The Ford that beat Ferrrari ????????

Brian Kissel · 12-12-03, 03:25 AM

Here is a interesting read.

Thursday, December 11

Schumacher races against Air Force jet
Associated Press

GROSSETO, Italy -- In a race between a Ferrari and a fighter jet, score one out of three for Michael Schumacher.

Formula One champion's Ferrari F2003-GA was a nose faster than pilot Maurizio Cheli's Eurofighter Typhoon in the first race of 600 meters. The plane then easily won at 1,200 and 900 meters in the drag race at a military airport.

"It was an interesting experience," Schumacher said, adding there was a lot less pressure than facing Formula One rival Juan Pablo Montoya.

Cheli did not gloat over winning the last two races.

"Everyone is a prince or king in their own environment," the pilot said.

Tuscany's Baccarini airport featured vintage cars and planes and a military band to entertain thousands of spectators. Six fighter jets flew in close formation and the event was shown live on Italian state TV.

Cheli's jet and the Ferrari lined up on parallel runways and went full throttle when the green signal came, mixing the deep sound of a jet turbine with a high-pitched Formula One engine. After covering the required distance, the jet went airborne and then landed following each race.

Schumacher won the first race in 9.4 seconds, with the jet 0.2 seconds behind. The jet won at 1,200 meters in 14.2 seconds, with the Ferrari 2.5 seconds back. In the final race of 900 meters, the jet finished in 13.0 seconds, with the Ferrari 0.2 seconds behind.

The Eurofighter's top speed when airborne is listed at 1,521 mph; the Ferrari's limit is 229 mph.

Thursday's event was organized by the Italian defense department and hailed as a demonstration of Italian industry.

Where does that leave the "new GT" ??? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]
Brian

ChrisL · 12-12-03, 04:14 AM

I saw the footage on the news this evening. What struck me as a little odd was that the "race" was conducted in the wet. Surely if they were serious about it, it would have have ocured to someone that a car is slowed by the wet whereas a jet isn't?. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Mark Worthington · 12-12-03, 05:04 AM

I bet an F-15 would've won all three. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

jimbo · 12-12-03, 04:33 PM

Mark, I agree, and especially if we could have arranged the race on the flight deck of the Teddy Roosevelt and the plane allowed to use the steam catapult. Oops, the Ferrari went in the water...oh, well, no big deal, it's not a GT40.

Knighton · 12-12-03, 07:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I bet an F-15 would've won all three. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The F-15 would have been CONSIDERABLY slower. It might have done well with 25% fuel. Full fuel load is near 14,000lbs.

The F-16 Block 52? With half fuel (3,500lbs)? Most likely would have won.

I think the Eurofighter may have had a half fuel load. It has a very high thrust to weight ratio and in acceleration tests with all top fighters of the day, outrageously smoked everything. It wasn't even close.

How about the F-22? Full fuel is in excess of 25,000lbs. Huge thrust though but it is not a light jet. Perhaps with an extremely light fuel load of 5,000lbs it would be close.

pvan340 · 12-14-03, 01:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How about the F-22? Full fuel is in excess of 25,000lbs. Huge thrust though but it is not a light jet. Perhaps with an extremely light fuel load of 5,000lbs it would be close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Knighton, are you talking about the F22 Raptor, set to see service in the U.S in 2005? Ive just been reading about it in national geographic, the author was mightily impressed by it!! As I was given to understand by the article, this is the fastest fighter yet?

Mike Dozier · 12-14-03, 12:46 PM

We're a little off thread here...but my understanding is the
F-22 top speed is not as fast as the F-15. I doesn't need
to be since it will be stealthy.

The F-22 however will have "supercruise" which allows it
to travel at HIGH speed all day long without afterburners.
Something like $ 100 million a copy.

MikeD

David Morton · 12-14-03, 01:39 PM

And the English Electric (BAC) Lightning all variants ? It was already short on fuel even before engine(s) start. Wild but..... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

JOSEPH · 12-14-03, 03:05 PM

On Discovery Wings ( TV ). The Russian Foxbat was clocked on NATO radar going 2,600 mph. The Isralias tried to catch a Foxbat with a Phantom, but was left in the dust. They then said that the F-15 was built to catch up to the Russians. The Airforce took a stripped down F-15 without paint and beat every record the Foxbat had. Makes you wonder how fast the SR-71 is and the Arrora is today. Joe

Knighton · 12-15-03, 06:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about the F-22? Full fuel is in excess of 25,000lbs. Huge thrust though but it is not a light jet. Perhaps with an extremely light fuel load of 5,000lbs it would be close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Knighton, are you talking about the F22 Raptor, set to see service in the U.S in 2005? Ive just been reading about it in national geographic, the author was mightily impressed by it!! As I was given to understand by the article, this is the fastest fighter yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi,

Yes, I am referring to the Raptor. It is not the fastest fighter as it was not designed to be. I understand that its top speed is just over Mach 2.

Knighton · 12-15-03, 06:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
We're a little off thread here...but my understanding is the
F-22 top speed is not as fast as the F-15. I doesn't need
to be since it will be stealthy.

