The need for Speed

[scoolbubba]

Thus, if you unload, you're doing the reverse. You remove induced drag, and all available thrust goes towards making you accelerate in velocity, not direction. I bet it would work in a P-3 too. NFOs/Tube rats might want to kill you though . . . :icon_tong

Maybe if I get Webmaster for Fly 1, I'll give it a whirl. Then when he's like WTF?! I'll just say I saw it on his website.

Edit: The 0 G's wasn't me doing the flying, it was my genius of a FAIP who'd just gotten upgraded to an FCF pilot going "watch this shit"

 

[wlawr005]

Same engines made F-111 go speed of light on the deck rivaled only by the Thud.

I will bet you soda that the F-111 NEVER got anywhere CLOSE to the speed of light...

 

[nittany03]

I will bet you soda that the F-111 NEVER got anywhere CLOSE to the speed of light...

Details, details.

 

[MasterBates]

Dude, it hit at least .000003c!

 

[wlawr005]

Maybe the engines had the flux capacitor mod...

 

[nittany03]

Maybe the engines had the flux capacitor mod...

Thought they only put that in the EF-111. It's part of the ALQ-99, you know . . .

 

[HeyJoe]

I will bet you soda that the F-111 NEVER got anywhere CLOSE to the speed of light...

It's an old saying from Vietnam era; "Thuds go home at the speed of light" (once they divested themselves of ordnance that is). They were speed kings down low until F-111 arrived on the scene).

 

[Catmando]

It's an old saying from Vietnam era; "Thuds go home at the speed of light" (once they divested themselves of ordnance that is). They were speed kings down low until F-111 arrived on the scene).

They may have thought their Thuds went home at "the speed of light" but the Navy's Fox-Fours went, the "speed of heat!"

Phantom Phirsts

 

[sfdistance]

Why is it that the newer generation of Navy/USMC jets (hornets) is so much slower than its predecessors (Phantoms, Tomcats). Is it just not tactically necessary to be upwards of mach 1 for any reason these days. I know the AF still seems to care about this type of performance hence supercruise in the F-22. Maybe its a matter of just not having the money to add that capability onto the already long list of requirements of a jack of all trades like the hornet. Just curious. For you Hornet pilots out there, how often do you even go supersonic. Is it something that you train for or just something that you maybe will get a chance to do once in a while with a slick jet with lots of area available?

 

[phrogdriver]

Why is it that the newer generation of Navy/USMC jets (hornets) is so much slower than its predecessors (Phantoms, Tomcats). Is it just not tactically necessary to be upwards of mach 1 for any reason these days. I know the AF still seems to care about this type of performance hence supercruise in the F-22. Maybe its a matter of just not having the money to add that capability onto the already long list of requirements of a jack of all trades like the hornet. Just curious. For you Hornet pilots out there, how often do you even go supersonic. Is it something that you train for or just something that you maybe will get a chance to do once in a while with a slick jet with lots of area available?

The saying about the old turbojet-powered planes was always,"You'll get supersonic at about the same time you run out of gas." Supercruise fixes this problem, to some extent.

The point of supersonic flight is, after all, to get somewhere faster. My supposition is that the high-speed aircraft of yesteryear were built with the idea that they might have to intercept Russian bombers in a hurry, fuel be damned.

Little actual combat occurs at high speed, it's the getting there that may require it. If you've got a couple extra seconds, may as well save some gas. You might need it later.

 

[Lawman]

Why is it that the newer generation of Navy/USMC jets (hornets) is so much slower than its predecessors (Phantoms, Tomcats). Is it just not tactically necessary to be upwards of mach 1 for any reason these days. I know the AF still seems to care about this type of performance hence supercruise in the F-22. Maybe its a matter of just not having the money to add that capability onto the already long list of requirements of a jack of all trades like the hornet. Just curious. For you Hornet pilots out there, how often do you even go supersonic. Is it something that you train for or just something that you maybe will get a chance to do once in a while with a slick jet with lots of area available?

Select Helo's and stop worrying about it....


No but seriously if you look back at some of the Century/4th Gen series aircraft they were in a lot of ways built for the last itty bit of speed possible. At the same time they were more purpose built than the modern multirole idea so they didnt have to make sacrifices to do a job well that cut into that eye bleeding sprint speed performance. Also a Mach 2+ aircraft is going to have a more complicated set of engineering requirements making it both more difficult to manufacture and to maintain. But mostly like Phrog said, the requirements were different. Fighters like the F-106 and F-104 had one job and one job only, get off the ground and get to altitude as fast as possible fuel be damned and start shooting missiles at the Bombers before they get in range to launch/drop whatever.

 

[Catmando]

The saying about the old turbojet-powered planes was always,"You'll get supersonic at about the same time you run out of gas." Supercruise fixes this problem, to some extent.

The point of supersonic flight is, after all, to get somewhere faster. My supposition is that the high-speed aircraft of yesteryear were built with the idea that they might have to intercept Russian bombers in a hurry, fuel be damned.

Little actual combat occurs at high speed, it's the getting there that may require it. If you've got a couple extra seconds, may as well save some gas. You might need it later.

Just to add to phogdriver's keen and most accurate insight....

The F-4 and F-14 were designed for fleet air defense. This means that they were to launch and climb to altitude as fast as possible, to intercept Soviet bombers hopefully at a long range before they could launch their cruise missiles against the carrier. Therefore, they needed max dash supersonic capability.

Other than that and as already mentioned, not only did supersonic flight burn an excessive amount of gas quickly, but high mach flight was tactically detrimental. A mach 2 turn radius would cover about two states (because of structural and physiological G-limits to stay within the Vn envelope), and thus render the flight totally out of the fight ... if not the country.

Every fighter has a "best cornering or turning" speed, and they are always subsonic speeds. Tactically, you want to be always slightly above that speed, but never too far... unless you just want to blow through and get out of harms way ASAP.

But there were some few occasions where the mach number wasn't so high, but the IAS was above the max - i.e. in the weeds .... but that's for another time. :icon_wink

The highest mach I ever went in either aircraft was always at the end of a PMCF flight. You did the high speed run at the end of the flight, and you had better do it inbound to home base because the low fuel light always came on at the end of it.

 

[HeyJoe]

Just to add to phogdriver's keen and most accurate insight....

The F-4 and F-14 were designed for fleet air defense. This means that they were to launch and climb to altitude as fast as possible, to intercept Soviet bombers hopefully at a long range before they could launch their cruise missiles against the carrier. Therefore, they needed max dash supersonic capability.

Other than that and as already mentioned, not only did supersonic flight burn an excessive amount of gas quickly, but high mach flight was tactically detrimental. A mach 2 turn radius would cover about two states (because of structural and physiological G-limits to stay within the Vn envelope), and thus render the flight totally out of the fight ... if not the country.

Every fighter has a "best cornering or turning" speed, and they are always subsonic speeds. Tactically, you want to be always slightly above that speed, but never too far... unless you just want to blow through and get out of harms way ASAP.

And designing aircraft for high Mach dash capability results in design trades typically at exspense of relative turning ability.