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 » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Brief intro and questions about the current mach 2.0 limitations ofWestern designed F/A AC



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old November 3rd 09, 05:31 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Bob Nixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Brief intro and questions about the current mach 2.0 limitations ofWestern designed F/A AC

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..
 




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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.