Sound Barrier

Post by **Garry Russell** » 30 Apr 2006, 20:11

That sounds like G-AOJC

Never Canbrian but painted as such and then reduced to a fuse when it got dangerous

Latest I heard was it was dumped in a lake for the fishes to live in :sad:

Garry

paulb · Post by **paulb** » 30 Apr 2006, 23:41

Garry Russell wrote:That sounds like G-AOJC

Never Canbrian but painted as such and then reduced to a fuse when it got dangerous

Latest I heard was it was dumped in a lake for the fishes to live in :sad:

Garry

Yes, if my memory serves me correctly, I think that's exactly right. Just an old fuselage repainted by a few enthusiasts..................

Best regards

Paul

DispatchDragon · Post by **DispatchDragon** » 01 May 2006, 11:14

Just to hop in late - I can confirm that the DC8-54/55 would go supersonic in a shallow dive underpower amd without great treipdation or buffet
the Sled was built so damn tough that it just kept on rocking.

Leif

BTW Chris I have heard the story about the Citation X from some folks down your way who operate a fractional jet service

britishtourer · Post by **britishtourer** » 01 May 2006, 13:32

I'm pretty sure that the Citation X is the fastest aircraft commercially avaliable today. Mach 1 here I come!

jonesey2k · Post by **jonesey2k** » 01 May 2006, 15:23

Mach .92 is all your "rated for"

Allthough Ive had her past the barrier in a dive. The overspeed warning in that thing is rather loud!

anzaq · Post by **anzaq** » 02 May 2006, 04:38

Hi guys, just joined up after monitoring this wonderful site for ages.

.Just to add some observations to the topic. I also recently watched the Sound Barrier and I noticed that there was a jet aircraft, I believe it to be the Supermarine Attacker, that it was a tail dragger. I always thought that all jet aircraft had tricycle landing gear but here I've been proved wrong and I've seen this movie many times and that's me just noticing. I wouldn't have thought this would be practical as the engine thrust would be pointing towards the runway. Couldn't have done the surface of the runway all that good with all that heat blasting at it. :think:

Gordon

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 02 May 2006, 04:44

The Me.262 was originally a tail-dragger as well, but several things contributed to later models being equipped with a nose gear.

paulb · Post by **paulb** » 02 May 2006, 07:28

Hi Gordon

Well as you probably know, the Attacker was a very early jet aircraft. It always reminds me of a Seafang with a new fuselage and jet engine!

Apparently, the landing gear configuration was an advantage for a catapault launch where high wing incidence was required.

Best regards

Paul

Post by **DaveB** » 02 May 2006, 11:54

There is a history with the Seafang Paul as this came from the Spiteful. The Attacker had the Spiteful's wings, was the F.A.A's first frontline jet fighter and some 145 units were built. A speacial aircraft in FAA history

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Post by **Garry Russell** » 02 May 2006, 12:12

Another tail tragger jet was the Jet Viking

I did read somewhere about surfaces suffering heat damage and that I think included conventional but low slung jets as well.. The surfaces then were relitively poor and in some cases almost every day surfaces.

The effect though of a taildragger would be like using a hot air stripper blasting a concentrated stream of very hot air.

Garry