Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I'm curious. Am I misinterpreting that drawing, or did that Canberra GLIDE all the way around that loop and arrive back at the starting point at 45K feet?? That's one hell of a L/D if so!! Hell, who needs a U2? In any case, a pretty fantastic machine for its time. Blows the socks off its contemporaries like the B45 and the IL28. How come our B57s couldn't pull off stunts like that?This describes a record setting flight involving a Canberra that was fitted with a rocket motor within it's bomb-bay. The aircraft turned on the rocket engine and zoomed up to 70,000 feet. Even as they were coming up on (or at) 70,000 feet, they were still climbing at 8000 feet per minute.
From what it seemed the rocket motor was shut down. I'm not sure if the engine went offline at anypoint.XBe02Drvr said:I'm curious. Am I misinterpreting that drawing, or did that Canberra GLIDE all the way around that loop and arrive back at the starting point at 45K feet??
At some point the Canberra did reach around 65,000 or 65,600 feet, which might been either the prototypes or the high altitude PR.7.
It reminded those who had any doubts, the meaning of ruthlessness.I'm curious if the Hungarian revolution in 1956 played a role in the decision making for overwhelming force and retaliation?
Yes, you ARE misinterpreting it!I'm curious. Am I misinterpreting that drawing, or did that Canberra GLIDE all the way around that loop and arrive back at the starting point at 45K feet?? That's one hell of a L/D if so!! Hell, who needs a U2? In any case, a pretty fantastic machine for its time. Blows the socks off its contemporaries like the B45 and the IL28. How come our B57s couldn't pull off stunts like that?
Cheers,
Wes
Amazed those early generation jets stayed lit at 70,000 ft. I remember reading of US jets doing zoom climbs well above their service ceilings, flaming out, and restarting on the way down.At that point the rocket motor was activated, and the aircraft zoomed to 70,000 feet - at which point the rocket was shut off. The aircraft descended with its normal jets still in operation, and continued to fly under normal jet power back to Luton
Though I know turbofans don't usually perform as good as turbojets at high altitudes, I was told that the two had similar thrust ratings. That said, one thing you're not factoring in is the Spey engined Phantoms had to be redesigned to accommodate the larger engine: This affected area rule.I remember a story told to me by a former Bomber Command pilot who had flown Canberras and Vulcans saying that during the 70s and 80s the RAF used the Canberra as a high altitude target and used to pit Lightnings and Phantoms, the RAF's interceptors du jour against them. Whilst the lightnings could get into a firing position, the Phantoms couldn't (US members, remember these were Spey engined Phantoms, not J79 engined ones, whose performance was better down low and rubbish up high).
I always thought that was a myth.British Airways lent a Concorde to the RAF as a target on occasion too, and the Concorde proved much harded to intercept because it cruised at supersonic speed. A Lightning could catch up to it, but couldn't maintain position.
In 1973, when HMS Ark Royal came to town to play ACM games with our resident combat training squadron, their Spey powered Phantoms and unorthodox tactics waxed our J79 birds and TopGun trained instructor pilots BADLY! In five days of nearly constant engagements, every single bird our side sortied was scored against, to zero kills for the home team. On two occasions, Buccaneer low level attack planes popped up into the fight from below, scored kills, and egressed safely. Airspace allocation set the ceiling at 25K, as there were civil jet routes overtop, so the altitude advantages of the J79 were somewhat curtailed. Still a mighty impressive demonstration.Whilst the lightnings could get into a firing position, the Phantoms couldn't (US members, remember these were Spey engined Phantoms, not J79 engined ones, whose performance was better down low and rubbish up high).
Though I know turbofans don't usually perform as good as turbojets at high altitudes, I was told that the two had similar thrust ratings.
I always thought that was a myth.
Essentially a big multi-blade, shrouded turboprop, minus the blade tip vortices with their attendant efficiency losses and earth shaking noise. Ever stand near a runway by the liftoff point of a departing Orion or Herc? That penetrating rumble you feel in your gut is pure wasted power spinning off the prop tips.With the big fans like the GENx engines and RR Trents, some 90 percent of the thrust generated is produced by the big 1st stage compressor, the big fan at the front.
There are/were a number of Lightning pilots on PPRuNe who have posted in various threads debunking both the Concorde and the U-2 interception.
Ever stand near a runway by the liftoff point of a departing Orion or Herc?
So part of it had to do with the ceiling limits, and the fact that the RN:FAA pilots seemed to have better skills in Air-to-Air combat. I figured they would have held the edge from the late 1950's to the start of Top-Gun, but I guess it extended a little past that. I wouldn't be surprised if things improved from the 1960's all the way to 1975.In 1973, when HMS Ark Royal came to town to play ACM games with our resident combat training squadron, their Spey powered Phantoms and unorthodox tactics waxed our J79 birds and TopGun trained instructor pilots BADLY! In five days of nearly constant engagements, every single bird our side sortied was scored against, to zero kills for the home team. On two occasions, Buccaneer low level attack planes popped up into the fight from below, scored kills, and egressed safely. Airspace allocation set the ceiling at 25K, as there were civil jet routes overtop, so the altitude advantages of the J79 were somewhat curtailed. Still a mighty impressive demonstration.
High overall thrust, and high speeds.They do and they don't. It depends on what you want your engines to do.
Well yeah, as I understand it: The turbojet is theoretically better at higher-velocity (particularly at high altitude) than the turbofans in terms of power-loss at altitude, and ability to operate at higher speeds (exceptions exist such as well designed low-bypass fans). Probably why most high-bypass fans generally operate at subsonic speeds.The fundamental point of difference is how the thrust is generated.
It has a trans-antlantic range while flying at Mach 2.0, I wouldn't consider that to be trivial. There are routes that would profit from greater ranges, such as the ability to fly across the Pacific.Whilst the Concorde had impressive performance being able to supercruise, for its size it had rubbish range and had very little fuel in reserve when landing at the other end.
Correct, the earlier F100 had a bypass-ratio of around 0.72:1. This gave it better SFC than the J79, and more thrust than the J75. It might have lost more thrust (proportionally) than the J79 or J75 at altitude, and appeared to have a lower exhaust velocity (It's a guess, but I remember claims the J79 had a higher exhaust gas temp), and the F-15A didn't seem to be able to hold supersonic speed without afterburners (The XF8U-3, powered by the J75, could hold supersonic speed without afterburner). That said, the plane had a VMax switch which increased performance, and allowed it to run-down a MiG-25. As for the later F100 variants, from what I recall, the F-15E had a lower bypass-ratio (0.3?) that allowed it to hold some degree of supersonic speed without afterburner, though it didn't have the VMax switch.Let's not forget that the F-100 engines in the F-15 and F-16, as well as the F-119 in the F-22 are low bypass turbofans. The Tu-144 Konkordski had afterburning turbofans in the NK-144s.
Considering it had an acceleration rate that even beat the F-104, and could even accelerate to, and maintain supersonic speed without afterburners, I'd guess that it wouldn't be that hard to position itself for an intercept. The limitations might be the radar (from what I was told the radar was fairly simple), and the missiles, a down-the-throat shot might be difficult to pull off (On one hand: The Concorde was a large target, and produced a good thermal return when at speed, so the seeker might pick it up further than most aircraft; On the other hand: The high closure rate of Mach 4+ would result in very little time to get a lock and shoot), and an attack from the rear would result in a poor closure rate and work against endurance limits.Nope, very much took place.
That's interesting Graeme, but are these guys saying those intercepts didn't take place because what they knew about the aircraft meant they couldn't, or are they saying they actually didn't take place?