Fastest trans-Atlantic Concorde flight question
Discussion
I've been trying to find out the time of the fastest trans-Atlantic crossing made by Concorde. So far I have turned-up suggestions that it was a flight from London to New York in 2hr 52m. My experience of trans-Atlantic flight is that it's noticeably quicker from the US to the UK, due to the direction of high-altitude air currents, so how come the fastest Concorde flight was in the opposite direction?
Weather (including winds which are a result of pressure and temperature differentials modified by the Geostrophic Effect) occurs in the part of the atmosphere known as the Troposphere. The top of this is known as the Tropopause and (while it does vary with air temperature/density being higher at the equator and lower at the Poles) this is around 40,000ft. Get above this, as Concorde did, and you are above the weather.
fergywales said:
Would the route flown out of JFK not have an impact on the west-east flight time?
Most transatlantic flights follow 'North Atlantic Tracks' which vary each day depending on where the jetstreams are. Concorde was different and followed fixed tracks as in the stratosphere it was above these jetstreams and most convective weather. The airflow in the stratosphere over the north Atlantic is still from the west at Concorde cruising levels though. Many airliners and biz jets cross the North Atlantic in the Stratosphere as the tropopause varies.Edited by el stovey on Thursday 21st April 14:21
TurboSam said:
The fastest Concorde crossing was from JFK - LHR (so west to east) in 1996. 2hrs 52 minutes.
Going east to west takes a bit longer, even at 60,000ft!
In 3 hours hasn't the Earth spun 1/8th of a revolution. Must help the flight times in one direction and hinder it in the other. Or am I having a blonde moment? Going east to west takes a bit longer, even at 60,000ft!
55allgold said:
TurboSam said:
The fastest Concorde crossing was from JFK - LHR (so west to east) in 1996. 2hrs 52 minutes.
Going east to west takes a bit longer, even at 60,000ft!
In 3 hours hasn't the Earth spun 1/8th of a revolution. Must help the flight times in one direction and hinder it in the other. Or am I having a blonde moment? Going east to west takes a bit longer, even at 60,000ft!
When you jump straight up, do you land in a different spot due to the earth rotating under your feet?
Eric Mc said:
55allgold said:
TurboSam said:
The fastest Concorde crossing was from JFK - LHR (so west to east) in 1996. 2hrs 52 minutes.
Going east to west takes a bit longer, even at 60,000ft!
In 3 hours hasn't the Earth spun 1/8th of a revolution. Must help the flight times in one direction and hinder it in the other. Or am I having a blonde moment? Going east to west takes a bit longer, even at 60,000ft!
When you jump straight up, do you land in a different spot due to the earth rotating under your feet?
Getragdogleg said:
Eric Mc said:
55allgold said:
TurboSam said:
The fastest Concorde crossing was from JFK - LHR (so west to east) in 1996. 2hrs 52 minutes.
Going east to west takes a bit longer, even at 60,000ft!
In 3 hours hasn't the Earth spun 1/8th of a revolution. Must help the flight times in one direction and hinder it in the other. Or am I having a blonde moment? Going east to west takes a bit longer, even at 60,000ft!
When you jump straight up, do you land in a different spot due to the earth rotating under your feet?
el stovey said:
Getragdogleg said:
Eric Mc said:
55allgold said:
TurboSam said:
The fastest Concorde crossing was from JFK - LHR (so west to east) in 1996. 2hrs 52 minutes.
Going east to west takes a bit longer, even at 60,000ft!
In 3 hours hasn't the Earth spun 1/8th of a revolution. Must help the flight times in one direction and hinder it in the other. Or am I having a blonde moment? Going east to west takes a bit longer, even at 60,000ft!
When you jump straight up, do you land in a different spot due to the earth rotating under your feet?
Although at what point does it become a factor ?
55allgold said:
TurboSam said:
The fastest Concorde crossing was from JFK - LHR (so west to east) in 1996. 2hrs 52 minutes.
Going east to west takes a bit longer, even at 60,000ft!
In 3 hours hasn't the Earth spun 1/8th of a revolution. Must help the flight times in one direction and hinder it in the other. Or am I having a blonde moment? Going east to west takes a bit longer, even at 60,000ft!
otherman said:
I guess if it goes at 1000mph west to east on the equator its total speed viewed from a stationary point in space would be zero.
Either 0mph or 2,000mph depending on whether its flying east or west.Haven't worked out north or south. Probably a curve, which would involve angular velocity and then you need calculus. Probably. But it might be a way you can go faster than the speed of light. Fly north at c and get c+0.1, oh yes.
Orbits are great aren't they. You just need some mass to make gravity, and a bit of speed to start it all going. Pretty much perpetual motion.
It may be possible to make a car engine on the same theme using material from a neutron star... which I admit is proving a sticking point as nowhere seems to sell it.
It may be possible to make a car engine on the same theme using material from a neutron star... which I admit is proving a sticking point as nowhere seems to sell it.
sebdangerfield said:
But then the Earth orbits the Sun at about 66,000 MPH and the Sun orbits the centre of the Milky Way at about 490,000 MPH so are we ever really moving? The murky world of space time and from Concords to Einstein's theory of relativity in a few posts, got to love pistonheads!
Speed is relative to where you are standing! 
sebdangerfield said:
A rather Ralph Wiggamesque post Craigy but yes, yes it is! 
Then when Officer Dibble pulls me up for 'speeding' I shall tell him that as far as I was concerned I was stationary, and that if he would trouble himself to catch some burglars it would be of greater value to society...Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff