Hacker News Reader

Comment by RcouF1uZ4gsC | Hacker News Reader

>The fastest transatlantic crossing belongs to BA Concorde, which flew from New York to London in two hours 52 minutes and 59 seconds in 1996 - hitting a top speed of 1,350 mph.

That was the fastest commercial flight. The fastest transatlantic crossing by an aircraft was the SR-71 in 1974:

1 hour 55 minutes Average speed over 1800 mph

https://tacairnet.com/2015/09/02/the-sr-71s-record-breaking-...

View on HN

> 1 hour 55 minutes Average speed over 1800 mph

It felt weird that my first reaction was to wonder what took so long. For some reason I was thinking that surely the Blackbird could make the crossing about 60 minutes faster than listed.

Looking at a map, I saw that the air line distance from Fortaleza to Dakar is just over 1,900 miles though. So I'm thinking "transatlantic" must mean more than my own basic definition. (Plus I don't know if these locations would have enough runway for the SR-71, or if the reason we haven't heard of faster is because US taxpayers aren't footing the gas bill to arrange a shorter route)

The blackbirds have to show down to refuel.

Slow*

Not necessarily. The SR-71's range was 3250 miles, which is ~10% less than the NYC to LHR distance. It might encroach bingo fuel, but maybe not. If they refilled to completely full in New York, they could either refill or land once reaching the London area.

> Slow*

I do enjoy the idea of a mid-air transatlantic showdown for fuel though.

I don't understand. Are you saying they refueled over the Atlantic while setting this record?

The link posted by @RcouF1uZ4gsC contains a graphic that shows a 'refuel' point over the mid-Atlantic and the linked article says this:

> ...it needed a minimum of one in-flight refueling, thanks to the astonishing amount of fuel it consumed while in afterburner. ... Having already surged across the Atlantic in a sustained supersonic cruise at speeds in excess of Mach 2.5-2.6 ... Sullivan began a descent that would bring him to the only refueling point of their mission. After tanking up, the duo climbed away and once again nudged the throttles ahead. The time taken up by the in-flight refueling was deemed virtually negligible when the Blackbird flew through the London gates.

So, according to the linked article from @RcouF1uZ4gsC, yes, the record time included one refuel during the NY to London route.

Most long distance Blackbird flights involved taking off at low fuel weights, then refueling shortly after take off. So yes, the record probably involved refueling over the Atlantic.

They refilled immediately after takeoff.

Then, if they got a full tank of JP-7 around NYC, that gives them a one-way range of 3250 miles, which is less than the 2999 nautical miles of LGA -> LHR. The SR-71's range is a hair over 3200 nautical miles. Getting a full tank of the special JP-7 or landing around LHR would be do or die time, because that would be just about bingo fuel.

Is the 3200nm range while at cruising speed or for max speed? The link mentioned it was in afterburner for a long period.

They're approximately the same speed.

If you read the article, you will see that this is about flying between New York and London.

I did read the article:

"The fastest transatlantic crossing belongs to BA Concorde, which flew from New York to London in two hours 52 minutes and 59 seconds in 1996 - hitting a top speed of 1,350 mph."

PSA: If you don't want people to quote HN guidelines, please don't assume they haven't read the article. Thanks.

It looks like this is not the fastest commercial flight but the fastest subsonic flight. The Blackbird and Concord records you are talking about are a different category.

The Concorde was definitely supersonic. That was the whole point of the aircraft to enable commercial supersonic travel.

It's weird to see people continuing to argue about this, when the article itself makes pretty clear that this is about the subsonic record. Concorde and Blackbird are completely irrelevant. Of course they're faster, but that's not the point.

The entire reason a subsonic flight could go at speeds normally only possible to supersonic aircraft, is because of the speed of the jet stream driven by Ciara. The plane is flying at subsonic speeds within a moving pocket of air that adds quite a lot to that speed. That's the interesting part about this story.

Indeed, the airspeed/groundspeed distinction continues to confuse people. The plane still moves at subsonic speed, as that's w/r/t surrounding air.

I think there was some confusion on what the "this" keyword is referencing in the comment (one of the reasons I hate it in code :))

We must put a stop to performance enhancing storms! /s

TL;DR: Rocket plane: hold my beer

A rocket-powered plane vaguely similar to the X-15 could cut that to about ½ to 1/3 the time. That would likely require a space suit, an RCS, ablative coatings and exotic materials. Ejection seat?: good luck with that over mach 3.

a ballistic flight could do that distance in 30 minutes. musk wants to commercialize spacex's new big rocket - aptly named "starship" - in that way. we'll see if he can get over environmental concerns, the noise during takeoff will be life threatening.

The Kerbal player in me has a tentative solution: add a first stage for takeoff assists made of jet engines, not rocket engines. It would still be noisy, but perhaps not that noisy; after boosting it to some sensible altitude, the stage would detach and Starship's rockets would take over. The jet engine stage would of course be recoverable (parachutes, or it could fly itself back like a drone, because why not).

You mean this [1]?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipTwo

Reply on news.ycombinator.com