On a light note... Anyone done 1000mph?

[Onceapilot]

According to Wg Cdr Andy Green, of Thrust SSC fame, "Bloodhound represents the absolute limit of modern technology. Nobody has ever reached 1,000mph in the thick air at ground level, even in a jet fighter".
Of course, ground level extends up to 29,000' at Mt Everest but, discounting that point, I guess you could say he really means indicated air speed? On that basis, even I have handsomely exceeded his Thrust SSC record at amsl elevations 3000' lower.
Anyone claim 1000mph IAS:ok:?

OAP

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

That's 869 knots - Leon reckons he's done 870 kts in an F3.

[Lima Juliet]

Certainly have and with a weapons fit. Have done faster in clean fit, but don't like to talk about it!

As for 'Dead Dog' - I usually treat most things he's said with a pinch of salt! :ok:

LJ

[Onceapilot]

Yep, that is the sort of KIAS we are looking at. Always thought the F4 might be in that bracket?:ok:

OAP

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh189/abcfoxy/ROFLMAO.gif

[Onceapilot]

AHA! Come on you F4 guys!

OAP

PS, love the cartoon, F3WMB.

[Lima Juliet]

The most slippery ones were the ones from the factory at Warton. No pylons and fuel control units not wound back!

I did hear anecdotally that a crew did over 1000kts and that the pilot thought he was doing 999kts - unfortunately the numbers stopped at 999 in the HUD and the Nav's Tac displays showed somewhat more in TAS at low level over the sea!

Here is a 'slippery one'...

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/89/ab/8c/89ab8c2939854c112e40017bebf4061a.jpg

No Norris McWhirter around at the time, though...:sad:

LJ

[Onceapilot]

Nice pic Leon! Amazing what a really good supersonic pressure recovery intake and afterburner system can do.

OAP

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I collected an F3 from Boscombe once which must have had some tweaking. Had to throttle back in dry power S+L as I was already nudging supersonic.

[2Planks]

Yip, those were the days - fast black to Warton and a brand new shiny clean jet. I remember significantly over 900 and as we had fuel for a spot of day VFR TOO over Blakeney we rolled in behind a Jag with about 490kts of overtake.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I picked up a few new ones. Remember asking for a climb on departure (after the inevitable low pass for the workers) to 33,000. Warton Ground came back with "Manchester want to know your outbound heading" "Vertical!", and they allowed it.

[Lima Juliet]

Most people thrust their hands downwards when the trawl for Thrust SSC came around the squadrons. To give 'Dog' his credit (the 'Dead' was dropped at that point as most thought he was going to cop it in Thrust SSC) both he and a few others put their hands up and volunteered. When 'Dog' got the job there was a certain individual that came in one of the 'runner up' slots that found it hard to take and started to try and break all sorts of records in the Tornado F3. I heard that he went super quick at low level and then turned his attention to zoom climbs. I hear that as he got towards 70kft the poor old RB199s gave in and had a bit of a cough and splutter. The result was a couple of rather bent engines and a sacked pilot - I understand he was nicked when they pulled the accident data recorder and milked it!

All anecdotal as I wasn't on the Wing where this individual flew. Luckily for all it didn't end as badly as it could have.

LJ

[Pontius Navigator]

IIRC the F4 was maxed at 750.

[Lima Juliet]

PN

Yes, I understand that the Spey engined ones were good at low level but due to the intakes that resemble the next King's head appendages, then they topped out around the 750 mark. I also heard that due to the small fin on the 'Tomb' that it started to try and fly sideways at very high IAS :eek:

Any experienced Jehovah drivers want to chip in?

LJ

[B Fraser]

A mod told me how he once did 1,000 mph at 100 feet in the middle of nowhere. The limiting factor was the intake temperature.

:E

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Well, the F3 was RTS at 750. I remember the shock I got doing a chase down oversea, flicked the HUD from mach to IAS and saw 835 accelerating. I had no idea anything could actually go faster than RTS, nevermind lots faster.

The Sageburner F4 recordbreaker managed 784 kts, with one pilot only, stripped down and polished (and they crashed the first attempt). The F3 was pretty wheezy at altitude, but LL was awesome.

[MAINJAFAD]

OP

Official max chat on a F-4 at less than 200 ft 902 MPH, Operation Sageburner by a USN YF4H-1 in 1961.

Official FAI World Record at low altitude is 988.26 MPH by a civilian owned and highly modified F-104 in 1976, though the FAI have disbanded the class of record for turbojets since then. The F-104 in question did do an earlier record attempt where it is reckoned that it reached 1010 MPH, but the timing equipment failed so the record didn't stand.

[Onceapilot]

Quote BF "A mod told me how he once did 1,000 mph at 100 feet in the middle of nowhere. The limiting factor was the intake temperature."
Hmmm, no intake temp gauges in Tonka AFAIR. However, the inlet temp is critical to engine operation/damage and so, I always assumed it was reflected by the RTS limits?;)

OAP

[Lima Juliet]

F3WMB, IIRC it was 750KIAS Vno when I first started on the jet and then it was dropped to 725KIAS as there was no Vne. I also met the boffin that designed the intake during a visit to the squadron by some of the factory staff. He said that they had limited the aircraft Vne due to the intake design as it hadn't been tested any faster - he claimed it being capable of much more than the imposed Vne (and he was right as many proved :E).

Yes, the old HUD switch between IAS and Mach caught many out over the Nevada desert floor at ~6,000ft up. You could be doing 690kts near the ground at 250ft and be supersonic! That little chestnut did for a Winnebago on a desert road in the exercise training area when a F3 went over the top at ~720kts. Just don't ask how I know! :ok:

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

I do miss the 'old girl' at times. Chasing down B-1Bs off of the coast of Denmark was immense fun; as was shouting "Beep! Beep! Coming through!" over the common exercise frequency as we took guns footage on each of them.

For what it was designed for: Long-range loiter way North of Scotland with the ability to chase down BLACKJACK, BACKFIRE and FENCER. Then the F3 was pretty damn good. It wasn't a dogfighter and was pretty poor above 35kft for any subsonic. But at low level it was the fastest of anything before or ever since. The F111, B1-B and the F16 drivers always looked surprised when we chased them down at low level over the sea (or in a supersonic overland training area).

Now, I'm off to my armchair to smell of wee...

LJ

[LOMCEVAK]

The F-4K and M max IAS was, from memory, 750 kts at sea level but increased up to 810 at 11 000 ft (not sure why). Went along nicely at 750 KIAS at low level even with 2 tanks.

I will need to dig out the books but IIRC the F3 Vne was originally 800 KCAS (no tanks). Would be interested to know the dive angle for some of the higher speeds reached that are quoted above because when we did the clearance to 800 KCAS with 2 Skyflash and 4 AIM9s it was not that easy to get there.

[Lima Juliet]

My 870 was in K022+ at straight and level, at low level and with 2 large orange carrots hanging out the back - no dive required and the Skyflash fins weren't buzzing either!

LJ

[Onceapilot]

That would be "Gun" singular Leon.;)

OAP

[Fortissimo]

I can't compete with LJ but did once have a go at the 810 kts at 11,000 ft in an A-fit FG1 (no tanks). I got it slightly wrong and ended up with 825 kts at 15,000. It was interesting to say the least, mainly because I hadn't given any thought to how I was going to slow down. I decided to try a gentle reduction to min burner for starters. Good decision, because even that produced a deceleration akin to taking a cable! Didn't try it again...

[BBadanov]

The F-111 was good for M1.2, about 810 on the deck.


At height for engine airtest, we would try to achieve M2.3 before the "BANG" of a compressor stall.

[Bevo]

Maximum allowable airspeed for these aircraft:

F-4C, D, E = 750 KIAS
F-14A = 780 KIAS
F-15C = 800 KIAS

Unfortunately I can't find my data for the MiG-23 but I believe it was above 800 KIAS as was the F-111 IIRC.

Normal bird strike requirement for the canopy on most aircraft about 450 KIAS for a 4 lb. bird. I always kept that little item in mind during high speed low level flight.

BBadanov (http://www.pprune.org/members/311439-bbadanov) you got there as I was posting.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

BBadanov

Have heard of higher speeds being achieved post-AUP engine upgrade and in clean G-models, and of high 800s achieved at Red Flag.

An unnamed Nav has told me of a particular occasion where a piece of the wingbox fairing was missing and paint had peeled off the leading edge of the fin after a particular post mx flight test off the Sunshine Coast in the late 90s.

He also said the main speed limfac was windscreen temp?

[Lima Juliet]

Yes, windscreens were an issue. I remember a guy coming back with the central screen blacked out whilst he was going v fast IAS in the North Sea ACMI. He said he came home somewhat gingerly after that!

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

I can't imagine that an Eagle would be a very comfortable beast at 800KIAS at low level - Buckaroo comes to mind! :eek:

[O-P]

As LJ states, the F3 HUD stops at 999kts...the TV tabs don't! The Irish sea was littered with fresh F3 paint after we'd picked them up and given them a quick "shake down".


A 'buddy of mine' was chasing down another 'buddy' on a "Day Tactics" sortie... guess which one was me! Anyway, it started at 30K and someone dived for the deck, passing 3000' yelps of "SPEED" were coming from some ones back seat. The HUD was in M and reading 1.8+ a quick flick to IAS revealed total horror (No we weren't vertical).


The ASRAAM seemed OK but the RAIDS pod was :mad:

[West Coast]

All you non hacking oxygen suckers...how about hovering...or flying backwards?

Guess we'll figure out who the Harrier lads are...

[Bob Viking]

I once did a tail slide in a Hawk. Does that count as flying backwards?
I've done a stall turn as well.
I can't say I really planned to do either.
Never been 1000mph. Can't actually remember my fastest IAS in a Jag. Somewhere in the low 600s maybe? But I do know that in Oman when the F3s had their weeny tanks on they were limited to 0.9M and our tactic was to outrun them (0.95M limit for us!).
You have to take what you can get sometimes.
BV

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

You can't go backwards very fast in a Harrier :sad:

http://www.ukserials.com/pdflosses/maas_19860628_xw769.pdf

[West Coast]

Bob V...you get a pass for the tail slide...was the seat pan missing after the ride? Hope you salvaged the skivvies?

[Bob Viking]

A brief moment of panic followed by some heavy breathing. Luckily the Hawk reminded me on each such occasion that it'll let you get away with murder if you screw things up. Or your student does...
BV

[GreenKnight121]

F-8E SAC page 4: max speed S/L 651 knots; 35,000' 984 knots.
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-8E_Crusader_SAC_-_1_July_1967.pdf


F-15C SAC page 4: max speed 35,000' 1,309 knots; 45,000' 1,340 knots
with CFTs: max speed 35,000' 1,124 knots; 45,000' 1,102 knots
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-15C_Eagle_SAC_-_February_1992.pdf


F-14A SAC page 4: max speed S/L 794 knots; 35,000' 1,170 knots.
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-14A_Tomcat_SAC_-_April_1977.pdf


F-14D SAC page 4: max speed S/L 740 knots; 35,000' 1,196 knots.
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-14D_Tomcat_SAC_-_July_1985_%28Partially_Declas%29.pdf

[ExAdvert]

As well as doing 1000kts, the F3 will also happily (well, relatively happily) do 0 kts. I learned about this when I once let my "experienced" Nav have a go at poling a twin-sticker:

Nav: "Can I have a go at some aeros?"
Me: "Sure. You have...."
Nav: "I have. Ok, I'll just try a loop to start with....."
Me: "Ok, stick the burners in, wait for 300kts & pull to 4g, then transition to 19 units over the top"

Nav pulls weakly to about 3g

Me: "Pull a bit more mate...."
As we reach the vertical:
Me: "Keep pulling"
Nav then slackens the pull
Me: "PULL!"
Followed by click, click as Nav brings throttles out of burner!

Me: "F*@k"
Nav: "You have control"
Me: "I doubt it"

As the airspeed decayed below 50 kts in the HUD, somewhere from the deep recesses of my brain, I remember hearing the U/P drill of "Centralise & let the aircraft fall out of the U/P". So I did. My QFIs would have been proud.

Everything went very quiet as the jet stopped, deciding whether to hammerhead or fall on it's back.....

Me (silently): "Please don't spin"

After what seemed like an eternity, it tailslid, then oh-so-gently pitched forward in a lovely (& completely unintended) hammerhead/ Su-27 "Cobra"-stylee manoeuver.

Fuel came out of the intakes in big clouds of vapour. I was pretty sure that wasn't supposed to happen.

The CWP lit up like a Christmas tree as various systems tripped offline... SPILS.... CSAS.... Pressurisation (!!?)....

.... but the thing kept flying & the engines kept turning. As the airspeed increased, presently there were enough Bernoullis going over enough control surfaces that the Lift Pixies resumed normal service.

