Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Which Plane Is Fastest: Zero To Mach 1?  
User currently offline4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2979 posts, RR: 9
Posted (12 years 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7694 times:

Just a silly question that I've been wondering about the past few days and though that one of the experts in here might have an answer.



Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7502 times:

Well, to simplify this greatly, it all boils down to which has the best acceleration. Force = mass*acceleration, so it will be proportional to both force and mass. (Force/Mass = acceleration). There are lots of other factors involved, a key one being drag. Due to the fact that it will most likely be a fighter jet (which all have relatively similar shapes) we'll consider drag and all other factors to affect each aircraft equally.

Due to this, it is going to be the aircraft with the best thrust/weight ratio. Depending on how heavily loaded the aircraft is, it will vary, but a very good possiblity at maximum takeoff weight is the Suhkoi S-37. Other high powered fighters, such as the F-15 would also be up there.

Sorry I don't have a definitive answer for you, but you get the idea  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineLt-AWACS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7454 times:

several of the airdropped X-planes had high accelerations as well, though the standard Air Force answer applies here, it depends.  Big grin

Ciao and Hook 'em,
Lt-AWACS


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29706 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7430 times:

I don't know which aircraft it is but I do want to put something up to add to what Flyf15 said.

All of the American F4 phantoms where powered with the J-79 engine. When the British ordered their versions of the phantom they where powered by Rolls-Royce Spey engines. If memory serves the RR engines where the more powerful of the two engines.

It is generally accepted that the British Phantoms accelerated more quickly then their American counterparts but the American Phantoms had a higher top speed.

Is there any RAF or RN folks out there who have experience with there British and American spec. Phantoms(The brits operated both) who could comment further on this.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSchreiner From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7438 times:

SR 71 Blackbird? HUGE engines...


Soaring the internet...
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13046 posts, RR: 78
Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7408 times:

Not from personal experience, but the R/R Spey mod for the UK F-4K amd F-4M aircraft was a mixed affair.
Cost. These were expensive Phantoms, the cost of developing and flight testing the new engine, but also cuts in the numbers ordered.
The RN ordered 59, but got 52. 48 were operational, but 28 were immediately taken by the RAF, due to the rundown in the RN's carriers.
If the CVA-01 big-carrier programme had not been cancelled in 1966, the RN would have got up to 140 aircraft, assuming 3-4 CVA-01's built.
The RAF Ordered 148 F-4M's, but only 118 were built.
In many respects the Spey engine was disappointing, it did not improve performance across the board. Partly this was caused by drag due to airframe mods. to accomodate the larger Speys, especially in the rear fuselage.
J79 Phantoms were faster at higher altitudes, and accelerated better, the complex afterburner in the Spey was slower to light up too.
However, the Spey had some advantages.
Speed, acceleration and fuel consumption were better on Spey F-4's at low altitudes. This was significant, as from 1968-76 most RAF F-4M's were used in the attack role, before the Jaguar released them to provide a much needed boost to UK air defence.
Also, the Spey was smoke-free, unlike the smoky J-79's.
After the Falklands war, the runway at Port Stanley was lengthened to accomodate a RAF F-4M squadron.
As the Cold War was on, UK air defence was already understrength, and the Air Defence Variant Tornado was still a few years from widespread service, 15 ex USN F-4J's were leased to the RAF, for 74 Sqn.
So the RAF ended up with some J-79 Phantoms eventually!




User currently offlineExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7373 times:

The Streak Eagle's accomplishment was pretty noteworthy.

In setting the last of the eight records, it reached an altitude of 98,425 ft. just 3 minutes 27.8 seconds from brake release at takeoff and "coasted to nearly 103,000 ft. before descending.

This plane climbed so fast they removed even it's decals fearing the friction would burn them off!

More here:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f15se.htm


User currently offline9A-CRO From Croatia, joined Jun 2000, 1574 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7354 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Lt-AWACS
while those X-planes propably had very high accelerations their 0 to Mach 1 time is very, very big - reason - when they are dropped they already have airspeed of the carrier aircraft, so basically they accelerate from 0 to launch speed as B-52.



When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward...
User currently offlineRodrigo Santos From Brazil, joined Sep 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7357 times:

The Streak Eagle was great, but all of it´s records were wiped off by it´s Su-27 conterpart, the P-42.



User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7295 times:

Lets not forget the F-15 Strike Eagle set these records back in the early 1970's. In it's day it was the worlds foremost air superioty fighter aircraft. The F-15 would still be in the top 10 today and i reckon the SU-27/SU-37 would come very close- maybe even out-accelerate the F-15 0- Mach 1. The F-104 starfighter climbed like a rocket too especially with the rocket/JATO pack it carried.

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13046 posts, RR: 78
Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7286 times:

The BAC Lightning had pretty wicked acceleration too, and could go supersonic in level flight without reheat.
Wasn't exactly overburdened with fuel though!


User currently offlineRodrigo Santos From Brazil, joined Sep 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (12 years 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7257 times:

A modified MiG 25 broke most of the Streak Eagle´s (NOT Strike Eagle!) not long after that, but the P-42 records are absolute to date. Of course, maybe a stripped down F-22 could beat them, but I don´t think they will spend money on that.

User currently offline777kicksass From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2000, 668 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7239 times:

I'm sure i have heard that the British Electric Lightning was the fastest accelerating jet, even today.

User currently offlineRodrigo Santos From Brazil, joined Sep 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7242 times:

Not sure about the acceleration, the Streak Eagle and P-42 records were climbing records. Oh, and YES they climbed faster then the Lightning.

User currently offlineThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1639 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7227 times:

I just looked up the numbers on the Su-27 and they are really shocking. Since it has come up here, the climb rate of a production Su-27 is 54,000fpm. Sure glad we never had to fight those guys.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29706 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (12 years 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7232 times:

There was a guy that put a Walthers 601 turboprop in a Glassair homebuilt. Said he could make 20,000 feet in under four minutes.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineUSAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 53
Reply 16, posted (12 years 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 7219 times:

My guess is the F-16 Falcon,the logicbeing that its engine has a thrust to weight ratio greater than one, and thats a hell of an acceleration, although I dont have any data other than that to back up my guess...

Greg



Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 7195 times:

I doubt that it's the F-16, it's one of quite a few fighters with a high thrust to weight ratio, besides, F-16 pilots that got a ride in F-14's claimed to be very impressed with the Tomcat's acceleration, although they may have just been trying to be polite. Big grin

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offline2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (12 years 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 7186 times:

LY- Fighter pilots being polite? Be serious!  Smile

User currently offlineCovert From Ghana, joined Oct 2001, 1445 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (12 years 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 7182 times:

maybe the mig-25 foxbat with its turmanskys


thank goodness for TCAS !
User currently offlinePeterba69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (12 years 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7159 times:

I'm not sure that kind of record exists, or for that matter is even measured, because it happens so fast.

User currently offlineTrent_800 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7091 times:

English electric lightnings had the best climb rate for many years, only to be beaten by an F-15 (i think) but even today the lightning is No 2.

User currently offlineRodrigo Santos From Brazil, joined Sep 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7085 times:

Trent, read above, the Flanker smoked the F-15´s records...

User currently offlineBsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7080 times:

Let's face it, the aircraft doesn't matter - it's the pilot.

Everyone know's that a Cessna 150 could out accelerate an F-15 if it's pilot used to be a Pizza Hut delivery person...

 Big grin



The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
User currently offlineRodrigo Santos From Brazil, joined Sep 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7056 times:

Well, in the F-15´s records, the computer made the difference. They know what speed and angles to climb to get the fastest overall climb to 96000.

Don´t know about the Flanker´s records, all I know is that they were faster  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1639 posts, RR: 1
Reply 25, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7060 times:

The fastest plane to Mach One is the Bell X-1 because it did it first.  Nuts

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Which Plane Is Fastest: Zero To Mach 1?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Which One Is Louder SR-71, B-1B, F-15 Or F-22a posted Sun Feb 5 2006 00:41:21 by 747400sp
What Plane Is This? posted Sun Sep 4 2005 00:49:54 by Scbriml
What Kind Of Plane Is This? posted Mon Jan 17 2005 19:29:44 by Clickhappy
"Now Is The Time To Take Longer Strides"-Rutan CEV posted Fri Dec 10 2004 16:28:28 by N328KF
What Is It Like To Fly An F-16 posted Tue Dec 7 2004 02:23:34 by Aggiepilot13
Curious As To What Is Being Airlifted To CHS Today posted Mon Apr 26 2004 02:05:01 by Pwm2txlhopper
How Effective It Is For A Nimrod To Take AAMs? posted Tue Jun 4 2002 20:12:06 by Daweixia
Is F-14 Capable To Defend The Fleet? posted Sat Nov 17 2001 01:32:06 by Warlord
Why Is A Tanker Going To Roc? posted Fri Aug 24 2001 17:14:37 by Boeing757fan
What Is The Loudest Jet To Get Lunch Off A Carrier posted Wed Jul 26 2006 20:58:56 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format