Super cruise
Thread Starter
Super cruise
Is super cruise really that big of a deal? Going through my literature, I was surprised to read that the TSR2 was able to go easily supersonic without reheat. And that was in the 60s. So, what other airplanes are able to super cruise?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 427 Likes
on
226 Posts
Super cruise
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde is the first that springs to mind
There's a list of supercruise aircraft here but most of the article is unverified
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise
There's a list of supercruise aircraft here but most of the article is unverified
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise
Last edited by bgc; 7th Aug 2007 at 19:56.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Shrops
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its no co-incidence that both Concorde and TSR2 were fitted with the same basic engine, i.e. the Bristol Olympus albeit in 320 and 593 variants. They achieved supercruise by sheer brute force, the twin spool turbojet Olympus' they used produced between 20,000 and 31,000lbs of dry thrust repsectively. Compare that with the EJ200 turbo-fan fitted to Typhoon which produces a mere 13,000 lbs dry but is a much lighter and more compact unit.
Considering the Arrow attained 1.9ish on the J75 engines, with the iroquois installed it easily should have supercruised.
The J75 had a dry thrust of 5,700 kilograms (12,500 pounds), and an afterburning thrust of 8,400 kilograms (18,500 pounds). The Iroquois was the most powerful engine in North America, with a dry thrust of 8,400 kilograms (18,500 pounds) and an afterburning thrust of 11,800 kilograms (26,000 pounds). It had an unprecedented 5:1 thrust to weight ratio, achieved partly to the extensive use of titanium.
Allegedly they found an iroquois engine in storage in the UK a precursor to the olympus perhaps???
The J75 had a dry thrust of 5,700 kilograms (12,500 pounds), and an afterburning thrust of 8,400 kilograms (18,500 pounds). The Iroquois was the most powerful engine in North America, with a dry thrust of 8,400 kilograms (18,500 pounds) and an afterburning thrust of 11,800 kilograms (26,000 pounds). It had an unprecedented 5:1 thrust to weight ratio, achieved partly to the extensive use of titanium.
Allegedly they found an iroquois engine in storage in the UK a precursor to the olympus perhaps???
Last edited by rigpiggy; 8th Aug 2007 at 04:04.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incipient Thread Drift
AVRO Canada maintained a very close relationship with the "parent" Company in England. There would be a whole host of reasons for an Iroquois finding its way here. It seems unlikely that it was "a precursor to the Olympus" on time lines alone. The Bristol Olympus first ran in 1950 and first flew in '53. The Iroquois, on the other hand, completed detail design in May '54, first ran in December '55 and first flew in November '57. Interestingly, Charles Grinyer joined AVRO Orenda in Aprlil '52 to take charge of the Iroquois programme had previously been responsible certification of the Olympus at Bristol's
AVRO Canada maintained a very close relationship with the "parent" Company in England. There would be a whole host of reasons for an Iroquois finding its way here. It seems unlikely that it was "a precursor to the Olympus" on time lines alone. The Bristol Olympus first ran in 1950 and first flew in '53. The Iroquois, on the other hand, completed detail design in May '54, first ran in December '55 and first flew in November '57. Interestingly, Charles Grinyer joined AVRO Orenda in Aprlil '52 to take charge of the Iroquois programme had previously been responsible certification of the Olympus at Bristol's
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bucks, UK
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avro Arrow
I visited Ottawa a couple of weeks ago and was interested to see that the whole Arrow debacle is still an open sore for Canadians - as the TSR2 shambles is for those of us who can remember it. I was a schoolboy at the time but suffice to say that no labour politician will ever get my vote!
I saw the last, sad fragments of the Arrow in the aviation museum, then found that the museum shop is stuffed full of books, mousemats, pictures, DVDs, mugs and models of the Arrow.
Apologies for the thread creep - this deserves a thread of its own somewhere...
I saw the last, sad fragments of the Arrow in the aviation museum, then found that the museum shop is stuffed full of books, mousemats, pictures, DVDs, mugs and models of the Arrow.
Apologies for the thread creep - this deserves a thread of its own somewhere...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,069
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Then as a labour of love, one man built a full size cockpit of the Arrow, he thought might, hmmmm, might as well do a fuselage, then the wings etc till once again there was a full size replica of that magnificent aircraft....... A company making a film come documentary on the Arrow asked for its loan, which he willingly did, filming ended when he went to get his one mans dream back he found to his horror the crew had cut it up to show the wanton destruction that was carried out on the Arrow..............
He was gutted, there is a full size one just been completed of late, but as for the one this man built I would love to know if it survived.......
He was gutted, there is a full size one just been completed of late, but as for the one this man built I would love to know if it survived.......
Thread Starter
Yep, Concorde is an obvious one. I guess no way to fly three hours with reheat 
The Arrow 105 was way ahead of its time as well. But in a nutshell, wasnīt the Arrow project simply too big and to expensive for Canada to go alone? Why is it, that countries canīt cooperate on such large scale projects
The Arrow 105 was way ahead of its time as well. But in a nutshell, wasnīt the Arrow project simply too big and to expensive for Canada to go alone? Why is it, that countries canīt cooperate on such large scale projects
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BentStick
The F-111 can supercrusie.
Cheers
Magoo
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Paradise
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not the Aussie ones!
A little bird told me that the Pig can only supercruise in a shallow dive, and yes - it does require A/B to intially get it 'over the hump'.
Sorry to blow up that urban legend.
Then again, the Oz Pigs only had the P109, with a measly 12,000lbs per side dry. The F-models may (should?) have been able to make a much better go of it.
Any USAF or RAAF exchange types care to enlighten us?
Sorry to blow up that urban legend.
Then again, the Oz Pigs only had the P109, with a measly 12,000lbs per side dry. The F-models may (should?) have been able to make a much better go of it.
Any USAF or RAAF exchange types care to enlighten us?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by superfrozo
A little bird told me that the Pig can only supercruise in a shallow dive, and yes - it does require A/B to intially get it 'over the hump'.
Sorry to blow up that urban legend.
Then again, the Oz Pigs only had the P109, with a measly 12,000lbs per side dry. The F-models may (should?) have been able to make a much better go of it.
Sorry to blow up that urban legend.
Then again, the Oz Pigs only had the P109, with a measly 12,000lbs per side dry. The F-models may (should?) have been able to make a much better go of it.
I guess when discussing supercruise, it only really becomes a relevant capability if it can be done with a useful warload, e.g. F-22's all-internal AAMs/JDAMs, and I understand the Typhoon can carry a couple of AAMs (but not jugs?) and still bust through.
Cheers
Magoo