We went home after that :ouch:

[BBadanov]

Have heard of higher speeds being achieved post-AUP engine upgrade and in clean G-models, and of high 800s achieved at Red Flag.

An unnamed Nav has told me of a particular occasion where a piece of the wingbox fairing was missing and paint had peeled off the leading edge of the fin after a particular post mx flight test off the Sunshine Coast in the late 90s.

He also said the main speed limfac was windscreen temp?
http://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=8826824)


F/A-18
Not sure, but possible. My time was with P3 and P103 engine. The G was I think P107, and AUP aircraft were P109. So probably better performance.


Yes windscreen temp was sometimes a limiter, but we did go through several windscreen mods too!
I have just been out boating today with a bunch of ex-111 (ex-Pig) mates, so sorry I couldn't consult them, but I do remember a rundown stopwatch triggered by skin temp - one of these guys remembers all the numbers - but it had something to do with 214 degrees (I think) and counted down from about 300 to 0 seconds (I think). Someone with more brain cells will remember !! Our young Oz UAV mate will remember the details...

[GreenKnight121]

My time was with P3 and P103 engine. The G was I think P107, and AUP aircraft were P109. So probably better performance.

Not much.

TF30-3/103 10,750 lb (18,500 lb)
TF30-107 12,500 lb (20,350 lb)
TF30-109 12,000 lb (20,840 lb)


Too bad they weren't fitted with the engines from the F-111F...
TF30-100 15,000 lb (25,100 lb)
TF30-111 17,895 lb (25,111 lb)

[BEagle]

Leon, I gather that Bastard Bill tried to throw the book at the 'zoom merchant' to whom you refer, for exceeding the Release To Service limitations......

Until someone happened to mention the Lightning - and whether 'reheat rotations' were in the R to S. BB allegedly got the message and perhaps coincidentally the witch hunting stopped shortly afterwards, with a comment "Just don't do it again!".

All the above is anecdotal, I hasten to add.

ExAdvert, that reminds me of the time I saw rather more AoA than IAS in an F-4 after having gone vertical during aggressor training....I'd been looking over my shoulder and subconsciously pressing forward on the control column as we climbed , so that we went straight up rather than gently pitching over to the inverted as had been my intention! But the low speed recovery worked fine, no dramas at all...... The F-5 mate merely called "Are you coming down any time soon?"....

[BBadanov]

Too bad they weren't fitted with the engines from the F-111F...


GK121, u r so right.


We evidently had the option, in the day (1969-71, I believe) because of the delivery delays, to change our F-111C order to the F-111F.


Unfortunately, due to Govt bureaucracy (and possibly for fear of further price increases), this was not taken up.


Big shame. We could have avoided our orphan AUP (based largely on F-111A/E AMP) and run with the F-111F Pacer Strike upgrade in 1995. 25k of poke per side, and the aircraft could easily have pressed on beyond 2010 (our withdrawal date). BTW, I think F-111F airtests went to M2.5.

[Snapdragon]

I've done 1300ish mph with champers!! 😎Also done it up front too!

[Pontius Navigator]

After what seemed like an eternity, it tailslid, then oh-so-gently pitched forward in a lovely (& completely unintended) hammerhead/ Su-27 "Cobra"-stylee manoeuver.

Fuel came out of the intakes in big clouds of vapour. I was pretty sure that wasn't supposed to happen.

.... but the thing kept flying & the engines kept turning. As the airspeed increased, presently there were enough Bernoullis going over enough control surfaces that the Lift :

That would be exactly what happened to a US F4 in mid-60s. Following a tail slide, erect spin, TBC deployment, canopy jettison and twin ejection, the aircraft recovered and landed wheels up on the salt lake.

[sharpend]

Of course I have... in a pointy jet thingy.

But most VC10 pilots have flown the pond (west to east) with a ground speed of well over 1000 mph... often 1000 kts

[Axel-Flo]

A very worthwhile read is the book with the above name by Peter Twiss

Fairey Delta FD 2.......especially the problems they had of proving to the US that they had actually achieved it.......:ok:

[LowObservable]

I second the 1000 mph+ with a glass of Dom Perignon in my hand. The air correspondent for the Economist was in the next seat (as a reward for his magazine's diligent efforts to get the :mad: scrapped) and he remarked that it was better than working for a living. I toddled into our elegant Sarfoftheriver HQ at 1 pm, fresh as a newly minted daisy, and announced that I had had breakfast in Singapore.

