The world's first supersonic airliner?

Never said the topic wasn’t interesting…

Feel the love. 😀

Bob – Only the response whre you wuz quoted.

Anyway, thinking about it, it’s funny how it’s easy to lay about oneself on the internet, then everyone gets all flowerlike when it bounces. I include myself, here.

Back to yr normal serv.

No. 🙂

Moi?

It was a 747SP N4522V flying for the Taiwanese China Airlines which is believed to have exceeded Mach1 in an uncontrolled dive ending in a 5g pullout…it was repaired…

Nothing about the VC10 would surprise me. Coming back from the middle east in a lightly loaded (30 POB) VC10 over Italy the ‘lets see how high we can go’ crew were on board. A cheer went up as we passed FL430 and it was rumoured it reached FL450, I don’t believe it stayed there very long. My buttocks declenched around 390 in the drop. I was always glad I didn’t have ‘how fast’ or ‘how low’ crew on that day.

A fine aeroplane.

Those for whom this thread has no interest please turn away now. Those that are remaining might be able to help me on a claim that doesn’t quite match the DC-8 but is of interest to me. I was working in Kenya when the last of the East African Airways VC-10s was delivered. The flying community there was quite close-knit and I knew several of the pilots and there was a strong rumour that the last aircraft achieved Mach 1.01 on it’s last acceptance flight from Vickers. This was very much in the line of “let’s see what she can do” rather than a pukka test flight but knowing the pilot in question it wouldn’t surprise me. Do any “mazungu” who were there at the time remember the incident which unsurprisingly didn’t get in to the papers.

I for one, found this to be quite interesting. Thanks Graham, and keep ’em coming.

Tom.

Probably aimed my way…

No. 🙂

The title is misleading (as I think you raise) don’t forget the OP was talking of preciseness in another thread recently…

Methinks you missed that important little question mark in the title!

I started this thread because I discovered something I had not heard before – I certainly am not making any new claims!

To me – this forum is about sharing stuff…. if *I* dont know something – it’s a fair bet that there are others out there in the same boat!

As for the Putnams comments – I have found SOOOOOOOO many errors in them – likewise with some of the other, older works by ‘famous’ authors. I’m not putting the boot into them – they were good at the time, but sadly in many cases with the surfacing of new, previously undisclosed information, they have never been revised – or worse, revised after the original authors passing by someone that did not know enough!

As for my CV…. if I place it here I’ll get pulled up for advertising!

Like ‘probably the best larger in the world’, it’s all in the structure of the sentence and the words. ‘The first airliner to go supersonic’ might be more precis…

IMHO, the point of forums is we get additional nuggets of info among a bit of chat, banter and debate. Not everything presented is going to be for everyone. But trying to crush contribution because someone doesn’t like it isn’t helpful, IMHO again.

Probably aimed my way, but certainly not trying to crush it or I wouldn’t have added the info (Spit & Victor) that I did.
The title is misleading (as I think you raise) don’t forget the OP was talking of preciseness in another thread recently. Just pointing out that you can find exceptions to most rules, adding to debate really – possibly came across as a triffle brusque!

“…….the point of forums is we get additional nuggets of info among a bit of chat, banter and debate. Not everything presented is going to be for everyone. But trying to crush contribution because someone doesn’t like it isn’t helpful….”

Precisely.:)

Like ‘probably the best larger in the world’, it’s all in the structure of the sentence and the words. ‘The first airliner to go supersonic’ might be more precise; I don’t think anyone’s suggesting the DC was intended as a supersonic production type, but I for one appreciate Graham’s spotlight on another oddity of aviation history.

I’ve found them to be (as a whole..some of the later volumes I’ve found lacking) very well done by experts in their areas.
They often seem to be written by men who have spent lifetimes researching the firms they write about…especially in the case of UK builders.

The Putnam series are excellent guides. But they are dry, and often pompously presented (very ‘old school’ authority) and like all works, my own included, have errors. Due to the reverence many hold them in, those errors are more embedded in aviation history than they should be.

You’re more than free to use Wiki as your preferred source…why I’ve even contribulted to the articles on several aircraft.

