Interesting or unusual planes?

[Mr Larrington]

Some variety of elderly executive jet, shorn of wings and tailplane, sitting on a low-loader in a lay-by where the northbound A3 meets the M25,

[Andrij]

DSC_0942.NEF by Andrij, on Flickr
Viewed from Heathrow, T2.

[TimC]

Been rather forlornly sat there for many years now. Was originally supposed to be placed outside T5; dunno what happened to that plan. Now we get to sit next door to it whenever we're waiting to take off from 27L. It always prompts the comment from junior FOs, 'I didn't realise Concorde was so small!'.

[T42]

When we lived north of Paris we were right under the flightpath of Concorde, in and out of Roissy, ~30k away.  The roar as she went over was very distinctive, much deeper and louder than the 747s and other hoi polloi.  We never tired of it.

[pcolbeck]

I have idly wondered what a Concorde based on the same design but using 21st century composite materials and modern avionics would be like. It was designed back in the 60s after all. They could shave a load of weight off and engine technology must be a lot more efficient by now.

[TimC]

There are a couple of candidates, but the issue of a sonic boom overland is still contentious. The designs being considered have a much-reduced shockwave, but it can't be eliminated. Politicians killed Concorde as a commercial prospect by refusing to accept supersonic transits over their territory; there's no evidence that a new supersonic transport would get an easier ride. That leaves oceanic travel as the only real prospect, and the market size for such an aeroplane is likely to be very small. Since the 1960s, airliners have actually got slower in the pursuit of economy - the VC10s, 707s and Convair 880s of the 60s would cruise at about Mach .88. The 747 of the 70's and 80s at M.86. The current 787 and A380 at M.85, and most other Boeings and Airbuses at between M.80 and .84. Yet passengers don't seem to care very much that it takes 10 minutes longer to get to New York, or 25 minutes more to LA.

[mrcharly-YHT]

Odd you say that, because it is my impression that it is quicker (overall) to fly to Australia (well, Perth) now than it used to be.

I have the gut feeling that is due to reduced numbers of refueling stops. Route I've used now is UK to Dubai, Dubai to Perth.

Previously it would be UK to somewhere, somewhere to Singapore/KL/Hong-Kong, then to Perth.

[TimC]

Well, yes. Each stop adds between 2 and 5 hours to the journey! The flight time is around 22 hours whichever way you go. In a VC10 in 1970, you may have stopped at Damascus, Bahrain, Dubai, Columbo, Singapore and Brisbane en-route to Sydney (the route varied depending on the day of flight). Or, going Westbound, via Winnipeg, LA, Honolulu, Fiji then Sydney. The total time en-route would have been between 30 and 40 hours compared to around 24-26 today. Flying a little bit faster doesn't help if you stop so many times. Similar on a bike...

[trekker12]

I suspect that is part of Tim's point. IIRC Aircraft use more fuel whilst mucking around getting up to altitude and down again whilst waiting for landing slots etc than up high at cruising altitude. To simply fly a bit slower once up there uses less fuel so you can get further. It would have seemed unimaginable to pilot and aircraft designer 30 years ago that non-stop from Dubai to Australia was going o be a regular thing but improved fuel efficiency and flying a bit slower makes the whole journey more efficient.

ETA, Tim beat me to it!!

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Didn't the Boeing 747SP do hugely long sectors back in the day? I vaguely recall reading of Europe-Oz without any stops.

[Wombat]

Odd you say that, because it is my impression that it is quicker (overall) to fly to Australia (well, Perth) now than it used to be.

I have the gut feeling that is due to reduced numbers of refueling stops. Route I've used now is UK to Dubai, Dubai to Perth.

Previously it would be UK to somewhere, somewhere to Singapore/KL/Hong-Kong, then to Perth.

I'd assume it was the length of time the overall experience takes that impinges on the mind, rather than the actual flight time.  Not sure if airport processing times have improved over the years (surely not?) but maybe its the whole "getting from home to the airport" but that has speeded up a bit.  As TimC says, I don't think anyone cares about an extra 10 mins flight time, its not noticeable in the time the whole thing takes.  As for folk not wanting sonic booms, bloody spoilsports!  They send a shiver down my spine, I absolutely love them!  I'm old enough to remember Farnborough from the early 60's onwards, and sonic booms, particularly approaching the time for the air show, were not that rare.

I think the last one I heard was a Concorde in mid English channel, we were sailing, and it was noticeable that was a b-boom, rather than just a straightforward boom.  Yacht captain and air accident investigator, and ex-Concorde project development engineer (uncle Peter) just said "Concorde", and carried on with his navigation calcs.

Best one ever, Thrust SSC.  The mere thought of a sonic boom on land take some getting yer head round.  I love watching the recordings of it.

[hatler]

Didn't the Boeing 747SP do hugely long sectors back in the day? I vaguely recall reading of Europe-Oz without any stops.

It wasn't all that long ago that they were trumpeting that the 747 could do Heathrow to Tokyo non-stop. (I say 'not all that long ago', unless of course time is telescoping faster than I believed possible when I was nobbut a lad.)

[hatler]

I think the last one I heard was a Concorde in mid English channel, we were sailing, and it was noticeable that was a b-boom, rather than just a straightforward boom.  Yacht captain and air accident investigator, and ex-Concorde project development engineer (uncle Peter) just said "Concorde", and carried on with his navigation calcs.

Isn't that because there's a boom off both the nose and the tail ?

[hatler]

There's a lovely episode in Pete Goss's autobiography where he explains how, on his first trans-Atlantic yacht race to New York (a two-hander in a slightly battered Royal Marines yacht), when they lost all electrics, they navigated by following Concorde's boom every day.

