Sound Barrier

paulb · Post by **paulb** » 30 Apr 2006, 14:30

Re the Swift -

WJ965 was reported to have achieved M1.04 at 35,000 ft in a dive of 35 degrees in May 1953.

Apparently the highest Mach number achieved in a Swift was 1.13 TMN with a vertical dive at full throttle from 40,000 ft :shock:

Best regards

Paul

Post by **Garry Russell** » 30 Apr 2006, 14:59

Supersonic usually means level flight

Did I read somewhere the Victor went supersonic in a dive and possibly the DC 8?

Garry

VEGAS · Post by **VEGAS** » 30 Apr 2006, 15:02

Garry Russell wrote:Supersonic usually means level flight

Did I read somewhere the Victor went supersonic in a dive and possibly the DC 8?

Garry

Not sure about the Victor but the DC-8 did.

http://www.dc8.org/library/supersonic/index.php

Heron1B · Post by **Heron1B** » 30 Apr 2006, 15:36

Hi Guys,

What fantastic reading, many thanks for the response.

This is one hell of forum for information, can you imagine being seated in a DC8 at mach.1 in a dive, would have been some roller coaster ride I should think.

Thanks again for the read.

Cheers,

DelF

jonesey2k · Post by **jonesey2k** » 30 Apr 2006, 15:51

Didnt I read somewhere that the Trident 1e could have went supersonic? Obviously anything could go supersonic in a dive, the ticket is not breaking up into lots of tiny chunks of airframe....

Heron1B · Post by **Heron1B** » 30 Apr 2006, 16:09

TOO TRUE,

Hehehe

DelF

paulb · Post by **paulb** » 30 Apr 2006, 18:26

Garry Russell wrote:Supersonic usually means level flight

Did I read somewhere the Victor went supersonic in a dive and possibly the DC 8?

Garry

Hi Garry

Well, supersonic just means supersonic! But I know what you mean

I dont know about the DC8, but as for the Victor......................

Certainly Mach 1.1 was possible in a dive (apparently in a perfectly stable condition)

Best regards

Paul

Post by **Garry Russell** » 30 Apr 2006, 18:32

Hi Paul

Thanks Paul

What I actually meant was in reference to an aircraft being supersonic it usually referres to level flight.

Of course pure supersoinic means in excess of the speed of sound

It would be intresting to know just how many types have done it in a dive.

My main point of the post was support the fact the the Miles may well have exceeded the speed of sound but that does not make it supersonic in the accepted sense if you follow.

Garry

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 30 Apr 2006, 19:05

F-86's have surpassed the barrier in a slight (we're talking less than 15 degree) dive.

Most airliners were never tested to that speed, the DC-8 was only inadvertently taken supersonic (had only intended Mach .98 but plane was solid, so they allowed it to continue acceleration), the 727 and 707 had serious buffet problems above .98 mach as did the KC-135. I believe they almost got the CV-990 past the barrier, but I think that was prior to the installation of the Kuchman Karrots.

paulb · Post by **paulb** » 30 Apr 2006, 19:19

Garry Russell wrote:Hi Paul

Thanks Paul

What I actually meant was in reference to an aircraft being supersonic it usually referres to level flight.

Of course pure supersoinic means in excess of the speed of sound

It would be intresting to know just how many types have done it in a dive.

My main point of the post was support the fact the the Miles may well have exceeded the speed of sound but that does not make it supersonic in the accepted sense if you follow.

Garry

Hi Gary

I think that I owe you an apology. I was not really trying to refute your post, I was simply trying to report on actual Mach numbers achieved.

Certainly your comment is correct - a 'supersonic' aircraft must be able to achieve a supersonic speed in level flight.

What fascinates me is the achievement of post WW2 British Jet aircraft ( ie 1950 to circa 1960) in terms of performance. :dance:

For a very short time, I think that we led the world................

Best regards

Paul