380 was going to have a cruise speed equal to the 747?


----------



## Nephasto

^But it is.


----------

