Fastest At Low Level?
jp
Cheers
Jack.
--
Do not read the following sequence of letters. It is part of an ancient
Latvian curse that will instantly induce impotence, herpes and dyspepsia
in your computer or workstation: uoykcuf.
GaryEveret
>What is the fastest aircraft in the world at sea-level?
I give my vote to the F-111. Can't think of anything faster for sustained
super-sonic flight at low level.
Gary
DavidlE
(GaryEveret) writes:
>What is the fastest aircraft in the world at sea-level?
>>I give my vote to the F-111. Can't think of anything faster for
sustained
super-sonic flight at low level.
Got to agree! No other aircraft's top speed was restricted by skin
temperature.
James N. Howard Jr
: What is the fastest aircraft in the world at sea-level?
: Cheers
: Jack.
: --
[curse deleted]
I think it may be the F-111F, ~700 knots, sealevel, full a/b
Jim Howard
F-4G/EF-111A EWO
Air Liason Officer, Ft Hood TX
Emmanuel.Gustin
: What is the fastest aircraft in the world at sea-level?
I think the low-altitude speed record must still be held by the F-104RB
(Red Baron) of Daryl Greenamyer -- a special F-104, built from spare parts
to set the record.
Emmanuel Gustin
H. Lagle
Actually, I think the MIG-23 Flogger is slightly faster in a burst but doesn't have
the fuel load to sustain it for very long. The F111F is probably a very close second.
---
____________________________________________________________
Hugh Lagle, Alcatel Network Systems,
Raleigh, NC USA
Internet: la...@aur.alcatel.com
*** Ex-F111 WSO ***
Mark Anthony Brown;E200
: dav...@aol.com (DavidlE) writes:
: >In article <31c89l$p...@search01.news.aol.com>, garye...@aol.com
: >(GaryEveret) writes:
: >>What is the fastest aircraft in the world at sea-level?
Panavia Tornado IDS. Mach 1.2 at sea level (clean).
Mark.
FixItMan
I once talked to an F15E pilot, and asked him that same question.
His reply was something like "no aircraft I know of even come close at
low level."
And in my personal (limited) experience, this is true.
FixItMan, ex F111F, FB111A crewchief 1986-89.
FixItMan
>dav...@aol.com (DavidlE) writes:
>>garye...@aol.com (GaryEveret) writes:
>>>j...@cairo.anu.edu.au (jp) writes:
>>>>
>>>>What is the fastest aircraft in the world at sea-level?
>>
>>I give my vote to the F-111. Can't think of anything faster for
>>sustained super-sonic flight at low level.
>>
>>Got to agree! No other aircraft's top speed was restricted by skin
>>temperature.
> Huh... actually... it depends upon the configuration...
> "Clean" @ sea-level, the Tornado GR.1 is fastest - but by only 1-2 mph.
> Actually, several aircraft are bunched together at Mach 1.2, including
> the F1, F14, F15, and F16 with only a few mph/kph separating them.
> But, strap some ordnance on and its a different story...
> "Combat load" @ sea-level, the F-111 is fastest - and by a nice margin.
> When it calls for a high speed, deep penetration, precision strike,
> nothing can do it better than the F-111.
> TRAVIS
>
Gee, are there any F111 fans out there?.........
I never even heard of them, till I got my orders ("F111? whats that?..)
I was an instant fan after i found a book on them. that was even before
Libya.
Tough to work on though, not like those F15E's
FixItMan, ex F111F, FB111A, crewchief 1986-89
Bradley Hards
>>>I give my vote to the F-111. Can't think of anything faster for
>sustained super-sonic flight at low level.
>Got to agree! No other aircraft's top speed was restricted by skin
>temperature.
I once talked to an F15E pilot, and asked him that same question.
His reply was something like "no aircraft I know of even come close at
low level."
And in my personal (limited) experience, this is true.
I take it that this means an F-15E pilot thought the Vark was quick,
although maybe the Americanism got to me :)
So how fast are we talking (say a F-111F at 1000ft AGL, average
day, clean)?
