Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Not necessarily. There's a difference between what the airplane could get to (aero vs thrust) and what is *smart* on the pilot's side.

Do you have any source at all that says it can accelerate to and maintain 870 knots at sea level? the highest ive EVER seen listed is 794.

Edited by Get_Lo
Posted
Just now, Get_Lo said:

Do you have any source at all that says it can accelerate to and maintain 870 knots at sea level? the highest ive EVER seen listed is 794.

No, but neither do you disproving it.

I know that a stock 104 will go way, WAY beyond redline (750kias => 850'ish). So will the F1 - any evidence would be anecdotal.

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Bremspropeller said:

No, but neither do you disproving it.

I know that a stock 104 will go way, WAY beyond redline (750kias => 850'ish). So will the F1 - any evidence would be anecdotal.

unknown.png
you cant just compare the F1 to the jet that quite literally is the worlds fastest plane at sea level.

Edited by Get_Lo
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

I've seen that. Disproves nothing.

Perhaps you have any proof at all that it can go faster than the world's fastest jet at low level then? 

Edited by Get_Lo
  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Get_Lo said:

but yet we have "no evidence" that the F1 cant go faster, lol 

All YOU have is a magazine-excerpt 🤪

2 minutes ago, Get_Lo said:

Perhaps you have any proof at all that it can go faster than the world's fastest jet at low level then? 

A record proves nothing. It's a bunch of people with measuring equipment certifying that on this day during several runs somebody flew an average of x knots.

The RB 104 used a stock engine (not quite it was a GE-10 motor, which has the same thrust as the GE-19 in the 104S) on a stock airframe built from parts.

Nothing "special" here. Move on.

  • Like 1

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Posted
Just now, Bremspropeller said:

All YOU have is a magazine-excerpt 🤪

A record proves nothing. It's a bunch of people with measuring equipment certifying that on this day during several runs somebody flew an average of x knots.

The RB 104 used a stock engine (not quite it was a GE-10 motor, which has the same thrust as the GE-19 in the 104S) on a stock airframe built from parts.

Nothing "special" here. Move on.

Stock?
"A stock F-104 weighted 15,000 pounds empty; Greenamyer's weighted only 11,500. Armament was out and also the speed brakes, drag chute, boundary-layer-control system and the leading-edge device actuators. It received the G-model's antiskid system and brakes. Including some compensation weight inside the nose the total weight became 11,800 pound."
even if it was stock, thats an F-104, built for speed and speed only. not Mirage F1 fighter-bomber.

next you're going to tell me theres "no evidence" the F-15 cant do mach 6 at sea level or something equally stupid

Posted
13 minutes ago, Get_Lo said:

but yet we have "no evidence" that the F1 cant go faster, lol 

The alleged maximum speed of Mirage F1 at sea level is 1450-1470 km/h depending the source... so ~780-790 kts, which seam reasonable maximum reached speed for such aircraft.

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Get_Lo said:

Stock?
"A stock F-104 weighted 15,000 pounds empty; Greenamyer's weighted only 11,500. Armament was out and also the speed brakes, drag chute, boundary-layer-control system and the leading-edge device actuators. It received the G-model's antiskid system and brakes. Including some compensation weight inside the nose the total weight became 11,800 pound."
even if it was stock, thats an F-104, built for speed and speed only. not Mirage F1 fighter-bomber.

But Mass has nothing to do with Topspeed, just how fast you get there...( in a reasonable Airplane, were not talking Wright brothers here)

Edited by Badger1-1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Get_Lo said:

Stock?
"A stock F-104 weighted 15,000 pounds empty; Greenamyer's weighted only 11,500. Armament was out and also the speed brakes, drag chute, boundary-layer-control system and the leading-edge device actuators. It received the G-model's antiskid system and brakes. Including some compensation weight inside the nose the total weight became 11,800 pound."

Lighter doesn't change the top-speed. Only the time to get there. No engine thrust-changes, no aero refinements and no shock-come refinements (which would have been available).

4 minutes ago, Get_Lo said:

even if it was stock, thats an F-104, built for speed and speed only. not Mirage F1 fighter-bomber.

That's false. The F1 is an interceptor. The F1 even has a highter CIT limit than the 104 (135°C vs 120°C). Plus the F1 has an area-ruled fuselage, which the 104 doesn't.

Edited by Bremspropeller

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Posted
Just now, Badger1-1 said:

But Mass has nothing to do with Topspeed, just how fast you get there...

