Can strong jet stream push Boeing 777 supersonic?

Status
Not open for further replies.
By definition it can't--air speed would remain constant. However ground speed would be much faster. Supersonic though? I'm not sure how fast high altitude winds are, but they would probably need to be at least 300 mph. I dunno--that's an interesting question for sure!
 
Groundspeeds exceeding the speed of sound are not that uncommon in commercial operations eastbound with a healthy tailwind.
Doesn't matter how heavily the aircraft is loaded, and the pax and bags load is only a fraction of the useful load anyway, since most of that consists of fuel.
The aircraft cannot achieve airspeeds exceeding the mach.
It wasn't intended to and would not be controllable.
The speed of sound declines as air density declines with altitude. Any civil aircraft is limited in the percentage of the mach it can operate at. Other than Concorde, no civil aircraft can achieve airspeeds of more than mach .92 or so.
There are civil aircraft that have enough power to exceed their maximum operating percentage of the mach in level flight at altitude.
The early Lear comes to mind.
A well-known illegal mod to these aircraft was the "go fast switch", which let the crew turn off the overspeed warning horn.
All was well until something upset the aircraft, in whch case things quickly went very badly unless the crew were very good and very lucky.
There is some margin above the MMO of any civil aircraft.
It's there as a safety reserve, not as an inducement for a crew to explore the area beyond a type's certification limits.
Having written all of the above, the big gain with a light 77W would be in rate of climb, but this is true of any large transport.
If the aircraft is really light and fueled for only a short flight, it can attain truly awesome rates of climb.
 
Originally Posted By: AlaskaMike
By definition it can't--air speed would remain constant. However ground speed would be much faster. Supersonic though? I'm not sure how fast high altitude winds are, but they would probably need to be at least 300 mph. I dunno--that's an interesting question for sure!


Yep ... if the plane was going 500 MPH inside of a 300 MPH jet stream, then the ground speed would be 800 MPH, which at sea level is faster than the speed of sound. So I guess in a case like that it would be going faster than the speed of sound on the ground, but not in the air and would not be causing a sonic boom.
 
Nope. It is like a canoe going downstream; the current adds to the total speed, but the speed of the canoe through the water is the same as it would be in still water.
 
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Nope. It is like a canoe going downstream; the current adds to the total speed, but the speed of the canoe through the water is the same as it would be in still water.
An aircraft flying at 500 MPH with a 300 MPH tailwind will pass a point on the ground at MORE than the speed of sound.
So would the canoe if the river is fast enough and you paddle hard enough.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27

Having written all of the above, the big gain with a light 77W would be in rate of climb, but this is true of any large transport.
If the aircraft is really light and fueled for only a short flight, it can attain truly awesome rates of climb.


Boeing dose their widebody painting in Portland. It's always a sight to see when a 77W uses less runway than the Q400 ahead of it, the rate of climb is pretty phenomenal when they fly back to Everett!
 
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Nope. It is like a canoe going downstream; the current adds to the total speed, but the speed of the canoe through the water is the same as it would be in still water.
An aircraft flying at 500 MPH with a 300 MPH tailwind will pass a point on the ground at MORE than the speed of sound.
So would the canoe if the river is fast enough and you paddle hard enough.


True. However in your example there would be no sonic boom from the aircraft, as it is not traveling through the air at supersonic airspeed as OP specified.
 
The speed of sound changes with temperature, a little bit with humidity, but not with air pressure.
Altitude is only a casual factor, in that higher altitude typically has lower air temperature.
 
Last edited:
fdcg27, that is an excellent explanation. The required power to increase speed go up exponentially to the speed increase. This is a consequence of the increase in drag.

But rate of climb is almost linear, with drop in weight, or an increase in power.

Beechcraft had a spate of V tailed Bonanzas losing their tails 30 years ago. After much testing and inspection, the conclusion was that the aircraft involved had exceeded Vne (Never exceed speed). This generally happened when the pilot lost control, and entered a spiral, with gravity driving the speed increase.

