EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 28011 times:
I understand the RF-101C at low level was faster than the F-105, which was mighty fast itself. Not sure what's faster than the F-111, though I read somewhere (and found it hard to believe) the Blackburn Buccaneer was faster than the '111, perhaps because it carries its weapons in the weapons bay while the F-111 carries its weapons externally.
SCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 27642 times:
Quoting Ferrypilot (Reply 5): Should have been the British TSR-2 but it was cancelled by the Labour government after 4 test aircraft had been built and just one of them flown.
Definitely. I would expect it could do mach 1.4 or better.
I read the F-111F could do mach 1.25 all day
Of course Darryl Greenamyers Red Baron F-104 did 988 mph (mach 1.30) officially for the current record, and 1013 mph (mach 1.33) unofficially (faulty timing equipment) -both at 300 ft AGL back in the '70's. It had a water/ethyl alcohol injection system similar to that used for the "sageburner" F-4H that did just under mach 1.2 (all J-79's had turbine inlet temp limit of mach 2.2 at altitude w/o water injection, and around mach 1.1 at sea level), Greenamyer's F-104 was cleared for mach 2.6 at altitude with the injection system.
Nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 27445 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 10): Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 2):
The good ol F-9. It still has the record at 985mph.
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 9):
The F9F Cougar? No it doesn't.
The maximum speed of the Grumman F-9 Cougar (nee F9F-8) was 714 mph.
That was suppose to be F-4. I blame my confused brain on the freaking Phantom pilots who liked glide in on our position and kick in the afterburners right over our heads at 4 AM. I no longer have to imagine what the end of the world sounds like.
From what I have read, neither of these aircraft could break mach one at sea level. Top speed for the B-58 was around mach .92 and the Vigilante was mach .95. The Vigilante had wings that were too large for supersonic speed on the deck, and the B-58 could not structurally handle the buffeting. The same reasons why the SR-71 and XB-70 were only capable of mach .95 on the deck.
That's a US top 10 I suppose, although I don't doubt these are strong contenders.
Yes, I should have said these were US only contenders. France, Russia, UK, and others also had very fast movers on the deck, too.
Quoting Columba (Reply 11): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
On the deck, the top 10 winners were:
The Panavia Tornado must be under the top ten. It was developed for low level high speed ground attacks and is fairly good at it.
Quoting A342 (Reply 14): The Tornado IDS can do Mach 1.3 at treetop level. Of course, that's without external stores (save maybe a pair of Sidewinders).
Without a doubt the Tornado is among the fastest on the deck.
Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 13): From what I have read, neither of these aircraft could break mach one at sea level. Top speed for the B-58 was around mach .92 and the Vigilante was mach .95. The Vigilante had wings that were too large for supersonic speed on the deck, and the B-58 could not structurally handle the buffeting.
Actually, the B-58 could exceed M 1.2 on the deck, but you are right, to do it continously it needed more structure. The RA-5C was the primer USN low level recon jet in the mid and late 1960s. It was very fast on the deck, and replaced the USN RF-8 in the low level reconn photo missions. The RF-8 was also fast, just not fast enough to make my list, it most famous mission was helping to confirm the Russian nuclear MLCMs in Cuba, after a USAF U-2 found them in September 1962.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 26683 times:
Quoting Stoney (Reply 20): I thought I heard the Lancer could do Mach 1.2 at sea level, quite impressive for such a huge aircraft. If this is true it would certainly be quite astonishing...
Hmmm. ?The B1A was PLANNED to do that, but demanded too much expensive materials such as Ti. So low speed was scaled back to about M0.85. At the same time operating altitude was lowered making up for the increased vulnerability of lower speed. The B1B is a much slower design (aloft) but ironically is marginally faster on the deck (M0.92).
Separately from all this there was a period ?in the 50s when folk were seriously thinking of using the shock wave from supersonic low flying airplanes as a weapon. But to get a certain kill you really needed to be going too fast too low to be practical, and I presume in a trench warfare situation, you might have to be careful in the approach and pull out to avoid your own troops. So happily, it turned out to be a(nother) weapon that was not very practical. That said, supersonic flight (but not on the deck) has been used as a weapon of irritation/intimidation in the ME. So the thought appears to live on.
Hunterson From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 144 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 26661 times:
I agree the F-111 has to be one of the top contenders, but let us not forget the Tornado IDS,
which is essentially designed for the same missions and along the same aerodynamic lines, and also the TSR-2 which was never given the chance to go operational, thanks to the usual "brilliant" defence policy decision-making by British politicians.
But I do wonder here about what Soviet / Russian types could or can do in this respect.
I am told, for example, that Israeli pilots who managed to fly and evaluate a MiG-23MLD
( Flogger-K ) which had defected from the Syrian AF some years ago, were most impressed with its performance, and thought that its parameters were generally 20-25 percent higher in all aspects, compared to the then prevailing NATO estimates, both at low level and at altitude.
If that is the case, then surely there should be a few Russian contendres there, including both the Su-17/20/22 and the Su-24 VG strike aircraft, both optimized for mainly low-level missions.