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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
The F-104, XF8U-3 and for that matter the Mirage III all had centerbodies in their inlets to generate a second shock located near the inlet lip. In the case of the F8U-3, the centerbody was the radome. A non movable centerbody ie. a fixed inlet. While I'm with you that Metz is in the best position to know, I will be fascinated to learn how a M2.5 inlet with decent pressure recovery works without some sort of second shock generator in the inlet. The inner wall of the inlet (with the boundary layer splitter) may form a fixed shock generator since the inlet lip of the F22 is "swept" back WRT the splitter. Beats me but both the Crusader 3 and the F-22 have vents to dump excess air overboard at low speed. One thing I find interesting about the F-22 is if you notice in almost every picture taken from chase aircraft it's got it's flaps partially down. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:06:01 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
wrote: 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. Surprising to encounter such a statement from someone who usually is fact based. Do we forget the missile bays? If the point is "air dominance fighter" and the speeds are set with "a tank full of cannon ammunition" and a half dozen IR and radar guided missiles, oriented by a data-sharing system of three-dimensional sensor integration, what more do you seek? I'm beginning to feel like I'm in the Republican Party in which, if the candidate is not ideologically pure, we must self-destruct to show the total commitment to the cause. Gimme a break. The F-22 is an aircraft in development. It is flying and it is proving. It competes with other systems. It is more or less expensive, depending upon the accounting criteria used to measure unit cost. We've done well with F-15 over thirty years and we've done well with Viper (although the numbers aren't quite as compelling.) If we compare with what the "woulda, shoulda, coulda" numbers for the Soviet wunderkind are we generally come out on top. If we improve US indigent health care at the sacrifice of next-gen tactical aircraft, will we be better off? I'm betting on the techno-iron as the better spending choice. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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? MiG-25/31? -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse the last two letters). |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:06:01 -0500, "Paul F Austin" wrote: 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. Surprising to encounter such a statement from someone who usually is fact based. Do we forget the missile bays? If the point is "air dominance fighter" and the speeds are set with "a tank full of cannon ammunition" and a half dozen IR and radar guided missiles, oriented by a data-sharing system of three-dimensional sensor integration, what more do you seek? Ed, sorry if I expressed myself badly. That's entirely my point. The F-22 makes its maximum Mach number (for what that's worth tactically) will a suite of six AAMs. The comparable numbers for Typhoon, Su-37 or just about any aircraft built since the F-106 are for a clean airplane. I'm willing to speculate that they can make M2.5+ with an AAM on each wingtip and a tank of cannon shells but certainly not with all the hardpoints filled. In any case, history has shown that the utility of the maximum Mach number is *severely limited* if the persistence is measured in handsfull of minutes. That's the whole reason for sizing the airflow and dry thrust of the F-22 to power Mach 1.7ish flight for 30 minutes or so and the reason we talk about "supercruise". Inter-aircraft data sharing is going to revolutionize AA combat (for everyone except the Swedes, who've used it for about forty years). With an LO airframe and integration with the Rivet Joint a few hundred miles back, not to speak of overhead assets, fighters will have the conspicuity of submarines combined with -somewhat better- mobility. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:44:46 +0200, "Yama" wrote: I am sceptical. Maybe you missed that last line. Paul Metz is the chief test pilot, I think he'd know. I'd also think that he is not allowed to distribute still unreleased flight performance data. oesn't F-22 have fixed intakes? Speeds over mach 2.0 are pretty much impossible to attain with fixed intakes. Despite what much of the media would have you believe fixed inlets mean zippo. No, they mean very much. It is certainly POSSIBLE to make a mach2+ plane with fixed intake, but this will do very bad things to inlet performance in other speeds (which are considerably more important). All your cited examples are such cases. esides, such speeds require some special materials in radome The YF-12 of the sixties had a radome that was good for at least Mach 3.2 canopy etc. The F-15 was originally going to be designed to reach Mach 2.7 but when they decided to go with the acrilyc canopy they had to back it off to 2.5. I find it difficult to believe that haven't figure out how to make one a tad better at high speeds in the past 30 years. See above. It comes down to what is possible and what is sensible. If solving problems of Mach2+ flight regarding *serviceable combat aircraft* was so trivial as you make it sound, each and every modern fighter plane would go Mach3 or more. Engine thrust has not been a limiting factor in fighter top speed in like 40 years. In addition to that, F-22 also has considerable stealth requirements. Radar-absorbing paints for example may not be very tolerant to high speeds. What I've seen for F-22 speeds as in combat configuration are mach 1.4-1.5 with supercruise, It's hit 1.7 that they've released. In what load configuration? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Ed, sorry if I expressed myself badly. That's entirely my point. The F-22 makes its maximum Mach number (for what that's worth tactically) will a suite of six AAMs. Eight. Six AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9s (minor nit pick :-) ) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe you missed that last line. Paul Metz is the chief test pilot, I think he'd know. I'd also think that he is not allowed to distribute still unreleased flight performance data. Which is why he said the maximum speed is classified. Did you even read what he said? oesn't F-22 have fixed intakes? Speeds over mach 2.0 are pretty much impossible to attain with fixed intakes. Despite what much of the media would have you believe fixed inlets mean zippo. No, they mean very much. It is certainly POSSIBLE to make a mach2+ plane with fixed intake, but this will do very bad things to inlet performance in other speeds (which are considerably more important). All your cited examples are such cases. Actually the Crusader III was excellent at low speeds as is the F-22. Optimizing an inlet for subsonic speeds but making it able to reach supersonic speeds presents one set of problems. Optimizing for supersonic speeds but making it efficient at low speeds presents a different set of problems. They are not identical. See above. It comes down to what is possible and what is sensible. If solving problems of Mach2+ flight regarding *serviceable combat aircraft* was so trivial as you make it sound, each and every modern fighter plane would go Mach3 or more. Where did I say that or even hint at it? Engine thrust has not been a limiting factor in fighter top speed in like 40 years. Dry thrust certainly has been. In addition to that, F-22 also has considerable stealth requirements. Radar-absorbing paints for example may not be very tolerant to high speeds. You mean like the stuff that was on the Blackbird? What I've seen for F-22 speeds as in combat configuration are mach 1.4-1.5 with supercruise, It's hit 1.7 that they've released. In what load configuration? No external stores. They didn't say what they had inside. Could be they had a full load of fuel and test shapes for missiles or they could have had minimal fuel and nothing in the missile bays. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |