Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months ago) and read 7931 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
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7859 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.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13194 posts, RR: 77
Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7837 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!
9A-CRO From Croatia, joined Jun 2000, 1574 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7783 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
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...
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7724 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.
Rodrigo Santos From Brazil, joined Sep 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7686 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.
USAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 53
Reply 16, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7648 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...
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7624 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.