Supercruise

[Fonsini]

So I just finished reading an article on the Russian T-50s "new" engines which will enable it to reach the giddy speed of M1.6 without afterburner. These aviation writers seem to think that Supercruise is still a creation of Fifth gen fighters, but to my mind aircraft like the Lightning were doing this back in the 1960s as a matter of routine.

All of which got me to wondering - what is the highest Mach that any of you saw in a Lightning in full dry power, say in the fastest model, an F.3 with no weapons ?

[Basil]

ISTR a 1960s design which cruised long range at M2.0 using dry power ;)

[just another jocky]

Just because I can...... :E


GR1 - could only manage 590kts in dry power with 2 big tanks & 2 x CBLS. Never quite got the fully clean TTTE version to supercruise.


Lightning sim - Mach 2 (in a vertical dive from FL900 with both engines flamed out).

[Rhino power]

...what is the highest Mach that any of you saw in a Lightning in full dry power, say in the fastest model, an F.3 with no weapons ?

I thought the T.4/5 were the quickest Lightnings because of the shape of the forward fuselage due to the side by side seating arrangement, something to do with the area rule principle, I think. Weren't the twin seat Hunters also the quickest versions because of the same reason? Or have I been told a load of fibs and got it all ar$e about face?

-RP

[PEI_3721]

The lighter weight F1 Lightnings used on the target facilities flights could accelerate and cruise at >M 1.1 without reheat.
Depending on weight and the atmosphere most of the interceptor versions could have kept pace with a M 1.1 target with cold power after having accelerated to that speed or higher with reheat to make the intercept.

The higher weight of the T5 offset any aerodynamic advantage; it was not very sporty in comparison to the single seat versions. The T5 struggled to exceed M 1.6 on '10 ton' rides (before it ran out of fuel).

[PDR1]

ISTR a 1960s design which cruised long range at M2.0 using dry power ;)

Whilst sipping champagne before returning the stewerdess to an upright position for the descent into LHR...

PDR

[MACH2NUMBER]

JAJ - The Lightning exceeded Mach 2, but sometimes relied on a tanker top up. The thread was on super cruise and 3721's assessment is about right, F3 also pretty similar with the better engines, but heavier.

[Rosevidney1]

How about the North American XB-70? That was a pretty nippy machine.

[PDR1]

But not a supercruiser IIRC.

PDR

[EAP86]

Didn't the Lightning need a bit of burner or a slight dive to get through M1?

EAP

[ORAC]

PDR1,

Indeed, not a supercruiser, rather a waverider.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WaveRider

[stilton]

Does supercruise require the aircraft to be able to accelerate through Mach one without afterburner or just be able to stay supersonic after using burner to 'get through' M1 ?


Strictly speaking I don't think Concorde could accelerate through M1 on 'dry thrust'
I thought they engaged reheat around .9 and kept it in until 1.7 in the cruise climb ?

[glad rag]

something to do with tertiary airflow/thrust above a given speed and reverse thrust buckets?

[just another jocky]

JAJ - The Lightning exceeded Mach 2, but sometimes relied on a tanker top up.

If you re-check my post, it was the Lightning sim, with both engines flamed out, which I was quite impressed with, especially as it's my only Lightning tale.

Sorry if I was being too facetious.

[Just This Once...]

GR1 - could only manage 590kts in dry power with 2 big tanks & 2 x CBLS. Never quite got the fully clean TTTE version to supercruise.


No supercruise for me in the rather tired TTTE aircraft either, but in a late-batch Saudi owned aircraft in UK conditions it was no problem.

Fly it like you stole it.

:E