Brad
pa...@cc.usu.edu
>
> I give my vote to the F-111. Can't think of anything faster for sustained
> super-sonic flight at low level.
I would also give some votes for the MiG-31 Foxhound or Tornado.
Any others?
Pauld
Paul F Austin
>From: dav...@aol.com (DavidlE)
>Subject: Re: Fastest At Low Level?
>Date: 30 Jul 1994 15:05:06 -0400
>>What is the fastest aircraft in the world at sea-level?
>>>I give my vote to the F-111. Can't think of anything faster for
>sustained
>super-sonic flight at low level.
>Got to agree! No other aircraft's top speed was restricted by skin
>temperature.
A B-58 might give an F-111 a race. It seems like I read that a B-58 without
pod could do Mach 1.2-1.3 at sea level but the ride was rough.
paul austin
T.M.Haddock
>>>
>>>What is the fastest aircraft in the world at sea-level?
>>
>>I give my vote to the F-111. Can't think of anything faster for
>>sustained super-sonic flight at low level.
>
>but doesn't have the fuel load to sustain it for very long.
>The F111F is probably a very close second.
Hmmm, my source lists the Flogger at just Mach 1.15 (875mph/1410kph).
That puts it about 45mph/80kph slower than the Tornado GR.1 and
even behind about 6 other aircraft, including the F-111F, in the
Mach 1.2 (910+ mph) class.
TRAVIS
Lasse Olsen
Hmmm, I have several books stating that both the F-15 and F-16
are able to do Mach 1.4 - clean - at sea level.....at least in theory.
Bo Viger
: : Panavia Tornado IDS. Mach 1.2 at sea level (clean).
: Hmmm, I have several books stating that both the F-15 and F-16
: are able to do Mach 1.4 - clean - at sea level.....at least in theory.
^^^^^^^^^
Therein lies the rub. The Tornado was given its swing-wing design for a
number of reasons, a key one being it allowed it to cruise at 900 MPH @ sea
level without beating the crew into a state of unconsciousness. Moving
the center of pressure as far back on the aircraft as possible significantly
improves its ability to "penetrate" turbulence with minimum impact on the
cockpit.
A fixed-wing fighter like the F-15 or F-16 might have a slightly higher top
speed at sea level, but could you live to tell about it?
Bo
--
____________________________________________________________________________
/\
/\ /~~\ /\ Bo Viger voice: 303/229-2018
/~~\/ \/~~\/\ Hewlett-Packard Company fax: 303/229-4432
/ \ / /~~\ Fort Collins, Colorado email: b...@fc.hp.com
/______\__/___/____\________________________________________________________
David Bonorden
your standard Fighter squadron ready-to-go-right-now F15 or F16.
Dave Bonorden
James N. Howard Jr
All this talk about airspeed made me dig out my F-111A flight manual. The
following information is from Tech Order 1F-111A-1: Max Speed, sea level:
Mach 1.2 (fig 5-4) (that's about 690 knots, if I still remember how to use
a whiz wheel:)
The following text expands on the limit:
"Airspeed restrictions are presented in fig 5-4. [your milage may vary,
your bombs will probablly come apart]... The max sustained speed is
conicident with a total temperature of 153C (308F). The max dash speed
is coincident with a total temperature of 214C(418F) or mach 2.50,
whichever is less. Flight at speeds which result in total temperature
greater than 153C is limited to 5 minutes per flight."
This reminded me of something. The F-111 cockpit has many bizzare and
seldom used gages. One of these is a "total temperature indicator" which
is located in an almost impossible to see position on the rear capsule
bulkhead. It has a 300 second countdown counter, which starts a
countdown when your total temp exceeds 153C and you will get a "total
temp" caution light. When the 300 seconds expire, you get a "reduce speed"
warning light. You can expect the "windshield hot" light to come if you
continue.
The post about the smooth ride from sweeping your wings is correct. You
need these lights because these planes love to fly fast, and are happy to
run right up to the limits with no fuss or bother, even on hot bumpy days.
