View Full Version : Supercruise
Fonsini
29th Nov 2016, 13:07
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
29th Nov 2016, 13:12
ISTR a 1960s design which cruised long range at M2.0 using dry power ;)
just another jocky
29th Nov 2016, 15:56
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
29th Nov 2016, 15:57
...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
29th Nov 2016, 16:19
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).
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
29th Nov 2016, 16:52
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
29th Nov 2016, 19:34
How about the North American XB-70? That was a pretty nippy machine.
But not a supercruiser IIRC.
PDR
EAP86
29th Nov 2016, 21:13
Didn't the Lightning need a bit of burner or a slight dive to get through M1?
EAP
PDR1,
Indeed, not a supercruiser, rather a waverider.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WaveRider
stilton
30th Nov 2016, 04:53
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
30th Nov 2016, 13:12
something to do with tertiary airflow/thrust above a given speed and reverse thrust buckets?
just another jocky
30th Nov 2016, 14:33
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...
1st Dec 2016, 10:23
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