• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Aviation Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

NathanPrior

Member
Joined
13 Aug 2007
Messages
305
Location
SE London
Going on my first ever flight on Saturday from Heathrow to Brussels, around 45mins flying time so I shouldn't crap myself too much.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,380
Location
Liverpool
Going on my first ever flight on Saturday from Heathrow to Brussels, around 45mins flying time so I shouldn't crap myself too much.

Hope you enjoy it mate. I was quite entertained by the mention of Frankfurt Hahn Airport in an earlier post. Hahn is not in Frankfurt, in fact it isn't that close at all.
 

Saint66

Member
Joined
15 Dec 2013
Messages
826
Location
Herts
Good luck with the flight! I went on my first just last February when I flew from Luton to Berlin. It feels a bit strange at first, but you'll soon get use to it. However, I do still slightly freak-out whenever I think of having to fly haha!
 

trentside

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2010
Messages
3,390
Location
Messroom
Good luck with the flight! I went on my first just last February when I flew from Luton to Berlin. It feels a bit strange at first, but you'll soon get use to it. However, I do still slightly freak-out whenever I think of having to fly haha!

I sometimes fly just for the fun of it - stopping off briefly in places for a quick look around, and I still get nervous in certain circumstances. Was on a Jet2 flight back from Lanzarote earlier in the year that had terrible turbulence on take off and landing - was still shaking when I got in the car!

Not wanting to add any nerves to your first time experience NathanPrior, I've flown quite a lot and only had two really bad flights for turbulence - both when this country and Europe have been battling strong winds and storms!
 

Saint66

Member
Joined
15 Dec 2013
Messages
826
Location
Herts
I sometimes fly just for the fun of it - stopping off briefly in places for a quick look around, and I still get nervous in certain circumstances. Was on a Jet2 flight back from Lanzarote earlier in the year that had terrible turbulence on take off and landing - was still shaking when I got in the car!

Not wanting to add any nerves to your first time experience NathanPrior, I've flown quite a lot and only had two really bad flights for turbulence - both when this country and Europe have been battling strong winds and storms!

Thankfully I have not suffered turbulence during any of the four flights I have taken in the past year and a half. My most nervous experience was with the flights to Berlin and back, particularly when departing for the UK as it had snowed that morning in Berlin, and having the plane de-iced on the runway around 5pm with temperatures well below zero was a bit worrying for a new flyer. The following take off (The flight was delayed, so the pilot was in a rush) which saw various cabinets/doors inside the aircraft fly open didn't help either... :lol:
 

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,985
Location
Exeter
Actually I doubt the pilot was in a rush, but with an icy runway most aircraft will use a full power take off rather then the standard reduced power take off.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
17,795
Location
Epsom
I love a full power take off from a standing start; the best were on Concorde charters - lightweight ( half fuel, no baggage ) and they'd often treat the passengers to the full rocket experience. 0 - 200 in 6 seconds was a regular achievement under those conditions.

One such charter, which I would have liked to have been on but sadly was not, from Gatwick became legendary - it reached 5,000 ft before clearing the runway threshold...
 

trentside

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2010
Messages
3,390
Location
Messroom
The 757 is also good for powerful take-offs. I think it's quite rare for them to give it full power!
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
17,795
Location
Epsom
The nearest I've had to re-creating the Concorde take off has in fact been a 767 from a standing start, never got close to it in a 757.
 

trentside

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2010
Messages
3,390
Location
Messroom
Somehow, I think anything would struggle to beat Concorde ;)

Its been a few years since I was last on a 767, but never remember anything too spectacular. I know the two share a common type rating for pilots, but opinions seem to differ quite wildly on which is best from what I've seen reading various internet sources!
 

PowerLee

Member
Joined
24 May 2014
Messages
39
Haven't been on one but I reckon a VC10 would have been fun on take of.

VC10 still holds the subsonic London - New York Atlantic crossing record.
 

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,814
Location
Stirlingshire
I love a full power take off from a standing start; the best were on Concorde charters - lightweight ( half fuel, no baggage ) and they'd often treat the passengers to the full rocket experience. 0 - 200 in 6 seconds was a regular achievement under those conditions.

One such charter, which I would have liked to have been on but sadly was not, from Gatwick became legendary - it reached 5,000 ft before clearing the runway threshold...