The F-111F has much bigger motors, but I *think* it has the same total
temp limitation.
One very important detail is bomb racks and bombs. A number of airplanes
can exceed M1.0 at sea level, but I only know of two (F-111 and F-15E)
that have bomb racks that can go supersonic (I don't know about the
Tornado). Even then, there are only a few external stores that can go
above M1.0 at sea level.
check six,
Jim Howard
former F-4G/EF-111 EW Officer
Air liaison officer, Ft Hood TX
Günther Seemann
> Hmmm, my source lists the Flogger at just Mach 1.15 (875mph/1410kph).
> That puts it about 45mph/80kph slower than the Tornado GR.1 and
> even behind about 6 other aircraft, including the F-111F, in the
> Mach 1.2 (910+ mph) class.
I dont't have my papers at hand but there are several different versions of
the MiG-23. So you can't say *THE FLOGGER* is at xx Mach at sea level.
- Guenther
ho...@vax.rhodes.edu
Ummm...probably one we haven't seen yet. But I'd lay bets on the F-111F.
Jeb Hoge
Rhodes College
SANDY MCCLEARN
> la...@aur.alcatel.com writes:
>>>>
>>>>What is the fastest aircraft in the world at sea-level?
>>>
>>>I give my vote to the F-111. Can't think of anything faster for
>>>sustained super-sonic flight at low level.
What about the Su-24? I've at least read it can carry a larger
weapons load than the F-111...how do they compare on speed?
Sandy
Chris Douglas
>Brad
Although the F-111 is certainly a beast down on the deck, I've also heard B-1
pilots boast that nothing can touch them when they're down low. I wonder how
the two compare?
--cmd
Chris Douglas
>Pauld
MiG 31? That thing would probably break up from aerodynamic stress at .5 mach
down low! It's definately a high-altitude missile truck. Really, nothing
with convential wings is going to come close to a swing-wing arrangement like
that of the F-111, B-1, or Tornado at low level (hey, even though it's not
(currently) its job, how does the F-14 do in this category?).
Now, the Su-24 is probably pretty impressive. Anybody know how it compares to
the Western swing-wing strikers/bombers at low level?
--CMD
David Kuechenmeister
: : >(GaryEveret) writes:
: : >>What is the fastest aircraft in the world at sea-level?
What about the RF4-C? Is that even in the ballpark with F-15's and F-111's?
Dave Kuechenmeister
Dan Tasch
I understand the fastest plane in the world at low level is the F104
Starfighter. Reference a good article on this in the June 12, 1978 issue
of Sports Illustrated. Yes, I know, Sports Illustrated ?????
It is my understanding that in order to go fast at low level you need
really high wing loading. This translates to a very small wing such as the
starfighter has. If you dont have this, the ride will be really rough.
--
Dan Tasch P. O. Box 31768 513-252-7179
tas...@dmapub.dma.org Dayton, OH 45437
Steven A. Sumosky
reference source. Just for fun I included a list from my sources
(put out by Aerospace Publishing in 1988) with results that are
sure to dazzle and suprise!
