A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

F-22 Comparison



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #9  
Old November 30th 03, 11:06 PM
Paul F Austin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..

"Yama" wrote in message
...

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
He also seems to have left out the ESM system which is quite elaborate
in the F-22. It can take an AMRAAM shot with it without even using
it's main radar. Also he was incorrect on the F-22's speed. The mach
1.7 he lists in in dry thrust and it wasn't even max military power.
Paul Metz stated on a Discovery special that the maximum speed of the
F-22 is classified but that it will go Mach 2.5. To quote him ". .
.it's fast, I mean it's REALLY fast. It's top speed is classifed but
it will do Mach 2.5" This suggests that the top speed in afterburner
is over Mach 2.5. Paul Metz is the chief test pilot of the F-22
program.


I am sceptical. Doesn't F-22 have fixed intakes? Speeds over mach 2.0

are
pretty much impossible to attain with fixed intakes. Besides, such

speeds
require some special materials in radome, canopy etc. which tend to be

more
expensive, may not be compatible with stealth requirements etc.

What I've seen for F-22 speeds as in combat configuration are mach

1.4-1.5
with supercruise, and 1.8 to 2.0 with afterburner. YF-23 was said to be
faster, especially with F120 engines.



The F-104 was a 50's design with fixed intakes, and was able to achieve

well
over M 2.0, so Mach 2+ is doable with fixed intakes. With 40+ more years

of
intake design development, even more *should* be possible.


The intakes on an F104 had a (fixed) centerbody to generate shock within the
inlet. A plain inlet seems to be limited to right at M2.0 (F16-land).
There's a boundary-layer splitter on the F-22 inlet but that appears to be
that. The point is largely moot because those other airplanes can only hit
high Mach numbers clean and in AB (ie, for a few minutes).

There've been a lot of religious arguments here about what "true
supercruise" is and what airplanes can do it and it plainly has to mean
"with ordnance aboard" or it means nothing at all. The F-22 is certainly the
fastest airplane in the world with anything more than a tank full of cannon
ammunition and possibly a pair of wing-tip missiles.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Performance Comparison Sheet Ed Baker Home Built 6 December 2nd 04 02:14 AM
Aerobatic engine IO-360 AEIO-360 comparison Jay Moreland Aerobatics 5 October 6th 04 01:52 AM
spaceship one Pianome Home Built 169 June 30th 04 05:47 AM
EMW A6 Comparison to X-15 robert arndt Military Aviation 8 October 2nd 03 02:26 AM
Best Fighter For It's Time Tom Cooper Military Aviation 63 July 29th 03 03:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.