Ah, the Arrow. The Wikipedia discussion page on supercruise that I quoted previously also mentioned the Arrow,
"..... I suspect some Canadians are convinced the thing could fly at supersonic speeds backwards underwater on one engine...--Robert Merkel 05:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC) "... and upside down. --BillCJ 19:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC" regards, Anthony Farr > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Adam Maas > Sent: Saturday, 19 April 2008 4:09 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: OT - Vulcan Bomber for the airheads > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:29 PM, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 09:54:04AM -0400, Adam Maas wrote: > > > Concorde was almost all gas tank and all low-drag go-fast, military > > > designs have to be much more flexible, and don't actually want to go > > > that fast except in sprints (which in some cases, like the B-1B, are a > > > lot longer than a few minutes). Going supersonic is loud and obvious > > > and drastically cuts maneuverability and range. And the current F22 > > > can 'supercruise', ie exceed mach 1 without lighting its burners. > > > > Yes, it can. But it also claims to be the *first* aircraft to be able > > to do this, which is apparently wrong - the English Electric Lightning > > was capable of this almost half a century ago. > > > > -- > > As could the Iroqois-powered Avro Arrow, although that never entered service. > > > > -- > M. Adam Maas > http://www.mawz.ca > Explorations of the City Around Us. > > -- -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