1. McDonnell Douglas F-15E Mach 1.23
2. Grumman F-14A Tomcat Mach 1.20
McDonnell Douglas F-15C Mach 1.20
McDonnell Douglas F-4K/M Mach 1.20
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter Mach 1.20
General Dynamics F-111F Mach 1.20
MiG-29 Fulcrum Mach 1.20
Sukhoi Su-24 Fencer Mach 1.20
Panavia Tornado GR.Mk1 Mach 1.20
General Dynamics F-16 Mach 1.20
MiG-23 Flogger B Mach 1.20
Saab JA37 Viggen Mach 1.20
Dassault-Breguet Mirage 2000C Mach 1.20
Dassault-Breguet Mirage F1-C Mach 1.20
3. McDonnell Douglas F-4E Mach 1.18
4. Dassault-Breguet Mirage 5 Mach 1.13
5. Dassault-Breguet Mirage 4A Mach 1.10
Dassault-Breguet Mirage F1 Mach 1.10
Dassault-Breguet Mirage III Mach 1.10
Convair F-106A Delta Dart Mach 1.10
General Dynamics FB-111A Mach 1.10
SEPECAT Jaguar GR.Mk1 Mach 1.10
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-27 Flogger D Mach 1.10
Tornado F.Mk2 Mach 1.10
Kfir-C2 Mach 1.10
English Electric Lightning F.Mk6 Mach 1.10
6. MiG-21 Fishbed-J Mach 1.06
7. McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet Mach 1.00
Northrop F-20 Tigershark Mach 1.00
Saab J35F Draken Mach 1.00
8. Rockwell B-1B Mach 0.90
9. Boing B-52G Mach 0.56 (I couldn't resist!)
The listings in each speed range are not listed in any particular order.
I post this list with no guarrentee for the accuracy (I found one error
already in these books, one listing for SL speed for the F5 Tigershark
at Mach 1.64 which is its max at altitude speed). Another point is
that these books are from 88-89, so some info is not current (listings
for General Dynamics F-16, that are now Lockheed F-16's for example).
Some aircraft have no doubt had their flight envelopes expanded. I
felt this would be interesting, especially the variety of aircraft
compaired.
--
Steve Sumosky (su...@coyote.wpi.edu) <--Graduated in May '94
(BS ME-Aero, PP-ASEL, SFTE, AIAA, B-52 Gunner, etc....)
Bill Worthy
> In article <1994Aug1.1...@cc.usu.edu> pa...@cc.usu.edu writes:
>
> >>>What is the fastest aircraft in the world at sea-level?
> >>
> >> I give my vote to the F-111. Can't think of anything faster for sustained
> >> super-sonic flight at low level.
>
> >I would also give some votes for the MiG-31 Foxhound or Tornado.
> >Any others?
>
> >Pauld
>
> MiG 31? That thing would probably break up from aerodynamic stress at .5 mac
> down low! It's definately a high-altitude missile truck. Really, nothing
> with convential wings is going to come close to a swing-wing arrangement like
> that of the F-111, B-1, or Tornado at low level (hey, even though it's not
> (currently) its job, how does the F-14 do in this category?).
>
> Now, the Su-24 is probably pretty impressive. Anybody know how it compares t
> the Western swing-wing strikers/bombers at low level?
>
> --CMD
Has anybody out there heard of the old "CF-104" Starfighter. We used it
in the RCAF for low level strike and Photo Recce. Because of the minimal
wing area and design it could go up to 750 Knots KEAS or Mach 2.0
whichever came first. Obviously the Mach 2.0 was only available at
altitudes above about 30,000 ft. On some configurations of Underslung
tanks and pods this was reduced to mach 1.5 but otherwise all the
aircraft I flew were capable of these speeds on every operation. It was
also not permitted to go supersonic at low level unless you were in
special training areas.
--------------------------------------------------
wor...@gtm-inc.com (Bill Worthy)
G.T.M. Incorporated BBS - Kingston, Ontario CANADA
Christopher Story
[some deleted]
|>
|> Has anybody out there heard of the old "CF-104" Starfighter. We used it
|> in the RCAF for low level strike and Photo Recce. Because of the minimal
|> wing area and design it could go up to 750 Knots KEAS or Mach 2.0
|> whichever came first. Obviously the Mach 2.0 was only available at
|> altitudes above about 30,000 ft. On some configurations of Underslung
|> tanks and pods this was reduced to mach 1.5 but otherwise all the
|> aircraft I flew were capable of these speeds on every operation. It was
|> also not permitted to go supersonic at low level unless you were in
|> special training areas.
|>
|> --------------------------------------------------
|> wor...@gtm-inc.com (Bill Worthy)
|> G.T.M. Incorporated BBS - Kingston, Ontario CANADA
Absolutely! I remember seeing them fly once or twice at
airshows just before they were retired. Extremely impressive
performance. Very eerie sounding aircraft - If I recall the
engine had this strange banshee-like howl as it went by at
high speeds.