The F-22 however will have "supercruise" which allows it
to travel at HIGH speed all day long without afterburners.
Something like $ 100 million a copy.

MikeD

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi,

The F-15 has a top speed of around Mach 2.4. Like most fighters, its top speed isn't limited by the airframe but rather the inlet temperature on the compressor blades.

Yeah, the F-22's ability to supercruise is awesome, reaching speeds of Mach 1.6 without afterburner. The F-104 was the first to supercruise over 30 years a ago reaching Mach 1.1 in level flight without afterburner and with old engine technology! The Eurofighter is also capable of supercruise - Mach 1.3. The F-22 is unique to these jets as it does so WITH a full weapons load as the weapons are carried internally, which makes for MUCH LESS drag than external stores.

Knighton · 12-15-03, 06:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And the English Electric (BAC) Lightning all variants ? It was already short on fuel even before engine(s) start. Wild but..... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever see a video one one going vertical on take off? It defies belief! A 90 degree pull comes shortly after wheels up as the jet accelerates to roughly 350 knots. The jet does a tail stand - its actually departs! The thrust propels it upwards like a rocket!

I once saw a video of a squadron of Lightnings taking off, side by side - one after the other. Each one stood on its tail just moments apart. I almost had a heart attack! One moment you are seeing the tail end of the jet with its afterburners going and the next moment you see the top view of the jet as it nearly scraps its tail on the runway pulling into the vertical. Wow!

I have searched the internet looking for vids of this but haven't found any. Too bad....

This jet would have also given the Ferrari a good run!

Knighton · 12-15-03, 06:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
On Discovery Wings ( TV ). The Russian Foxbat was clocked on NATO radar going 2,600 mph. The Isralias tried to catch a Foxbat with a Phantom, but was left in the dust. They then said that the F-15 was built to catch up to the Russians. The Airforce took a stripped down F-15 without paint and beat every record the Foxbat had. Makes you wonder how fast the SR-71 is and the Arrora is today. Joe

[/ QUOTE ]

I do remeber reading about this. The Foxbat was crusing at MAch 2.8, well above the combat speed (top speed with external stores) of the Phantom (Mach 2.0-2.1). when the Russian pilot learned he the Phantom had been launched to intercept him, he accelerated to Mach 3.2 and cooked the engines in the process. The Foxbat carried a 330 gallon container of methanol just behind the cockpit to spray into the intakes to cool the incoming air. This allows the Mig-25 to achieve such sustained high speeds.

The F-15 that beat the Foxbat's records was called the "Streak Eagle" due to its lack of paint. They pulled off over 2500 lbs of military hardware and actually broke the sound barrier going straight up!

HOWEVER, the Russians, in the late 90's, actually eclipsed the F-15 with the SU-27 Flanker, stripping it down like the Americans did with the Streak Eagle. Not many know about this though!

The unclassified top speed of the SR-71 is Mach 3.2. I would think its real top speed is closer to 3.5-3.7... As for the Aurroa...??? Who knows?

Mike Dozier · 12-16-03, 05:25 PM

Again...way off topic..but since we're already there...

ALL AVIATION FANS MUST VISIT the Air Force Museum
at Wright Patterson AFB near Columbus Ohio before you die.
It's incredible! In fact it's close enough to the Double Venom Spring Fling site to hit both on same trip.

They already have the prototype for the F-22 on display
as an exhibit. Talk about a short career!

MikeD

Andy · 09-27-05, 12:43 PM

Knighton,
I saw you talked about the BAC Lightning doing the unthinkable. There are two VERY distinct memories i have that i will never forget of times in my childhood. The first was seeing cars racing at Brands Hatch in the BOAC 5000 series, late sixties/early seventies. My first glimpse and i mean glimpse of a 40. The second was of the aforementioned Lightning, doing just what you described, going absolutely vertical immediately after take off. The sound was just indescribable!!! With a sheet of afterburner flame some ten foot long, hitting the runway.
I doubt in these days of political correctness it would be allowed to be repeated now. Even if they could find a plane capable of it.The insurance company wouldnt allow it, let alone on safety grounds, you really needed ear plugs, but hell, why spoil it!!!
That Lightning just took off , went vertical, he hit the afterburner and stayed that way until he just disappeared through the cloud base.The Lightning , along with the Vulcan bomber are two planes ive seen our north atlantic cousins comment on at airshows, and these were US Airforce pilots.
Did you know that the Vulcan could 'out turn' both Warsaw Pact and NATO fighters of the day?
Quite something for such a beast!!
Anyway, cheers.

Paul Thompson 'Hooligan' · 09-27-05, 05:41 PM

Talking of the Vulcan - did anyone see the airshow at Farnborough many moons ago, where one was 'rolled', apparently even Raymond Baxter was silenced by the awesome view....

And re the lightning, as a civilian I was lucky enough to get a ride in a fast jet (well, relatively fast) - a Jaguar but I do remember a certain student seconded to our department, who managed to blag flights in 10 different military aircraft, including the lightning! - Sally!! - nothing to do with her being young, petite, attractive and blonde.....I'm sure..... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]