F-22 Comparison

In article ,
ess (phil hunt) wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:06:01 -0500, Paul F Austin
wrote:

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.

SR-71?

Not a lot of guns in SR-71s, and the YF-12s aren't even in existence any
more, right?

MiG-25/31?

Once you load a couple of missiles on the wings, the MiG slows down a
*lot*. That Mach 2.8 speed mark it set was completely clean, no
weapons. And if you stick a full combat load on it, you're getting down
into the Mach 2 range...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

All wrong about MiG-25/31. Due to ingenious design and engines that produce
50% more power dynamic thrust then static, MiG-25 aircraft have the
max -loaded- speed of M=2.83 at height, and because of humongous power of
MiG-31 engines, MiG-31 can do the same. Mig-25RB can also carry four BOMBS
up to M 2.83! MiG-31 also has the datalink that doesn't still exist in
Westrn aircraft, so they have sensor fusion (lead aircraft receives data
from other three aircraft in 100 km spread) and aircraft can "take over"
guidance of the missile among each other.

At this point, I would like to de-mistify the claim that MiG-25, if flying
beyond M3 must have engines replaced. The exact words of Rostyslav Belyakov,
chief eneneer are "Going beyond M3 does not produce any damage, but reduces
lifetime of the airframe". So, leave the MiG-25 engines alone.

--

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
Chad Irby wrote in message ...
In article ,
ess (phil hunt) wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:06:01 -0500, Paul F Austin

wrote:

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.

SR-71?

Not a lot of guns in SR-71s, and the YF-12s aren't even in existence any
more, right?

MiG-25/31?

Once you load a couple of missiles on the wings, the MiG slows down a
*lot*. That Mach 2.8 speed mark it set was completely clean, no
weapons. And if you stick a full combat load on it, you're getting down
into the Mach 2 range...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:50:56 +0100, "Nele_VII"
wrote:

All wrong about MiG-25/31. Due to ingenious design and engines that produce
50% more power dynamic thrust then static, MiG-25 aircraft have the
max -loaded- speed of M=2.83 at height,

That's a fantasy. Throw four AA-6s on there (full load) and it won't
even come close to that.


and because of humongous power of
MiG-31 engines, MiG-31 can do the same. Mig-25RB can also carry four BOMBS
up to M 2.83!

IIRC it's more like 2.6 and it's four bombs in two lines of two which
means a lot less drag than four AA-6s




At this point, I would like to de-mistify the claim that MiG-25, if flying
beyond M3 must have engines replaced. The exact words of Rostyslav Belyakov,
chief eneneer are "Going beyond M3 does not produce any damage, but reduces
lifetime of the airframe". So, leave the MiG-25 engines alone.

Maybe you could explain why no Mig-25s ever got close to a Blackbird?

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:32:03 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
ess (phil hunt) wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:06:01 -0500, Paul F Austin
wrote:

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.

SR-71?

Not a lot of guns in SR-71s, and the YF-12s aren't even in existence any
more, right?

I don't believe an airplane needs ordnance aboard to supercruise, but
the SR-71s have, like the YF-12s, been retired to museums.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mary Shafer wrote:


I don't believe an airplane needs ordnance aboard to supercruise, but
the SR-71s have, like the YF-12s, been retired to museums.

Mary

Well, one would think not, if one can think at all that is...
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" wrote
Mary Shafer wrote:


I don't believe an airplane needs ordnance aboard to supercruise, but
the SR-71s have, like the YF-12s, been retired to museums.

Mary

Well, one would think not, if one can think at all that is...

The presence of ordnance is of some importance when comparing fighters, as
we are in this thread.

"Paul F Austin" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote
Mary Shafer wrote:


I don't believe an airplane needs ordnance aboard to supercruise, but
the SR-71s have, like the YF-12s, been retired to museums.

Mary

Well, one would think not, if one can think at all that is...

The presence of ordnance is of some importance when comparing fighters, as
we are in this thread.


In the thread, yes, in that post, no. It might have been a poor
choice of words on her part but she's a big girl who makes no
bones about telling anyone else where the bear shat in the
buckwheat so quit making excuses for her.
--

-Gord.