Do I understand you used to fly 104s?? If so, then very impressive
indeed. I used to work with a fellow who had managed
to snag a backseat ride in a 2-seater Starfighter in Cold Lake.
He said he and his pilot went out for about 45 minutes of
low-altitude bombing practice on the Primrose lake range. Said
it was the most exhiliarating thing he'd done. I would have
traded my left arm for a ride in one.
-----
Chris Story
email : cstory@bnrca
The opinions are mine alone and are not in any way related
to my employer.
Lasse Olsen
: It seems obvious that the fastest sea level aircraft depends on the
Yeah..
BUT...
If you take into consideration the gust response and the horrible drag
caused by all the weapons, I think I'd go for the Tornado IDS if I was to
fly one at 100 (oh, and I'm a F-16 fan).
Any news on the Aurora?????
GaryEveret
(Chris Douglas) writes:
>Although the F-111 is certainly a beast down on the deck, I've also heard
B-1
>pilots boast that nothing can touch them when they're down low. I wonder
how
>the two compare?
Well.... Wish I could say it was true, but alas, its not. The B-1 is
currently limited by T.O. to a max of .95 mach low-level. Of course, they
may have been some naughty pilots who went just a tad bit faster, but I
really can't say.... By far, the F-111 is faster than the B-1 on the deck,
but the B-1 can maintain .95 a LOT longer than the F-111 can sustain mach
1.2. When those pilots boosted that "nothing could touch them when they're
down low" you must consider not just speed, but also the sustainability of
this speed, terrain following radar, LO technology, ECM, etc. putting ALL
these things together, makes the Bone a very capable weapons system.
GARY
Jim Oke
>cdou...@origin.ea.com (Chris Douglas) writes:
>> >>>What is the fastest aircraft in the world at sea-level?
>> >>
>> >> I give my vote to the F-111. Can't think of anything faster for sustained
>> >> super-sonic flight at low level.
>Has anybody out there heard of the old "CF-104" Starfighter. We used it
>in the RCAF for low level strike and Photo Recce. Because of the minimal
>wing area and design it could go up to 750 Knots KEAS or Mach 2.0
>whichever came first. Obviously the Mach 2.0 was only available at
>altitudes above about 30,000 ft. On some configurations of Underslung
>tanks and pods this was reduced to mach 1.5 but otherwise all the
>aircraft I flew were capable of these speeds on every operation. It was
>also not permitted to go supersonic at low level unless you were in
>special training areas.
>--------------------------------------------------
>wor...@gtm-inc.com (Bill Worthy)
>G.T.M. Incorporated BBS - Kingston, Ontario CANADA
Further to Bill's info, the 104 (most models, not just the CF-104
which was essentaily a "104 G" with some mods) had a low level
Vne of 750 EAS. When compressibility and other effects were factored
in this turned into an IAS of 800+ knots at times. The ASI had a
"red line needle" in it that compensated for compressibility to
give the current IAS limit. Crossing the needles at low level was as
simple as moving the throttle; the aircraft was NOT thrust limited,
one had to throttle back to stay below the Vne. Needless to say,
the fuel flow at these speeds was quite impressive, I vaguely
recall 25,000 pph being quoted and this in an aircraft with
7,000-8,000 pounds capacity.
Not an overly useful capability but it was sure a fun way to wake
up the moose on the range at Cold Lake. Pulling up from 780 knots
IAS gave some interesting rates of climb... I recall doing a
half loop and rolling off the top at 35,000 feet.
Some later models of the 104, specifically the 104 S, had a modified
intake wedge to reshape the shock patterns and I think had a high
altitude mach limit of 2.2; not sure if low level Vne was affected.
Cheers, Jim Oke
Winnipeg, Canada
(P.S. Hello again, Bill).
Dennis The Menace
>MiG 31? That thing would probably break up from aerodynamic stress at .5 mach
>down low! It's definately a high-altitude missile truck. Really, nothing
>with convential wings is going to come close to a swing-wing arrangement like
>that of the F-111, B-1, or Tornado at low level (hey, even though it's not
>(currently) its job, how does the F-14 do in this category?).
