SSC vs Low Level Flight

[Gargamel]

Morning all.

Thrust SSC is planned to hit 1000mph with wheels on the floor.

But, I was wondering which planes have hit 1000 MPH at say under 500ft or operationally low level.

My thinking is the Tornado must be close, but probably falls short.

If no Mil planes can do it (1000mph) in flight, then how on earth can SSC get there ?

[Mr E]

Gargamel said:

If no Mil planes can do it (1000mph) in flight, then how on earth can SSC get there ?

A massive solid fuel firework would seem to be required.

[Gargamel]

Mr E said:

A massive solid fuel firework would seem to be required.

But aren't they using a Typhoon engine ?

[Mr E]

Gargamel said:

But aren't they using a Typhoon engine ?

EJ2000 for initial shove to what could reasonably called "fast". Then they light the firework, which uses a cosworth V8 F1 engine just to pump the oxidiser for. The firework should produce sufficient shove to get them to "really quite quick indeed old bean".

(note; I've just looked it up, it's not a solid fuel firework, it's a hybrid firework; hence the pumped oxidiser. Also the gentleman responsible for it is depressingly young).

[postcode]

Mr E said:

Also the gentleman responsible for it is depressingly young).

He also has a fantastic moustache.

[tight5]

Gargamel said:

Thrust SSC is planned to hit 1000mph with wheels on the floor.

not thrust SSC , but -

http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/

[Gargamel]

thanks

any answers on the can any plane hit 1000mph at "sea level" ?

[dr_gn]

Gargamel said:

thanks

any answers on the can any plane hit 1000mph at "sea level" ?

I think an F4 has gone over 900mph at low level, might even have been high 900's, but I'm pretty sure it was less than 1000.

Having said that, I can't see any reason why it's not possible.

[Jim Campbell]

dr_gn said:

I think an F4 has gone over 900mph at low level, might even have been high 900's, but I'm pretty sure it was less than 1000.

Having said that, I can't see any reason why it's not possible.

The Phantom's official VNE is 750kias(863mph) which it could do on the deck.

These two threads might be of some interest http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/78590-faste...
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/...

Ta

[Gargamel]

Funnily enough Jim , I read that second thread briefly earlier today, kind of where this started from.

I didn't really see a definitive answer. Many different speeds and capablilities claimed. Including that even an SR-71 couldn't hit 1000mph at sea level (structural not perfomance related)

But I wasn't sure whether to believe that or not. So I though I'd ask her. Secondly because if a proper grown up Mil Jet can't do it, what does it say for the size of the challenge for the Bloodhound Gang ?

[c7xlg]

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/324942-figh...
That link is worth a read/scan.
Tornado appears to be capable of 1000mph give or take (850+ knots).
Skin temp is quite probably limiting factor on most aircraft due to the friction from the thick air. That and running out of fuel!

[dr_gn]

Jim Campbell said:

dr_gn said:

I think an F4 has gone over 900mph at low level, might even have been high 900's, but I'm pretty sure it was less than 1000.

Having said that, I can't see any reason why it's not possible.

The Phantom's official VNE is 750kias(863mph) which it could do on the deck.

These two threads might be of some interest http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/78590-faste...
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/...

Ta

According to Wikipedia:

"Operation Sageburner: On 28 August 1961, a Phantom averaged 902.769 mph (1,452.826 km/h) over a 3 mi (4.82 km) course flying below 125 feet (38.1 m) at all times.[4] Commander J.L. Felsman, USN was killed during the first attempt at this record on 18 May 1961 when his aircraft disintegrated in the air after pitch damper failure.[30]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4...

[trashbat]

Gargamel said:

But I wasn't sure whether to believe that or not. So I though I'd ask her. Secondly because if a proper grown up Mil Jet can't do it, what does it say for the size of the challenge for the Bloodhound Gang ?

Not a lot, I'd say. The reason the Tornado IDS, F111 etc are contenders is because their mission profile demanded it, but arguably it didn't stay a particularly attractive profile for all that long.

[Gargamel]

c7xlg said:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/324942-figh...
That link is worth a read/scan.
Tornado appears to be capable of 1000mph give or take (850+ knots).
Skin temp is quite probably limiting factor on most aircraft due to the friction from the thick air. That and running out of fuel!

And herein lies the problem - some classic PPrune

Certainly the P109s help, but the planets really have to align to be able to supercruise in the Piggie! She'll do it, but not with the wings fully swept because of the alpha, but if you brings the wings forward a notch you might get lucky. As long as a Pig stays high and clean, she'll go all day - slow her down and load her up, and just watch the fuel gauge plummet


Whilst I can of understand, it doesn't really help - it is a very technical, jargon loaded fora.

Because of the alpha ?

[IN51GHT]

Mr E said:

A massive solid fuel firework would seem to be required.

It's not solid fuel, it's hybrid (in year 2) mono propelant in year 1.

[trashbat]

Gargamel said:

Because of the alpha ?

Alpha: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack

TF30-P-109 is an engine, Piggie is the F-111.

[Mr E]

IN51GHT said:

Mr E said:

A massive solid fuel firework would seem to be required.

It's not solid fuel, it's hybrid (in year 2) mono propelant in year 1.

Yah, I corrected myself a couple of posts later. One assumes this means you can turn the oxidiser flow off and kill the thing if there's a problem?

[dr_gn]

Mr E said:

IN51GHT said:

Mr E said:

A massive solid fuel firework would seem to be required.

It's not solid fuel, it's hybrid (in year 2) mono propelant in year 1.

Yah, I corrected myself a couple of posts later. One assumes this means you can turn the oxidiser flow off and kill the thing if there's a problem?

I think if there's "a problem" it'll all be over before anyone or anything can correct it.

0-1000 mph in 40 seconds doesn't leave much room for corrective action.

[IN51GHT]

dr_gn said:

I think if there's "a problem" it'll all be over before anyone or anything can correct it.

0-1000 mph in 40 seconds doesn't leave much room for corrective action.

If the rocket mounting load cells pick up an asymmetry in the burn there will be time for the system to abort the run.

Equally, if any of the many, many channels of data being monitored/collected detects a potentially unsafe condition it will abort.

[dr_gn]

IN51GHT said:

dr_gn said:

I think if there's "a problem" it'll all be over before anyone or anything can correct it.

0-1000 mph in 40 seconds doesn't leave much room for corrective action.

If the rocket mounting load cells pick up an asymmetry in the burn there will be time for the system to abort the run.

Equally, if any of the many, many channels of data being monitored/collected detects a potentially unsafe condition it will abort.

lets hope the list of potentially unsafe conditions is complete...