![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Nov 3, 11:14*am, brian whatcott wrote:
The name of the game is to specify for the NEXT war, not the LAST war. Seeing a Russian fighter proceed horizontally with its long axis vertical was an eye-opener. Fighters dog-fighting at mach 2+ ain't gonna happen. * When cruise missiles and RPVs are in the armamentarium, * fast fighters' importance recedes and people start seeing usability in something not unlike a P-51 again! *:-) Brian Bob Nixon wrote: Hi all, my name is Bob Nixon a retired (disabled due to a MC-Deer accident in 2004) EE in the microwave/millimeter wave discipline.I basically worked my way up via GI bill from an avionic technician in the USAF in the VN era later working both the Silicon Valley & for the last 22 years in the PHX metro in Chandler AZ in our own down scalled Silicon Valley with Intel, Microchip, Boeing Apache Mesa production line and Motorola and several other aviation related industries. Anyway I worked mostly in smaller companies that produce ECM Jammer Sources and Early Warning Radar front ends and later some GPS upgrades for the B-52. Introductions said, I've always had an interest in the final end user of the products I'm involved with designing and building or USAF/NAVY/ MARINE aircraft. I think we got serious about supersonic flight in the 50's producing the century series of fighters and small bombers type AC. The B-58 hustler was an exception capable of sustained Mach 2 flight with basically a mostly aluminum airframe and high subsonic down on the deck. then the F-100 which I worked on the rudimentary avionics at Phan Rang AB RVN in the 35th Avionics squadron (328XX AFSC). The F100 was barely supersonic both high and low-clean configurations and was only used in the south as a daylight bomber for Army strike support and a concept airframe for the latter and faster wild weasel AC. Next was the RF-101 Voodoo capable of about mach 1.7 @ altitude, F-104 a limited interceptor AC capable of mach 2.4 and holds the low altitude speed record of 980MPH. Then the 105 with mach 2.2 high and mach 1.2-.3 on the deck. The F-106 was and still is the fastest (now retired like the rest) single engine fighter interceptor in the world with unclassified estimates of mach 2.85 or faster than the F-16 or MiG-21/23/27. *It also was one of the first AC capable of non-after burning supersonic flight using the same J-75 engine as the F-105 but without the water injection. Later the F-4 and F-15 twin engine AC would be capable of mach 2.5+ but that is where the high speed game for the US and Europe ends with 4.5 generation AC intentionally designed with (no variable intake ramps to control the intake shock wave at speeds mach 2.0). In the meantime the Russian MiG 29-35, MiG-31 & SU-27 thru 37 all have variable ramps and have mach 2.0+ top speeds or Dash speed in these small type AC unlike the sustained speeds of the former B-58, B1-A, XB-70 & A12/SR-71 blackbird who's materials were much more expensive to build using large amount of inconel, SS & Titanium in their designs. Actually the Mach 2.2 sustained B-58 Hustler of 1956-1972 vintage was mostly Aluminum except for the hot engine parts. So what gives with the 4.0 to 4.5 generation US & Euro fighters? I know the radars have better lock-on range nowadays and missiles are faster than days of yore but is this enough to justify the F-22 having a published top speed of only Mach 2.0? Anyway folks, there's probably a simple answer and most our new F/A type AC have mach 1.0 to 1.2 down on the deck so maybe it's not such a big seal to be falling behind the Russians in top speed. IOW, there must be a reason other than just cost as the F-22 Raptor is not cheap at $100 million a copy and under most flight envelopes has a thrust than weight ratio. Thanks, Bob Nixon.. Brian there are other things one might need higher speeds for, like: Running away from the fight when your odds are 1:10 enemy AC or just getting there faster. we have tankers that can fuel a fighter in less than 5 minutes and go on about his intentions. I don't like to see the West sucking hind teat in any area of AC design. Bob.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Technology Questions The Integrity Of Current Composite Construction | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 1 | October 11th 07 04:35 PM |
What a/c is this and what was it designed for? | Bruce R | Aviation Photos | 4 | March 22nd 07 02:48 AM |
Fun ATC/Top Gun MNF intro tonight | Montblack | Home Built | 9 | September 15th 05 11:43 PM |
Fun ATC/Top Gun MNF intro tonight | Montblack | Owning | 9 | September 15th 05 11:43 PM |
Intro | Fisherman | General Aviation | 2 | July 7th 05 06:25 AM |