Almost as fast as my Peugeot 107 :p

Seriously a great loss to aviation - how many other forms of transport have gone backwards with regard to maximum speed :idea:
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Which airlines allow passengers to use electronic devices in flight mode during take-off and landing?

Seriously a great loss to aviation - how many other forms of transport have gone backwards with regard to maximum speed :idea:

Coaches used to be allowed to go at 70 mph in the outside lane of motorways but are now speed limited to 100 km/h. And in reality they went much faster than 70 mph.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,841
Location
UK
You could argue that a coach at such high speed (especially before seat belts and many other safety features) was dangerous. Concorde, on the other hand, wasn't.

I do wish we'd consider increasing some speed limits here though. The rest of Europe seems to have understood that you can do it. But here, we seem to still believe speed kills and that we need to lower them everywhere to magically stop all accidents.
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,380
Location
Liverpool
My best ever take off was a 757 from Kefalonia to Manchester. Due to the short runway the pilot kept the breaks on until the engines had spooled up to almost full power. Another favourite take off was on an LAN A340 from Auckland to Santiago, it wasn't that powerful a take off but it seemed the first hour of the flight was going down the runway, the pilots don't have to go mad because the runway is huge, it was a divert runway for the Space Shuttle along with Banjul in the Gambia unless I am much mistaken.Sadly most of my regular take offs are from Liverpool airport on 319's or 738's, the runway is that long that they don't have to do anything special. That said looking over where you live on take off is always cool since I live not too far from the airport.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
17,795
Location
Epsom
Seriously a great loss to aviation - how many other forms of transport have gone backwards with regard to maximum speed :idea:

The termination of the cross Channel hovercraft service was one example. What was a 25 minute crossing is now a slow crawl on a ferry. ( Yes, I know about the Euroshuttle but that's not the same mode of transport... )

The withdrawal of the QE2 was another example ( QM2 is never timed to run at the 30 knots she is capable of; a TransAtlantic voyage now is far slower than in QE2's day ).
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,380
Location
Liverpool
My next train to Lime Street from West Allerton is timetabled to take 14 minutes, used to be 11. Some are scheduled to take longer up to 20 minutes I think. The same journey out of town uphill is scheduled to take 11 minutes. I can't imagine what causes the time difference.
 
Last edited:

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
The termination of the cross Channel hovercraft service was one example. What was a 25 minute crossing is now a slow crawl on a ferry. ( Yes, I know about the Euroshuttle but that's not the same mode of transport... )

The withdrawal of the QE2 was another example ( QM2 is never timed to run at the 30 knots she is capable of; a TransAtlantic voyage now is far slower than in QE2's day ).

Saving fuel (and therefore money) is a significant motivation for slower speeds in many modes of transport. Concorde would be even less economic now than when it was withdrawn.

The Stena HSS high speed ferry service between Holyhead and Dún Laoghaire is now slower to save fuel and the HSS between Harwich and Hoek van Holland has been withdrawn.

Of course the same applies to road transport, but fuel consumption is rarely considered and speed limits have been increased in various places and an increase to 80 mph was proposed for the UK. People in the UK did realise that slowing down saves fuel during the 2000 fuel protest, however.
 

Bill Stanier

Member
Joined
14 May 2014
Messages
232
I love a full power take off from a standing start; the best were on Concorde charters - lightweight ( half fuel, no baggage ) and they'd often treat the passengers to the full rocket experience. 0 - 200 in 6 seconds was a regular achievement under those conditions.

She was a rocket, but not quite that quick! 0 - 250mph in about 35 seconds on transatlantic flights, around 20 seconds at light weight.

The record for brakes off to 60,000' and Mach 2 is under 9 minutes! It was a Concorde that had been at Cardiff for engine work and was being ferried back to Heathrow, so no pax and very little fuel. And from Cardiff no noise abatement or sonic boom problems going west (which of course is what they did for this record, before slowing, descending, and turning east for Heathrow).
 

Saint66

Member
Joined
15 Dec 2013
Messages
826
Location
Herts
You could argue that a coach at such high speed (especially before seat belts and many other safety features) was dangerous. Concorde, on the other hand, wasn't.