>Now, the Su-24 is probably pretty impressive. Anybody know how it compares to
>the Western swing-wing strikers/bombers at low level?
>--CMD
--
The brim of my hat hides the eyes of a beast; I have face of a sinner, but the
hands of a priest. Oh, I can never show my face at noon; You can only see me
walking at the light of the moon.
Nicholas Strauss
...snip...
|> Regarding Mig31, it is a swing wing aircraft and it is not high-
|> altitude missile truck, Mig25 is, Mig31 is not.
No. The Mig31 is NOT a variable geometry airplane. Just plane old
trapazoid wings, moderate sweep back, just like the 25.
Right though that it isn't a high altitude missile truck, its a
medium altitude missile truck. It was built, from all I've seen,
as a cruise-missile killer more than anything. Supposed to have
pretty good low altitude performance, but I dunno numbers.
--Nick
--
______________________________________
\ \ _ ______ |
\ NICHOLAS STRAUSS \ / \___-=O`/|O`/__|
\ Silicon Graphics-Network Operations \_______\ / | / )
/ nstr...@netmare.corp.sgi.com / `/-==__ _/__|/__=-|
/ pi...@leland.stanford.edu / * \ | |
/_____________________________________/ (o)
"What, are you kidding?? We're on a spaceship! This place is *crawling*
with toothpicks!" -- the silly quote
"Who dares, wins." -- the serious quote
Günther Seemann
>Further to Bill's info, the 104 (most models, not just the CF-104
>which was essentaily a "104 G" with some mods) had a low level
>Vne of 750 EAS. When compressibility and other effects were factored
Since the Luftwaffe operated F-104 G (and also TF-104 G) I always thought that
the "G" stand for Germany (as the J for Japan in F-104 J).
Is this correct or is the F-104 G just the succesor of an F-104 F? If so, what
was the F-104 H? What about the versions from H to S? Was the F-104 S the last
version?
Ok these are enough questions for today.
- Guenther
J{rnstr|m Risto
>In article <Aug.10.09.33...@er4.rutgers.edu>, she...@eden.rutgers.edu (Dennis The Menace) writes:
>
>|> Regarding Mig31, it is a swing wing aircraft and it is not high-
>|> altitude missile truck, Mig25 is, Mig31 is not.
>
>No. The Mig31 is NOT a variable geometry airplane. Just plane old
>trapazoid wings, moderate sweep back, just like the 25.
True, Mig-31 isn't a variable geometry aircraft.
>Right though that it isn't a high altitude missile truck, its a
>medium altitude missile truck. It was built, from all I've seen,
>as a cruise-missile killer more than anything. Supposed to have
>pretty good low altitude performance, but I dunno numbers.
Well, I have read from several sources that MiG-31 can do 1500 kph on low
level (something like Mach 1.25). That would make it really one of the
fastest aeroplanes on low level. I don't know what kind of effects that has
on the pilot and WSO, I think that it may be quite hard ride for them.
And going really fast on low level isn't much good for it, because as you
said it's a medium altitude missile truck with good look-down/shoot-down-
radar and wouldn't have much use in going low (but if the situation requires,
it can go low and fast). Btw, MiG-25 can do something like Mach 0.98 on low
level.
- Risto
Dennis The Menace
Mary Shafer
Guenther> Since the Luftwaffe operated F-104 G (and also TF-104 G) I
Guenther> always thought that the "G" stand for Germany (as the J for
Guenther> Japan in F-104 J).
When the Luftwaffe turned 5 F-104Gs and TF-104Gs to Dryden, I was told
the exact same thing by one of our test pilots. Actually, he told me
that FRC (that's who we were then) would be the only people besides
the Federal Republic of Germany to fly the G models, since they were
spec'd to German requirements and unique to Germany.
