Which aircraft has the fastest 0-60?

In may 1978 I got a back seat ride from Brawdy to Wittering in an almost brand new Hawk,there had obviously been a little ‘bar talk’ and we ended up lined up side by side with a single seat Hunter for a standing start race…
We got off to a good start but I was not surprised to see/hear the Grunter go barrelling past our stbd side before we lifted off 😀
Both the Hawk and Hunter pilots were off to a reunion at witterlitz,I was off to see a wee blond in rutland…all for the price of prepping the jet on monday morning…aaaahhh those were the days 🙂

edit… 35 mins low level to Witterlitz and 25 mins hi level back to Brandy…the only way to travel LOL

I expect the Eurofighter will give others a run for their money!

Well, I mean… It’s faster than Schumacher :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m98SmhO5ANM

Top Gear did something similar with the Bugatti Veyron.

What about the Vulcan?

A lightly-loaded B-1B would be impressive.

I do – I still have the video from Brunty!!:D

And bear in mind that said pink Victor at Brunty is considerably more burdened down with fuel than ours currently…! 😉

It is a very interesting question, because on some airliners I fly, one is pushed hard back into one’s seat, but on others, acceleration is barely perceptible.

The A380 doesn’t feel as if it is taking off at all. It simply makes its way into the air, if you see what I mean. That said, the fully laden one I was on leaving Dubai took an awful long time to get airborne, then shook during the first 1000 feet of the climb.

It must have been the heat.

Thanks for making this an interesting thread.
What about ground effect, weight, drag/friction caused by the tyres (there’s probably a term for this)? Would a heavier aircraft and this effect, affect the results posted so far?

BTW what about a glider? My glider experience of bungee launching via a lorry was quite sudden and fast from a standstill, at least it seemed like it to me!

I do – I still have the video from Brunty!!:D

The acceleration from standing of a lightly-laden Victor K2 feels surprisingly impressive. Trust me… 😉

I did wonder…..:)

Out of interest where does the F15 come in that list?

At the top…..but nobody asked till now! 😉

Indeed – it’s all about thrust -to-weight and those comparisons are interesting. Out of interest where does the F15 come in that list?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOtNjYNN4CM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPdzzVQg4JY

Sea Harrier FRS1: 21,498 / 12,998 = 1.654

Typhoon: (2×20,000) / 24,600 = 1.626

F/A-18C/D Hornet: (2×17,750) / 23,000 = 1.543

F-16C Falcon: 28,600 / 18,900 = 1.513

Lightning F6: (2×16,000) / 31,068 = 1.030 (:o)

SR-71A Blackbird: (2×34,000) / 67,500 = 1.007

Me163 Komet: 3,800 / 4,200 = 0.905

Concorde: (4×38,050) / 173,500 = 0.877

Piper Cub?

But only for the short take off records.

Like the swamp buggy Cubs you see with the huge wheels on them.

My guess is something like the Typhoon. Which aircraft do you know that pulls back the stick and has to pull back the throttle so it doesnt go supersonic?

I also think that Moggy could be right with F18 but possibly F16 too.

Seafire + RATO?

Piper Cub?

Since they are most often quoted (and closest to what we’d want) let’s use engine maximum thrust, with afterburners (if fitted) divided by aircraft empty weight.

Sea Harrier FRS1: 21,498 / 12,998 = 1.654

So, er…..that’s 1.654 pounds-of-thrust-per-pound! Can anybody do better? 😀

I reckon an unladen Sea Harrier FRS1 would take some beating! 😉

Divide the static-thrust by the aircraft take-off (or 0 – 60) weight and the one with the highest figure will be the fastest.

The Komet could be – but mainly at the end of its fuel burn. However, for initial acceleration (and also point to point intercept up to fairly recently) I put forward the English Electric Lightning.
Richard