I do wish we'd consider increasing some speed limits here though. The rest of Europe seems to have understood that you can do it. But here, we seem to still believe speed kills and that we need to lower them everywhere to magically stop all accidents.

But, the UK does have the second lowest percentage of road deaths per million people in Europe... Behind only Malta! :D
 

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,985
Location
Exeter
The first A320neo has rolled out at Toulouse. First Flight is expected in September.

14364381679_073922f184_b.jpg
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
17,795
Location
Epsom
She was a rocket, but not quite that quick! 0 - 250mph in about 35 seconds on transatlantic flights, around 20 seconds at light weight.

The record for brakes off to 60,000' and Mach 2 is under 9 minutes! It was a Concorde that had been at Cardiff for engine work and was being ferried back to Heathrow, so no pax and very little fuel. And from Cardiff no noise abatement or sonic boom problems going west (which of course is what they did for this record, before slowing, descending, and turning east for Heathrow).

The former has been quoted more than once on the Concorde forum and not disputed - quite a few crew and maintenance staff agreed with it.

The latter - yes, but as you say it wasn't available for passengers. Pity.


Saving fuel (and therefore money) is a significant motivation for slower speeds in many modes of transport. Concorde would be even less economic now than when it was withdrawn.

Concorde was still very profitable for BA when she was withdrawn; the axe fell only after AF pulled out meaning BA would have felt 100% of the manufacturer support costs at a time when a huge percentage of their regular custom was lost in the 9/11 attacks; either directly ( 40 regulars were lost in the twin towers that day ) or indirectly ( many of those 40 were the only people in their businesses who were authorised to allow other staff to use Concorde ).

It was only in the subsonic phase of flight that concorde guzzled fuel; in supersonic cruise she was extremely efficient - the original concept did not forsee a ban on supersonic flight overland and that made a huge difference simply because she was optimised for the supercruise phase. As she should indeed have been.
 
Last edited:

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,814
Location
Stirlingshire
Saving fuel (and therefore money) is a significant motivation for slower speeds in many modes of transport. Concorde would be even less economic now than when it was withdrawn.

The Stena HSS high speed ferry service between Holyhead and Dún Laoghaire is now slower to save fuel and the HSS between Harwich and Hoek van Holland has been withdrawn.

Of course the same applies to road transport, but fuel consumption is rarely considered and speed limits have been increased in various places and an increase to 80 mph was proposed for the UK. People in the UK did realise that slowing down saves fuel during the 2000 fuel protest, however.

Concorde was all about prestige though, a bit like a Bentley Car....poor fuel consumption but people still buy them.

If you can afford a supercar the price of petrol is largely irrelevant :p

Britain's Head of State / Prime Minister should also have utilised it wherever possible to "Fly the Flag"
 

NathanPrior

Member
Joined
13 Aug 2007
Messages
305
Location
SE London
Well my first ever flight wasn't bad, sitting in the last row at the back of the plane for take-off wasn't pleasant, I don't think the other passengers liked my commentary of "****e, ****e, ****e" during that bit. I actually managed to look out the window after about 25mins of being in the air.

The return flight was fine for takeoff as I was in row 6 which is much much better for take off, even managed to look out the window during it.

I've got the flying bug now.
 

Techniquest

Veteran Member
Joined
19 Jun 2005
Messages
21,829
Location
Nowhere Heath
I've taken off from various parts of the plane before, but mostly from just in front/behind the wings, never had a bad takeoff from any of the seats or sides I've had.

Welcome to the club (although I need to hurry up and get another flight done, been way too long since whenever I last flew in 2013!) :D
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,380
Location
Liverpool
I've taken off from various parts of the plane before, but mostly from just in front/behind the wings, never had a bad takeoff from any of the seats or sides I've had.

Welcome to the club (although I need to hurry up and get another flight done, been way too long since whenever I last flew in 2013!) :D

Well here's a good one for you to look at for a little trip, Singapore Airlines Manchester to Munich on a 777, daily I think. Am going to be looking at doing it in the near future but not properly looked up the details yet.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,782
Location
Somewhere, not in London
I've not actually flown since way back in 2007 so you don't need to rush to be up to date ;)

I don't actually know what my next one will be, chances are the better half will want to go to AMS, but then I have to decide between EasyJet, British Airways, FlyBE and KLM....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top