[TimC]

Didn't the Boeing 747SP do hugely long sectors back in the day? I vaguely recall reading of Europe-Oz without any stops.

I don't think anyone operated the SP between Europe and Australia. There were on 40-odd of them, and most went to PanAm and a few ME operators. The range wasn't as long as Boeing would have you believe, but it was quicker than the regular 747-100 on which it was based. There was one - and one only - non-stop 747-400 flight from London to Sydney in 1989 (20hrs 09 mins). However, the aircraft wasn't in service trim and was towed to the runway before starting its engines. The exercise was never repeated!

It's conceivable that versions of the A350 or Boeing777X could make the flight commercially realisable, but the market for direct flights on that route is probably not large enough to support a special version of either plane  on its own.

[mrcharly-YHT]

I've only heard a sonic boom once, and it was effing loud. Teeth-fillings rattling loud.

When the RAF sent a couple of planes up to intercept that french airliner that had stopped responding to the radio. I know they were hustling and there were two of them, but blimey it was loud. 

[TimC]

Didn't the Boeing 747SP do hugely long sectors back in the day? I vaguely recall reading of Europe-Oz without any stops.

It wasn't all that long ago that they were trumpeting that the 747 could do Heathrow to Tokyo non-stop. (I say 'not all that long ago', unless of course time is telescoping faster than I believed possible when I was nobbut a lad.)

The 747SP was designed primarily for the New York - Tokyo route (6700 miles), which is a good 800 miles further than London - Tokyo. The 747-200 I flew struggled with the return from Tokyo (into wind) and we had a scheduled stop in Moscow to make it workable. The A340-300 which replaced it had a much longer range.

[TimC]

I've only heard a sonic boom once, and it was effing loud. Teeth-fillings rattling loud.

When the RAF sent a couple of planes up to intercept that french airliner that had stopped responding to the radio. I know they were hustling and there were two of them, but blimey it was loud. 

At close range, a sonic boom will shatter windows, remove roof tiles, and generally be a bloody pain in the arse. From 60,000ft plus it's an annoyance, no worse.

[T42]

Didn't the Boeing 747SP do hugely long sectors back in the day? I vaguely recall reading of Europe-Oz without any stops.

It wasn't all that long ago that they were trumpeting that the 747 could do Heathrow to Tokyo non-stop. (I say 'not all that long ago', unless of course time is telescoping faster than I believed possible when I was nobbut a lad.)

The 747SP was designed primarily for the New York - Tokyo route (6700 miles), which is a good 800 miles further than London - Tokyo. The 747-200 I flew struggled with the return from Tokyo (into wind) and we had a scheduled stop in Moscow to make it workable. The A340-300 which replaced it had a much longer range.

A S. African bloke once told me that the SP had saved S. Africa's aerial ties with the rest of the world back when no African countries would let them overfly or make refuelling stops.

[hatler]

I've only heard a sonic boom once, and it was effing loud. Teeth-fillings rattling loud.

When the RAF sent a couple of planes up to intercept that french airliner that had stopped responding to the radio. I know they were hustling and there were two of them, but blimey it was loud. 

I was on a RFA ship one time on the flying bridge during a NATO exercise in the Channel. Something went over us at about 100' at somewhere over M1, and I can concur as to how loud it is.

[Mr Larrington]

Well, yes. Each stop adds between 2 and 5 hours to the journey! The flight time is around 22 hours whichever way you go. In a VC10 in 1970, you may have stopped at Damascus, Bahrain, Dubai, Columbo, Singapore and Brisbane en-route to Sydney (the route varied depending on the day of flight). Or, going Westbound, via Winnipeg, LA, Honolulu, Fiji then Sydney. The total time en-route would have been between 30 and 40 hours compared to around 24-26 today. Flying a little bit faster doesn't help if you stop so many times. Similar on a bike...

When I was a small Mr Larrington in the early 1970s the VC10s I found myself on would typically stop at Rome, Tehran, Delhi and Rangoon on the way to Hong Kong, before going on to Oz.  The 747s generally just did Bahrain and Bangkok.  There were many variations though, including Doha, Tel Aviv, Bombay and probably a Several of others I've forgotten.

Professor Larrington has recently gone to Perth via Doha as the only intermediate stop.

[TimC]

Yes, the BOAC routes to SYD were varied and interesting! These days, unless you go on another European airline and have to use their home base hub, you'll go via one stop in Hong Kong, Singapore, Bangkok, Dubai, Doha or Abu Dhabi. We used to do it via Hong Kong, but binned the HKG-SYD sector a couple of years ago.

[Steph]

Trying to remember all the stops...British Eagle Airways, the actual aircraft is in Duxford, a Britannia. London-Istanbul-Bombay (as it was) Singapore. Return by VC10, and can't remember all the stops, but one was Gan.

That was 48 years ago.

[Mr Larrington]

Transport Command's VC10s from Hong Kong stopped at Gan and Akrotiri.

[Jaded]

Didn't the Boeing 747SP do hugely long sectors back in the day? I vaguely recall reading of Europe-Oz without any stops.

It wasn't all that long ago that they were trumpeting that the 747 could do Heathrow to Tokyo non-stop. (I say 'not all that long ago', unless of course time is telescoping faster than I believed possible when I was nobbut a lad.)

The 747SP was designed primarily for the New York - Tokyo route (6700 miles), which is a good 800 miles further than London - Tokyo. The 747-200 I flew struggled with the return from Tokyo (into wind) and we had a scheduled stop in Moscow to make it workable. The A340-300 which replaced it had a much longer range.

A S. African bloke once told me that the SP had saved S. Africa's aerial ties with the rest of the world back when no African countries would let them overfly or make refuelling stops.

Maybe less important than Isla de Sal. An international airport in nowhere.