tockeyhockey
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:57 pm

Non Concorde Supersonic?

Fri Mar 18, 2005 5:48 am

has an airliner other than the concorde ever broken the sound barrier, perhaps in a test or in a dive? what would happen?
 
Newark777
Posts: 8284
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:23 am

Non Concorde Supersonic?

Fri Mar 18, 2005 5:49 am

A 747SP once broke the sound barrier in a dive, and lived to tell about it. I'm not sure about structural damage, but I'm sure there was some.

Harry
Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
 
tockeyhockey
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:57 pm

Non Concorde Supersonic?

Fri Mar 18, 2005 6:02 am

any more information on that? time and date? location? airline?
 
cumulonimbus
Posts: 508
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:13 pm

Non Concorde Supersonic?

Fri Mar 18, 2005 6:16 am

I thought I heard of a 707 and a 727 going supersonic before in a dive. Also did'nt the Convair 990 manage to do the same? Also the Tupolev TU-144 broke the sound barrier!! JK

Mike
 
Newark777
Posts: 8284
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:23 am

Non Concorde Supersonic?

Fri Mar 18, 2005 6:18 am

Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 2):
any more information on that? time and date? location? airline?

Here's a picture of the plane, with more info in the remarks:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt - AirTeamImages



Harry
Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
 
aa61hvy
Posts: 13021
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 9:21 am

Non Concorde Supersonic?

Fri Mar 18, 2005 6:20 am

Musta been one helluva flight
Go big or go home
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17115
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Non Concorde Supersonic?

Fri Mar 18, 2005 6:28 am

A DC-8 has broken the sound barrier during a test, and IIRC so has a Citation X.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Newark777
Posts: 8284
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:23 am

Non Concorde Supersonic?

Fri Mar 18, 2005 6:29 am

Ok, finally found the info on the incident. Looks as though the plane pulled almost 5 G's!  crazy 

http://www.aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19850219-0

Harry
Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

Non Concorde Supersonic?

Fri Mar 18, 2005 6:45 am

Plenty have, including the 767.

Poor SU-GAP  Sad
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
Newark777
Posts: 8284
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:23 am

Non Concorde Supersonic?

Fri Mar 18, 2005 6:49 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 8):
Plenty have, including the 767.

Poor SU-GAP

That one did not end as nicely as the 747 unfortunately.  Sad

While on the subject of SU-GAP, here's an eerie picture I found in the db. Read the remarks.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael F. McLaughlin



Harry
Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
 
ZRH
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm

Non Concorde Supersonic?

Fri Mar 18, 2005 6:54 am

Actually real supersonic airliners were only the Concorde and the Tu-144 but the latter never went into service, after two crashes (I think one was at the Paris Airshow in Le Bourget).
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

Non Concorde Supersonic?

Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:26 am

Quoting ZRH (Reply 10):
Tu-144... never went into service

Despite crash in Paris in 1973, Tu144 was in regular passenger service from Nov, 1977 till June, 1978. 55 flights, 3200+ passengers carried. Another crash during test flight in May 1978 caused withdrawal from service.
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

Non Concorde Supersonic?

Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:33 am

Quoting RIX (Reply 11):
Despite crash in Paris in 1973, Tu144 was in regular passenger service from Nov, 1977 till June, 1978. 55 flights, 3200+ passengers carried. Another crash during test flight in May 1978 caused withdrawal from service.

I've heard this before, and have wondered how you qualify regular passenger service inside the old Soviet Bloc. It's not like they could have paying customers really. Wouldn't this have been more of a regularly scheduled shuttle for Politboro and high ranking party members?

Not disputing it was in service, just wondering at what point it goes from "passenger service" to "private government shuttle"...after all, most people wouldn't call AF1 flights "regular passenger service" even though it spends a lot of time in the air...
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
citationjet
Posts: 2259
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

Non Concorde Supersonic?

Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:33 am

The Citation X Mmo = 0.92, and Md = 0.99. During envelope expansion and flutter testing, the Citation X slightly exceeded Mach 1. A T-38 was used as a chase plane and collaborated the airspeed. Cessna renamed one of their executive conference rooms the Mach One conference room as a result of this event.
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
 
chazzerguy
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 4:06 am

RE: Non Concorde Supersonic?

Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:49 pm

The SP that went supersonic is N4522V, which is still flying today... However, it still carries the scars of its dive...

