If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I think it has more to do with the government/military original specifications, I would think it goes something like this.. Military "We'd like a M2.5 aircraft..." Manufacturer "Ah but they would require a variable inlet more development work and thats more expensive!!" Military "so how fast can you go without all the extra expence?" Manufacturer " about M2.0" Military " Ok close enough" These figures are then carried through the life of the program, even when those figures are exceeded by a large margin.. cheers I've seen it go both ways. I've seen many say a clean F-4 could no way in hell break 2.2 clean despite the fact it reached 2.62 when it was going for the speed record (yes I'm aware of the water injection etc. etc.) On the other hand there was someone a while back that said they were familiar with an individual who reached 2.83 in an F-111F briefly even though it's generally listed as 2.5. I know I remember reading that it was limited to five minutes at a shot over 2.2 or so because of heating. I guess the only way to know for sure would be to get a clean aircraft up to it's optimum altitude, top of the tanks, and put the pedal to the metal until you either stopped accelerating, were about to exceed heating limits, or were out of gas. LOL I wish they'd do that for aircraft about to be retired anyway. I'd have loved it if the Blackbird would have went out with new high marks for speed and altitude. Oh well. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I've seen it go both ways. I've seen many say a clean F-4 could no
way in hell break 2.2 clean despite the fact it reached 2.62 when it was going for the speed record (yes I'm aware of the water injection etc. etc.) Early F-4B's were good for an easy 2.2 (skinny wing and lack of add-on antennas) and I suspect with the right conditions and trimmed engines, somewhat more. Best I saw was 2.05 out of a late J (S-config without the slats) and it had the wing pylons attached. The Skyburner F-4 was the early one with small nose and canopy ... certainly not representative of production A/C. On the other hand there was someone a while back that said they were familiar with an individual who reached 2.83 in an F-111F briefly even though it's generally listed as 2.5. I've heard a number of claims for the F as well. It had higher thrust engines and w/o pylons etc was VERY clean. I know I remember reading that it was limited to five minutes at a shot over 2.2 or so because of heating. I guess the only way to know for sure would be to get a clean aircraft up to it's optimum altitude, top of the tanks, and put the pedal to the metal until you either stopped accelerating, were about to exceed heating limits, or were out of gas. It's usually gas and (these days) airspace. The F-8U3 never exceeded 2.39 because of canopy problems. Inlet heating is also a biggie. LOL I wish they'd do that for aircraft about to be retired anyway. I'd have loved it if the Blackbird would have went out with new high marks for speed and altitude. I think they came pretty close with the last records. I asked Darryl Greenameyer why the SR couldn't just do a nice smooth pull up from 80K for the absolute altitude record and he said it wouldn't work. R / John |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I think they came pretty close with the last records. I asked Darryl Greenameyer why the SR couldn't just do a nice smooth pull up from 80K for the absolute altitude record and he said it wouldn't work. R / John It still boggles my mind that that Mig-25 made it all the way to 123,000ft. On one of the last flights (for the Air Force anyway) when they set a few new records the Blackbird flew one stretch of the flight at 2242 mph or Mach 3.4. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message ... On one of the last flights (for the Air Force anyway) when they set a few new records the Blackbird flew one stretch of the flight at 2242 mph or Mach 3.4. The official absolute speed record still belongs to retired Major General Eldon W. Joersz at 2,193mph set in June 1976 using the SR-71. Tex |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:07:23 -0700, "Tex Houston"
wrote: "Scott Ferrin" wrote in message .. . On one of the last flights (for the Air Force anyway) when they set a few new records the Blackbird flew one stretch of the flight at 2242 mph or Mach 3.4. The official absolute speed record still belongs to retired Major General Eldon W. Joersz at 2,193mph set in June 1976 using the SR-71. Tex Yep. I'm wondering if it's becuase the the "offical" gates that the FAI recognized were at the beginning and end of the flight or something along those lines. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:07:23 -0700, "Tex Houston" wrote: The official absolute speed record still belongs to retired Major General Eldon W. Joersz at 2,193mph set in June 1976 using the SR-71. Tex Yep. I'm wondering if it's becuase the the "offical" gates that the FAI recognized were at the beginning and end of the flight or something along those lines. Almost certainly. If going after an existing record you have to comply with the rules. One of the easiest tasks is to go about setting records for which nothing presently exists. Lots of point-to-point records have been done this way. Absolute records...a different story. As an aside, I know Eldon from his F-105 days when he was a First Lieutenant. Tex |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
During flight test the clean E with PW-229s easily cruised above M 1.0 at
mil, whether accelerating up to it or decelerating down to it. It is not likely the fully loaded E can do this. By clean, do you mean w/o conformal tanks? By easily cruised, do you mean accelerated through mach w/o resorting to A/B? Is this based on personal experience? Yes. Yes. Yes (from the control room). |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
John Carrier wrote:
Early F-4B's were good for an easy 2.2 (skinny wing and lack of add-on antennas) and I suspect with the right conditions and trimmed engines, somewhat more. Best I saw was 2.05 out of a late J (S-config without the slats) and it had the wing pylons attached. The Skyburner F-4 was the early one with small nose and canopy ... certainly not representative of production A/C. Most of the F-4 (E-model) mach logs I saw topped out about 1.8-1.9, with only a few FCFs pushing it to 2.2 or so. However, in those (1970) days of slick wings (no slats) and the short gun fairing, I did see one F-4E come out of phase and pull a mach 2.4 FCF before returning to the flightline at Korat. Nobody believed it - so they checked the TAS system. It was accurate. A dirty old warbird from the Korat flightline could still pull 2.4 without any preparation (other than pylon/stores removal). |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
However, in those (1970) days of slick wings (no slats)
and the short gun fairing, I did see one F-4E come out of phase and pull a mach 2.4 FCF before returning to the flightline at Korat. Nobody believed it - so they checked the TAS system. It was accurate. A dirty old warbird from the Korat flightline could still pull 2.4 without any preparation (other than pylon/stores removal). Skinny nose and -19 (??? IIRC) engines helped I'm sure. R / John |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WWII warplanes vs combat sim realism | [email protected] | Military Aviation | 37 | November 27th 03 05:24 AM |
List of News, Discussion and Info Exchange forums | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | November 14th 03 05:01 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
#1 Jet of World War II | Christopher | Military Aviation | 203 | September 1st 03 03:04 AM |
Aircraft engine certification FAR's | Corky Scott | Home Built | 4 | July 25th 03 06:46 PM |