On topic: I recall reading an immediately post-GW1 account of an F-111F claiming M=1.4 on egress from an objective whose residents were highly miffed and heavily armed.

[Pontius Navigator]

OP

Official max chat on a F-4 at less than 200 ft 902 MPH, Operation Sageburner by a USN YF4H-1 in 1961.

Official FAI World Record at low altitude is 988.26 MPH by a civilian owned and highly modified F-104 in 1976, though the FAI have disbanded the class of record for turbojets since then. The F-104 in question did do an earlier record attempt where it is reckoned that it reached 1010 MPH, but the timing equipment failed so the record didn't stand.

Or in English 783 kts

[BEagle]

sharpend wrote: But most VC10 pilots have flown the pond (west to east) with a ground speed of well over 1000 mph... often 1000 kts

Huh? Let's say M0.886 at FL390 and ISA+30. I make that a TAS of 542 knots, or 624 mph. So to crack 1000 mph groundspeed, you'd need a tailwind component of 327 knots, bluntie old chap.....:rolleyes:

[Bevo]

F-15C SAC page 4: max speed 35,000' 1,309 knots; 45,000' 1,340 knots
with CFTs: max speed 35,000' 1,124 knots; 45,000' 1,102 knots
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-15C_Eagle_SAC_-_February_1992.pdf


F-14A SAC page 4: max speed S/L 794 knots; 35,000' 1,170 knots.
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-14A_Tomcat_SAC_-_April_1977.pdf


I'm not sure where SAC is getting their data but the numbers I posted are from the respective pilot manuals:

TO 1F-15C-1 15 Jan 1982 Page 5-6 "Airspeed Limitation and Afterburner Operating Envelope.

NATOPS Flight Manual Navy Model F-14A Aircraft, 15 May 1995 page 4-7 Maximum Allowable Airspeeds.

[Haraka]

Beags .Possibly sharpend was getting 1000 kilometres an hour transcribed in the old grey matter.

[Onceapilot]

So far then, the 1000mph IAS seems to be unofficially claimed by some Tonka F3 mates, all outside RTS? Seems there is not an IAS record classification for aircraft? :hmm:

Clean jets are fun , but wasn't the J79 powered F4 actually able to go faster than most with external tanks on in the real world? ;)

OAP

[MAINJAFAD]

Or in English 783 kts

Indeed PN, however seeing that this thread is about speeds in MPH, I put the the figures in that standard instead of Kts. I was writing the post while Fox3 was doing his one about Sageburner.

The FAI data sheet for the low level record in actually done in KPH.

Fai Record File (http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=8515)

[Roadster280]

So what's the fastest groundspeed for a VC10? I understand it was just about the fastest subsonic airliner.

I crossed the pond 2 weeks ago in a 764 with some serious tailwind, ground speed was over 700mph according to the seatback liar thing.

It was a long trip back home last week against that tailwind!

[Heathrow Harry]

1000mph - easy - I did it sitting in style, glass of champagne in hand, decent book to read, nice hostie.............

thank God the employer was paying............................... :):)

have we REALLY already forgotten about Concorde???

[Onceapilot]

No, I just recall that a type of Sgt Fletcher wing tank had a very high RTS IAS limit? Or so they said!:eek:

OAP

[Onceapilot]

MJ
Thanks. I see the classification is retired. Was the 3km course limited by a "not above" height?

OAP

[Rigchick]

When you look at what the F3 could do with only 16,000 ish thrust, it does very well.

Having spent some time rebuilding them and speaking to Rolls Royce, it would have been very easy to upgrade that to 18,000 at least. We did not buy that.
We bought more time on wing.

A better LP comp would have boosted dry power like the German MK 105 motors.

[glad rag]

http://ipmsauckland.hobbyvista.com/Newsletter/2004/November/nov1.jpg

[Lima Juliet]

BEags

Leon, I gather that Bastard Bill tried to throw the book at the 'zoom merchant' to whom you refer, for exceeding the Release To Service limitations......

Until someone happened to mention the Lightning - and whether 'reheat rotations' were in the R to S. BB allegedly got the message and perhaps coincidentally the witch hunting stopped shortly afterwards, with a comment "Just don't do it again!".

All the above is anecdotal, I hasten to add.

Yes, BB was indeed rumoured to have been involved as you say. :ok:

Sadly, for the Zoom Merchant it wasn't such a happy ending as he was in a significant position of responsibility at the time...