I don't think it's at all uncommon to give a unique suffix to a
special model for a particular customer. After all, we got F-104Ns
(N for NASA) in 1963 and some of the earlier letters never got used.
Isn't the F-4M a special British model, again designated out of order?
--
Mary Shafer DoD #362 KotFR
SR-71 Chief Engineer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
sha...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all." Unknown US fighter pilot
Ethan L Mckinney
French are really obsessed with this. In fact, it's often humorous. All those
Mirage IIIs and F1s had suffixes like:
Z for South Africa
S for Swiss
O for Australia (remember, French spelling of the country names!)
J for Israeli (who else would be tacky enough to provide a "Jewish" variant of
a fighter? What, they cut the radome off during manufacture?)
Ethan McKinney
MIT-DACS
member of a black-Jewish-Scotts-Irish-
Korean-Baptist family, and proud of it!
Don Tyzuk
>When the Luftwaffe turned 5 F-104Gs and TF-104Gs to Dryden, I was told
>the exact same thing by one of our test pilots. Actually, he told me
>that FRC (that's who we were then) would be the only people besides
>the Federal Republic of Germany to fly the G models, since they were
>spec'd to German requirements and unique to Germany.
Mary
I worked on CF-104's for four years at 4 Wing, CFB Baden-Soellingen.
Yes, the German F-104 was different in many ways.
-the Emergency Nozzle Closure on the 104g required several
steps to operate. Ours was a toggle switch. The Luftwaffe
pilots felt they would rather not have to think of a half
dozen steps when the ENC was needed.
-Their weapons system was different. They had not modified
theirs as extensivley as we did ours.
-I'm not sure, but I think the Canadian built J-79 was
rated for a few more pounds of thrust.
But most of that stuff was trivial. We serviced and loaded their
aircraft. I was qualified to load rockets, bombs and the gun on
the 104G as well as the usual gas, oil and hydraulic servicing.d
--
Don Tyzuk | email : don....@acadiau.ca
Jodrey School of Computer Science | smail : PO Box 1406
Acadia University | Wolfville NS B0P 1X0
lcs...@gmail.com
walt...@gmail.com
FWIW I made a low pass (below radar) at about 100 ASL just after dawn one cool morning. We had a gun problem and the bird needed a flight test. 3 short bursts and a quick return for the first event in a gunnery match. I had to get down to normal landing weight so I went to max power. The bird accelerated swiftly and was quickly past the Mach. The ride was smooth and all of a sudden the acceleration stopped. I glanced at the CIT gauge and it read 85C;the OAT was about 15C. Suddenly it struck me that the fuel control had cut back the fuel flow because of the compresser output temp. This was very seldomly encoutered and my first and only experience with it. I looked back up front and dead ahead was the proverbial innocent bystander putting along at around 15 knots. Too late to pull up so we blasted right over her at somewhere around 1.25. If the crew was sleepy they sure got a wake-up call. I expected an inquiry but as far as I know the base didn't even get a phone call. That was in a 104A with the old J79-3B engine. Again FWIF with the J79-19 the A model would sustain .97 on the deck in military. Never tried for Vmax in AB. The red lines for the 104 A were 710CAS, M 2.0 and 100C. All were easily attained. The 2.0 limit was determined by the diminution of lateral stability below the USAF ordained limit of .003 recovery coefficient. (.03? it's been fifty+ years and is not cited in my dash one). We didn't worry about that one since we rarely used any rudder supersonic. BTW the A's rudder, like the mainwheel brakes, are unpowered - KISS indeed. Another comment about the Dash 19 bird. Enter a loop at .95, select max AB and belly through 50K going over the top. Kelly's CL1200 Lancer would have been better. But the SACumcised generals running the USAF back then disliked being scolded by Kelly. Alas.
walt...@gmail.com
Daryl
> No more participants? Here's actual data on the F4D under extreme conditions. Configuration: empty 600 gallon centerline tank, 2 MERs, 2 TERs, an ECM pod, 4 AIM9 and 2 AIM7. Condition - departing a stricken SA2 site at maximum power for "feet wet". There were 5 other SA2 sites now at 5 through 7 o'clock, all well in range. We were at 4000 agl, above the light flak, and I was pleased to note 745 knots on the 'clock'. Back home the F4D/Es never performed like this because their engines were all trimmed to the bottom of the band, for longevity. Not at DaNang - the engine mechs had their J79s peaked at the top of the band. By the way, I knew that was exceeding the centerline's red line, but that datum was immaterial at the time. I was more concerned about the 6 new aircrews on my wing.
