Yes it could, albeit a bit bumpy, on test with the TSR2 as they went through the sound barrier at low level, the Lightning was buffeting about all over the place, in comparison the jockey in the TSR2 hardly noticed a thing. But lets not dwell on the past and how the Labour party sunk what was one of the most high tech A/C of its day and would have sold around the world.
BRIGHT LIGHT OVERHEAD
- Thread starter pred
- Start date
Yes it could, albeit a bit bumpy, on test with the TSR2 as they went through the sound barrier at low level, the Lightning was buffeting about all over the place, in comparison the jockey in the TSR2 hardly noticed a thing. But lets not dwell on the past and how the Labour party sunk what was one of the most high tech A/C of its day and would have sold around the world.
Sponsored Links
It could go through the sound barrier, it could not do 1400 knots at sea level.
That's strange you should say that, because I was led to understand that one was recorded at a speed of over Mach3 not far from Malta, just after the jockey had banged out and just before it ploughed into the Med.
An out of control aircraft does not represent stable flight.
Even current aircraft cannot do such speeds at sea level. Put simply, there's too much air.
Sponsored Links
Almost impossible to answer, unless you know what height the object travelling at Mach 10 is at. The speed of sound varies with the height the object is at, and the temperature of the air.
Thank you, Professor Bleeding Obvious. Here, have a medal for least clued in poster in thread..
What about a medal for least clued question?
... I was trying to figure out what sort of useless t****r Porque is. Seems I may have found another like him. I'm well aware of what Mach is, and how useless it is as a measure of speed.
Didnt seem that way to me
You could be right, I shall have to ask a mate of mine that is now involved with http://www.lightnings.org.uk/ and come back to you.
Yes, you're right. You missed my point!
My point was that an aircraft may not be able to achieve Mach 2.1 at sea level, yet may be able to do so at altitude, say 40,000 feet.
I am so sorry! Honestly! I thought that's what we were talking about, aerodynamics, how stupid of me I am so sorry, what exactly are we talking about as I seem to have my wires crossed.
Are we talking about "The Flying Scotsman" or WHAT?
I'm aware. Not much bested by modern aircraft, around Mach 2.3 at altitude for a Raptor, Tornado is good for Mach 2.2 at altitude and is good past 800 knots (Mach 1.2ish) at low level (which has been used in anger, too. Never see it coming at 300ft..).
Indeed, the SR-71 is silly fast. It also does not aerodynamically or mechanically resemble anything else in the air, which is awesome.
An impressive aircraft although, as I understand it, now out of service; made obsolescent by satellites.
It expanded in size so much at high speed (due to friction) that when on the ground and cooled down it leaked fuel.
Leaked fuel! Ha! The lightning oozed fuel from every rivet, when we took them in the hanger we would place sawn off drums under the wings to catch the drips, I probably spent more time with a brush and "chickenshit" cleaning up than actually fixing them. They didn't have fuel tanks as such, the mainplane was coated with some brown stuff (PRC) to form the tanks.
So knowing how useless Mach, is as a measure of speed, you then futilely ask what speed Mach 10 is. Hmmmm.
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
- Shutpa
- General Discussion