I'm guessing that the champagne riders were nowhere near Mother Earth when they got their 1000mph tick. :ok:

LJ

[Pontius Navigator]

OK465, USAF did a trial, '60s I guess, to see the potential for incapacitating of very high speed pass over troops in the open with the Thud.

Apparently a low pass at 6 feet would do the buzz. I think at 6 feet there could have been lots of thuds if the troops hadn't ducked. Not so effective against Viet G ing.

[TyroPicard]

Speaking of the Thud... somewhere in RAFG in the seventies, Spam on squadron exchange relates...
Running South in the weeds out of N. Vietnam, he hears "Thud crossing the xxxx river, what's your indicated?"
Replies "I'm doing a cool thousand..."
"OK I'm passing you on the right..." and it did.

[thing]

As a 'champagne rider' I had a trip up to the cockpit (remember those days?). I was interested in the IAS as we were doing M2.02 at the time at FL600. I fully expected the old girl to have a fairly low Vne but was surprised to see that it was redlined at 530kts. I was quite impressed.

Replies "I'm doing a cool thousand..."
"OK I'm passing you on the right..." and it did.

I had heard stories of the 'Thud' being brutally fast at low level when devoid of bombery appendages.

[LowObservable]

LJ - Of course we were at high altitude. It would have been criminal to spill the Dom.

[MAINJAFAD]

MJ
Thanks. I see the classification is retired. Was the 3km course limited by a "not above" height?

OAP

OAP

Data sheet for Sageburner - Fai Record File (http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=8516)

Data sheet for one of the Meteor record runs done in 1945 - Fai Record File (http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=9846)

Both of those were done at sub 200 feet and are the same record class as the F-104. If memory serves until the late 1953 the absolute airspeed record had to be done at low level. thus the reason that the Hunter and Swift were able to break the record just before the rules were changed (the Hunter and Swift got the same record as Sageburner as well as the absolute airspeed record).

[sharpend]

Beags, don't ruin a good story :) But I'm sure I saw that on the Carosel... And the tail wind was enormous

[LowObservable]

There was this incident:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eoTqLnL0WI

And there was the older Unpleasantness at White Sands in Dec. 64 when the FAA, which was trying to diversify into building the US SST, invited media to its specially built "boomtown" to experience B-58 and F-104 booms and be convinced that the dreaded boom was no big deal.

The planned tests went well, but then someone had the bright idea of bringing a -104 past for a photo op at 500 feet. Being a -104 it came in a tidge hot and...

“A heavy ruby-glass ashtray flew off a desk and sprayed shards over the floor. Outside, both panes of a mock-up storefront were smashed, a glass window in a trailer caved in, and 16 out of 90 panes in a small greenhouse were shattered.” (That was Time's report.)

38 psf will do that...

[thing]

is it true that the FE had a dial on his panel that allowed him to adjust the displayed Mach in the pax cabin on up to 2.0 for the passengers who paid for this....on days when ambient conditions prevented getting to Mach 2

I doubt most of the pax knew or cared what M2.0 was. The FL600 trip I had was an oddity as most of the time it used to flounder around at FL530-550 as it burned off fuel. I could have had at one time explained the tropodisaurian reason for this but I've forgotten and I can't remember why I've forgotten.

[Onceapilot]

Rigchick-RB199.
Yes, more dry power would have been good, trouble is, the sfc is/was v.important at low altitude.:8 However, at 700+KIAS in any Tornado, I think you will find that the core engine is just an APU, almost all the thrust is from the pressure recovery in the inlet coupled with the afterburner. :ok:
However, the (almost) unbelievable thing is that Concorde (BS OLYMPUS 593) cruised at Mach 2.0 IN DRY POWER!:ok::ok:

OAP

[thing]

It did indeed, although I have to say that the most impressive thing about any Concord flight (pedant mode/it's Concord, not Concorde/pedant mode off) was the reverse thrust on landing which was like hitting a brick wall. The rest of the flight was much like any other pax jet other than the fact you could see the curvy contours of the planet at altitude. And you were well lubricated with quality shampoo.

[Onceapilot]

Sorry thing, your pedant mode is U/S. You can call it what you wish but, the contractual name was Concorde.:oh:

OAP

[AvroLincoln]

From Concorde FAQ:
"at the roll-out of the first Concorde prototype at Toulouse in December, 1967, Tony Benn, MP, then British Minister of Technology, finally resolved what he described as the only disagreement with France that had occurred during the years of co-operation on the project. He had decided, he said, that the British "Concorde" should from now on also be written with an "e.""