>
real, it's real time and it happened. Please don't stop. Us lesser
beings enjoy reading from a Pro.
--
Visit http://droopyvids.com for free TV and Movies. One of
the Largest Collections of Public Domain and Classic TV on
the Internet.
Andrew Chaplin
news:b30d39fa-4461-4a96...@googlegroups.com:
Cold Lake might have got up to with its CF-104s at low level over Primrose
Lake Air Weapons Range, which is one of the few airspaces in Canada where
a fighter jock can do almost anything he wants.
At the other end of the spectrum, AETE's Ottawa detachment set a Canadian
altitude record with a 104 over CYOW in the late '60s or early '70s. I
think it remained the highest altitude a Canadian had attained until Marc
Garneau went into space in 1984.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Jim Wilkins
news:XnsA470552AE30FBH...@213.239.209.88...
> At the other end of the spectrum, AETE's Ottawa detachment set a
> Canadian
> altitude record with a 104 over CYOW in the late '60s or early '70s.
> I
> think it remained the highest altitude a Canadian had attained until
> Marc
> Garneau went into space in 1984.
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
X-15 could attain 354,200 feet or Mach 6.7. The current US manned
altitude record is the far side of the Moon, unmanned it's outside the
Solar System.
I hope you realize that the US patiently tolerated Canadian efforts to
prove you could run with the big dogs and sometimes helped, as with
the Arrow's engine program. We weren't trying to beat and embarrass
you, only the USSR mattered.
I've visited the Nova Scotia museum that bemoans US lack of respect
for the CANDU reactor system while ignoring that our focus and large
base of trained operators was necessarily oriented toward more compact
nuclear submarine power plants.
-jsw
Andrew Chaplin
email.me:
> "Andrew Chaplin" <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:XnsA470552AE30FBH...@213.239.209.88...
>>
>> At the other end of the spectrum, AETE's Ottawa detachment set a
>> Canadian altitude record with a 104 over CYOW in the late '60s or early
>> '70s. I think it remained the highest altitude a Canadian had attained
>> until Marc Garneau went into space in 1984.
>
> X-15 could attain 354,200 feet or Mach 6.7. The current US manned
> altitude record is the far side of the Moon, unmanned it's outside the
> Solar System.
http://www.i-f-s.nl/f-104-records/ (Search for "White.")
walt...@gmail.com
teddyp...@gmail.com
> What is the fastest aircraft in the world at sea-level?
>
>
> Jack.
> --
> Do not read the following sequence of letters. It is part of an ancient
> Latvian curse that will instantly induce impotence, herpes and dyspepsia
> in your computer or workstation: uoykcuf.
rf5c Navy reconnaissance acft
John Weiss
> On Friday, July 29, 1994 at 1:21:06 PM UTC-4, jp wrote:
>> What is the fastest aircraft in the world at sea-level?
>
RA-5, not RF-5.
However, the F-105 and/or F-111 may have been faster.
Jay Snyder
> >What is the fastest aircraft in the world at sea-level?
> super-sonic flight at low level.
I made a run at Green Flag in Canada in an F-111A. 800 knots at 100 ft (ish:-)).
The A model was easier to tune at a lower temp. That would get you 1.15M to maybe 1.2M.
But if they really turn up the heat, it will blow right past 1.2M with ease.
After a Fighter Weapons School hop at Nellis where the jet wouldn't break Mach and I almost got my ass shot off, I jumped on MX.
That afternoon I had the same jet and it screamed right through the Mach to 1.3M.
Mongo
F-111A, E, F-15E