I don't recall the precise numbers, but both wings are slightly bent upward... I think one is bent about half a degree, and the other slightly more than one degree. Don't quote me on those numbers... But after the incident it was determined the bend could not be corrected, but was not bad enough to significantly impact its safety or performance.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17115
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Non Concorde Supersonic?

Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:19 am

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 12):
Quoting RIX (Reply 11):
Despite crash in Paris in 1973, Tu144 was in regular passenger service from Nov, 1977 till June, 1978. 55 flights, 3200+ passengers carried. Another crash during test flight in May 1978 caused withdrawal from service.

I've heard this before, and have wondered how you qualify regular passenger service inside the old Soviet Bloc. It's not like they could have paying customers really. Wouldn't this have been more of a regularly scheduled shuttle for Politboro and high ranking party members?

Why could they not have been paying? The Tu-144 carried mail and pax.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
cornish
Posts: 7651
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:05 pm

RE: Non Concorde Supersonic?

Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:22 am

Wasn't the CV990 Coronado the quickest of the regular jet airliners (non-Concorde and Tu144)? No idea if it ever went supersonic during any tests, but certainly not in regular use.
Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
 
avek00
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: Non Concorde Supersonic?

Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:30 am

How about 744s flying Eastbound TATL or TPAC on a day with strong tailwinds - those suckers zoom across the ocean like none other...
Live life to the fullest.
 
tockeyhockey
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:57 pm

RE: Non Concorde Supersonic?

Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:43 am

Quoting Newark777 (Reply 9):
That one did not end as nicely as the 747 unfortunately. Sad

While on the subject of SU-GAP, here's an eerie picture I found in the db. Read the remarks.

wow!! amazing shot. that's got to be a one of a kind event. anyone else have a photo of two unrelated jets in the same frame that both crashed?
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17115
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Non Concorde Supersonic?

Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:49 am

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 17):
How about 744s flying Eastbound TATL or TPAC on a day with strong tailwinds - those suckers zoom across the ocean like none other...

Having a high ground speed due to strong tailwinds does not change the Mach number.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Spike
Posts: 1110
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:08 am

RE: Non Concorde Supersonic?

Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:56 am

Probably not. Its kind of a rare ocurence. Mind you, someone must have a pic of the KLM/TWA 747 double Tenerife cash for your eddification.
 
chazzerguy
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 4:06 am

RE: Non Concorde Supersonic?

Tue Mar 22, 2005 10:33 pm

The CV-990 was "transonic" as I recall... Although I am unclear as to what that means exactly. I think that means there are areas of airflow over the wing that do exceed the speed of sound, while the plane itself remains subsonic...

But I could be wrong about that. Anyone know?
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Non Concorde Supersonic?

Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:37 pm

THe only civil airliner that was taken supersonic deliberately AFAIK was a Conway powered DC-8-43 (destined for Canadian Pacific) by its test crew, led by Douglas test pilot Bill Magruder (who came up with the idea) on AUgust 21, 1961. It reached Mach 1.012 in a dive from 52K feet and recovered nicely, albeit with some buffeting during recovery.

The airplane was retired in 1980 with 70k hours on the clock.

It was, incidently, escorted by Chuck Yeager in an F-104 on this flight out at Edwards AFB.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
ZRH
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm

RE: Non Concorde Supersonic?

Wed Mar 23, 2005 1:38 am

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 17):
How about 744s flying Eastbound TATL or TPAC on a day with strong tailwinds - those suckers zoom across the ocean like none other...

Supersonic is more than mach 1. This means airspeed and has nothing to do with groundspeed and tail winds. I remember, in the 1980ties a Swissair's 747-300 had less than 6 hours between JFK and ZRH because of strong jet-stream. It is even possible that the airspeed is lower with tailwinds than with headwinds, but the groundspeed is higher.
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: Non Concorde Supersonic?

Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:27 am

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 12):
I've... wondered how you qualify regular passenger service inside the old Soviet Bloc.

- same as everywhere else. People buy tickets and fly.

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 12):
Wouldn't this have been more of a regularly scheduled shuttle for Politboro and high ranking party members?

- no. I've no idea why would Politburo (22 people) or high ranking party members fly from Moscow to Alma-Ata and back once a week (with cancellations)...

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 12):
most people wouldn't call AF1 flights "regular passenger service"

- nobody would call Tu144 "Soviet AF1". It never replaced governmental Il62.