[thing]

Apologies to all, Lincoln and OAP are quite right. I knew it was spelled the 'wrong' way but got the wrong way wrong. If you follow me.

[Onceapilot]

No snags thingy, probably caused by too much shampoo, you lucky... ...:D

OAP

[thing]

Certainly too much shampoo at the moment as a cursory glance at Google would have set me straight before committing fingers to laptop. There's no fool like an old fool :)

[Lima Juliet]

Now if you're talking dry power super-cruise then the old F3 could do that as well - it had to be one of the new ones, without pylons and you needed to be at about 5,000ft if I recall correctly.

Don't get me wrong, you needed a crack of burner to get 'super' but then if you had a slippery jet then it could sustain 1.05M-1.1M.

Not as impressive as Concorde, but impressive all the same.

LJ

[Navaleye]

Apparently the white painted 2 seat Meteor in one of the Wonder Woman episodes could do it on one engine. Hmmn... Lynda Carter.

[glad rag]

BEags



Yes, BB was indeed rumoured to have been involved as you say. :ok:ť

Sadly, for the Zoom Merchant it wasn't such a happy ending as he was in a significant position of responsibility at the time...

I'm guessing that the champagne riders were nowhere near Mother Earth when they got their 1000mph tick. :ok:

LJ

Said zoom buddy was actually a good guy but was unfortunate to have a number of high intensity whoopsies in a line.

Lessons to be learnt, not all aircrew have moral fortitude on a Friday night...

Which turned out to be quite ironic actually, as life often shows.

[GreenKnight121]

I'm not sure where SAC is getting their data

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/MIL-C-5011A_SAC_Specs.pdf

MIIITARY SPECIFICATION CHARTS;
STANDARD AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE,
PILOTED AIRCRAFT


This specification was approved by the Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force for use of procurement services of the respective Departments.
SAC = STANDARD AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS

Simply put, the SAC is the official US government statement of the flight characteristics of the aircraft, and is an official document of the respective services.

The SAC documents I linked above carry the following ID numbers:

F-8E SAC: NAVAIR 00-110AF8-5
F-14A SAC: NAVAIR 00-110AF14-2
F-14D SAC: NAVAIR 00-110AF14-2

All bear the comment "PUBLISHED BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMANDER OF THE NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND"


F-15C SAC: AFG 2, Vol 1, Addn 61

And carries the comment "BY AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE"

[LowObservable]

IIRC the secret to Concorde was a modest static engine pressure ratio. At cruising speed the OPR of the inlet/engine/exhaust system was high and it was very efficient without blowing up or melting the engine's hot end. The downside was that it was horrible at subsonic speed.

Concorde still holds the record for unrefuelled supersonic range, and by quite a big margin. Unless there is something we don't know about....

[ExRAFRadar]

ExAdvert:
Me: "F*@k"
Nav: "You have control"
Me: "I doubt it"P*ssing myself. Best post I have read for a while.

:D

[Royalistflyer]

Nothing I drove went anywhere near 1000, but I was on Concorde a few times, most impressive memory was the hard undercarriage - seemed to transmit every pebble and crack on the runway. I have much more recently seen a ground speed of 745 mph in a 777 flying to Melbourne across the mainland. Doing the middle of the Indian Ocean and around the bottom I've seen 700 mph ground speed.

[thing]

I go to Oz every summer (or winter to the Ozzists) and am always surprised by the groundspeed once you hit Darwin. There is almost always a 100-120kt tailwind. I don't know if it's a seasonal thing but it's most acceptable.

[Lima Juliet]

Oi, Dead Dog, have a word with yourself, will you?

Supersonic Car Gets Boost from RAF (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/supersonic-car-gets-boost-from-raf-18022015)

This car is going to do 1000 mph, that’s faster than any jet fighter in history at ground level, including the Typhoon.

There are plenty of jets faster than Typhoon at low level - in fact, due to its engine design and wing loading, the Typhoon is most unhappy at very high speed at low level; it p!sses fuel out the back and throws you about like a bucking bronco!

What a shame we never ran the old F3 at low level for the Guiness Book of Records...are there any still left in one piece at Leeming?

LJ