Not a surprise, as the nickname for these aircraft is/was "V tailed Doctor killer". They attracted pilots who were more confident than their experience warranted.

To allay fears about the V tailed design, they also tested the similar planform with a conventional tail. The good news......The tails did not fail on the conventional tails. The bad news.......The wings came off, at just about the same percentage of speed in excess of Vne as that which took the tails off the V tails. The laws of physics are not just a suggestion.
 
A sonic boom is percieved by an individual (or your windows) as shock waves pass over you that are generated by the airframe of an aircraft transitioning or flying faster than the speed of sound . (Yes, that's a very non-technical explaination.) These shock waves are a function of moving through the air. There is no connection or relationship to the ground, other than a separate measurement as to how fast you are passing by the ground. We make multiple measurements of speed in an aircraft. In this case, Mach is your speed relative to the speed of sound. The airliner you sit in might be doing mach .81, which is 81% the speed of sound at that altitude. Fighter aircraft might accelerate to mach 1.5, which is 1.5 times the speed of sound at their altitude. At the same time, those aircraft are measuring their True Airspeed (tas), Indicated Airspeed (ias), Ground Speed (gs) along with other variations such as Calibrated Airspeed (cas).

Everything the airplane is experiencing is in relation to the "body" or in the case of the jetstream for our purposes here, the "river" of air it is passing through. Drag, friction with its associated heat rise, lift, ability to make thrust.


If you fly east through the core of the jetstream, you may be in a "river" of air moving east at, say, 100 knots. If your true airspeed is 450 knots, then when you add the 100 knots of the jetstream, you have a speed over the ground or ground speed of 550 knots. Do a 180 degree turn and go the opposite direction west through that same jetstream. You have the same true airspeed of 450 knots. You also have the same body of air in which you are flying moving the opposite direction, east, at 100 knots. 450-100 gives you a ground speed of 350 knots. You are flying at 450 knots, but moving across the ground towards your destination at 350 knots. This is why airline flight times west-bound are generally higher than east-bound times, especially in the winter when jetstream speeds are significantly higher.

As you fly back and forth across the country at 450 knots in this hypothetical, you also read your mach number, which is, just for example, mach .78, or 78% the speed of sound. At this mach, the airframe is generating various shock waves. These shock waves are not generating the "boom" that reaches the ground as in a supersonic aircraft. These shock waves are not affected by the jetstream being on our tail and increasing the ground speed or the jetstream being on our nose and decreasing the ground speed. The shock waves remain the same because we are flying through a body of air at .78 mach. The ground speed is irrelevent. A huge tailwind in the jetstream will create a fantastic groundspeed, but it will not create a sonic boom because the airframe is "only" making the shock waves that result from a mach of .78.

As was previously stated, a canoe being paddled at 2 mph downstream in a river flowing at 2 mph is going to pass the bank of the river at 4 mph. Turn the canoe around, paddle at 2 mph and you have zero relative movement to the bank in a river flowing at 2 mph. Increase your paddling to 3 mph and you begin to pass the bank at 1 mph. Same concepts, one is water, one is air.
 
A simple tailwind versus headwind visual aid...

6a.jpg
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 72te27
Mr. Nice,
You're welcome. Sorry it's a little convoluted.
I fly the mighty Airbus A-300. : )
mighty ??? this is MIGHTY !!! Arg. [ posted with all due respect and humor]
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: 72te27
Mr. Nice,
You're welcome. Sorry it's a little convoluted.
I fly the mighty Airbus A-300. : )
mighty ??? this is MIGHTY !!! Arg. [ posted with all due respect and humor]
Lol. Couldn't agree more. I flew the Classic 747 and the 200's for 11 years. Got to fly the back, right and left seats. Love that airplane.
 
Interestingly enough, it seems there are reports that the fastest corporate jets today have, in testing, slightly exceeded M1, at least in local area flow. Both the Cessna Citation X (10) and the Gulfstream G650 are said to have exceeded M1 in a dive. This was done for certification purposes. There were even reports of a G550 reaching M1.07 in a dive.

Not with me onboard, thanks...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top