 

 

 

we arent debating how fast it went, he said "stock" and thats all I disproved. but yet im still failing to see how this F-104's world record speed proves our F1 can go just as fast

Posted
3 minutes ago, Get_Lo said:

even if it was stock, thats an F-104, built for speed and speed only. not Mirage F1 fighter-bomber.

The Mirage F1 in clean configuration have probably not much more drag than the F-104... I think the Mirage F1 cross section is even smaller than the F-104, wing are a little larger I guess. After, you have thrust, etc...

Posted
Just now, Bremspropeller said:

Lighter doesn't change the top-speed. Only the time to get there. No engine thrust-changes, no aero refinements and no shock-come refinements (which would have been available).

RB 104 is one of the very few F-104As with that version of the J79 on the planet. I would classify that as an "engine change"
But again, this has nothing to do with our F1. how about the fact it can fly at 1200knots at sea level for short amounts of time? Is there also "no evidence" it cant do that?

Posted
1 minute ago, Get_Lo said:

we arent debating how fast it went, he said "stock" and thats all I disproved. but yet im still failing to see how this F-104's world record speed proves our F1 can go just as fast

Aren't we doing that? Mmkay...

You didn't.

It doesn't. The F1 might even go faster. 😆

1 minute ago, Get_Lo said:

RB 104 is one of the very few F-104As with that version of the J79 on the planet. I would classify that as an "engine change"

No changes that matter (aero, engine thrust, air intakes) were made. There were several As with the GE-19 motor, which hat the same thrust.

2 minutes ago, Get_Lo said:

But again, this has nothing to do with our F1. how about the fact it can fly at 1200knots at sea level for short amounts of time? Is there also "no evidence" it cant do that?

I'm talking about the 870 figure here. No need to build strawmen.

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Aren't we doing that? Mmkay...

You didn't.

It doesn't. The F1 might even go faster. 😆

No changes that matter (aero, engine thrust, air intakes) were made. There were several As with the GE-19 motor, which hat the same thrust.

I'm talking about the 870 figure here. No need to build strawmen.

1. We all know exactly how fast the RB 104 went
2. There is no F-104 in the world that matches those same specs, its custom not "stock"
7eb62ef6cefa83b1d90c1d7cac8ca4fb.png
3. Guess Greenamyer and NASA wasted their time building that very custom F-104, shoulda just borrowed an F1

and as for the speed of the F1, we have F1 pilots in these forums, how about you ask one of them. Might just be me but im not buying the "This other totally different plane could do it so our F1 should be able to aswell"

Edited by Get_Lo
  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Get_Lo said:

1. We all know exactly how fast the RB 104 went
2. There is no F-104 in the world that matches those same specs, its custom not "stock"
3. Guess Greenamyer and NASA wasted their time building that very custom F-104, shoulda just borrowed an F1

and as for the speed of the F1, we have F1 pilots in these forums, how about you ask one of them. Might just be me but im not buying the "This other totally different plane could do it so our F1 should be able to aswell"

BUT
have you flown F1? 😂

Posted
1 minute ago, Get_Lo said:

2. There is no F-104 in the world that matches those same specs, its custom not "stock"

Again, it's a stock airframe in terms that matter for top-speed records: Thrust and Drag. Strawman.

2 minutes ago, Get_Lo said:

3. Guess Greenamyer and NASA wasted their time building that very custom F-104, shoulda just borrowed an F1

Strawman. He could also have borrowed an F-16, which could have contested that record.

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Posted

This whole conversation was funny but a waste of time, grand total of evidence that the F1 can do over Mach 1.35 at sea level: 0
Ill just wait until the devs patch it

  • Like 2
Posted
Just now, Get_Lo said:

This whole conversation was funny but a waste of time, grand total of evidence that the F1 can do over Mach 1.35 at sea level: 0
Ill just wait until the devs patch it

Yeah, however, also:

Grand total of evidence that the F1 can't do over Mach 1.35 at sea level: 0

  • Thanks 1

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Posted
35 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

All YOU have is a magazine-excerpt 🤪

A record proves nothing. It's a bunch of people with measuring equipment certifying that on this day during several runs somebody flew an average of x knots.

The RB 104 used a stock engine (not quite it was a GE-10 motor, which has the same thrust as the GE-19 in the 104S) on a stock airframe built from parts.

Nothing "special" here. Move on.

>All YOU have is a magazine excerpt

says the man who has contributed absolutely nothing to the argument

  • Like 4

Cold war my beloved

Posted
Just now, Bremspropeller said:

Yeah, however, also:

Grand total of evidence that the F1 can't do over Mach 1.35 at sea level: 0

I also have no evidence it cant go over Mach 2 at sea level, or mach 5. You're right 🙂

  • Like 1
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...