Nothing wrong with Wiki, just like Putnams, when used properly. Wiki is an excellent way of finding cited material from more secure sources.

I expect if you strapped a jet engine to a breeze block and chucked it out at 50,000′ it would go supersonic too!!! 😀

But no one’s done that, have they? The point is about a test crew testing their airliner to supersonic speeds; an interesting and notable effort, and Galdri’s glosses were interesting. It happened, it’s notable, how you interpret it is up to you, but it’s not theoretical speculation.

IMHO, the point of forums is we get additional nuggets of info among a bit of chat, banter and debate. Not everything presented is going to be for everyone. But trying to crush contribution because someone doesn’t like it isn’t helpful, IMHO again.

Regards,

I’ll debate the accuracy of Putnams with you ANY day!

I’ve found them to be (as a whole..some of the later volumes I’ve found lacking) very well done by experts in their areas.
They often seem to be written by men who have spent lifetimes researching the firms they write about…especially in the case of UK builders.
But I’m sure they (and myself) will always welcome your opinions. Please attach a CV of your published works. 😀
You’re more than free to use Wiki as your preferred source…why I’ve even contribulted to the articles on several aircraft.

Graham,
Thank you for starting this tread! I learned something new from it!

I would, however, like to make a small observation. This was a test flight for a new wing modification of the DC-8 and after reading the test “report” (it was made for public consumption!) I would not classify the -8 as an SST! In the report there are some subtle hints about this being much more problematic than if the report is taken at face value.
First of all would be the recovery. The aircraft was trimmed nose up BEFORE the dive, so a steady 50 pound push would be required to maintain the dive angle. Even with that amount of nose up trim, the pilots were unable to pull out from the dive with a pull up force in excess of 100 pounds. So with the trim set to initially to a position requiring a push of 50 pounds to maintain the dive, and the a pull of over 100 pounds to try to recover with out resaults, seems a bit far fetched to be able to call the -8 a “reliable”, every pilot´s SST.
A second, and maybe more troubling observation, is the fact that when they were recovering at lower altitudes the aircraft experienced both rudder and aileron flutter! Flutter tendency reduces with altitude. They started the dive at 50.000 feet, got rudder/aileron flutter at 42.000 feet that disappeared as the aircraft decelerated to .94 through 36.000 feet. Given that normal commercial -8´s were “generally” operated not much higher than 35 – 36.000 feet, I can only assume that a dive from that kind of altitudes would have torn the aircraft to shreds due to flutter.

After highlighting the above problems, where does that leave us with regards to supersonic flight on the -8? In my opinion, it will clearly show the aircraft as a transonic aircraft. Yes, it went to Mach 1 and beyond during MANUFACTURERS testing, in controlled conditions (very high!) and in these controlled conditions it exhibited behavior that would have been leathal in normal operations.
As has been highlighted by others above, many other manufactures did high Mach number tests in their aircraft at the time. Without having checked, I would not be very surprised if you could find similar reports of the Boeing Dash 80 (later to be the 707) being put through it´s paces at or near Mach 1.

A supersonic aircraft in my opinion is an aircraft that can, in normal conditions, with average pilot skill, accelerate to Mach 1 in level flight and then be decelerated to transonic speed without undue hassle. I´am afraid the -8 ticks none of these boxes!

Interesting thread though! Some, otherwise useless, time was used to think:eek:

I expect if you strapped a jet engine to a breeze block and chucked it out at 50,000′ it would go supersonic too!!! 😀

I just think it’s slightly misleading.

A quick search on t’internet reveals the Sqd Ldr Martindale’s Spit reached .89M, so it wasn’t quite supersonic – my bad, but the point I’m making is that we can find previous examples of most aviation milestones if we try.

Course it’s the fastest, it’s essentially propelled along by the same powerplant which powered the B-58 Hustler and F-104…:cool:

I have always thought that this aircraft was powered by the Rolls-Royce Conway at the time.

I’m not sure I get the point of this thread

There are hundreds of threads on here that I personally find completely pointless, – I look, I read, I move on, but I feel no need to make any comments about the fact!

ISTR The prop wasn’t attached by the time it made a landing!
I would have to dig out my Farnborough book to access details, believe the pilot was called Martindale?