wrightwingOf course; with all these agruments, you still canot figure the meaning of the word CRUISE since you IMAGINE that supercruise is NOT cruising in supersonic.
Supercruise as the USAF/LM views it, is the maximum, non-afterburning, speed the plane can reach while having the most tactically significant range per pound of fuel used. In other words, it is the optimized speed for range/fuel consumption under supersonic conditions. To use economic terms, it is the point beyond which you see diminishing returns.
wrightwingSo nicely asked wit loads of coutesy and maneers, something i kept posting repeatedly:
Stabelised Cruise point is reached when your stabelised cruising speed (whatever it is) is reached with your Specific Range (SR) defined in terms of Nautical Airmiles per Pounds of Fuel used at its highest.
Range Factor (RF) is your Specific Range multiplied by gross weight.
In non-afterburner operation a change of 1% in drag is going to result in a change of 1% in fuel flow.
Now your problem is to figure at which Mach your aircraft will be flying, at the closest to your best fuel flow for the speed in order to reach your stabelised cruise point.
I’ve got no issues with that definition, though it’s more verbose than necessary to get the idea across to the layman.
You can try to enrole and join the Flight Test Center in a few years if you can make it.
Nah, I think I’m a little to old to be a contender. Maybe 20yrs ago perhaps.
At M 1.75 andhow exactly would you explain this, let me gues by NO it is a KPP, in reality it can fly at M 1.85 in full Mil? :diablo:
I would explain it by saying that the M1.5 requirement was the minimum requirement, and that the F-22 exceeded that requirement. I have no doubt that M1.85 would be doable in full military, and wouldn’t be surprised if M2 was the more likely speed, considering the F-22 has as much or more thrust than an F-15 in full afterburner at that setting.
Yes they DID actually because F-22 happened to reach higher Machs than that they expected.
I also suspect they found that out prior to IOC, not several years into operational service.
What was i saying.
And when are you going to shift from Sci-Fi back to reality exactly?
It’s all very well to ignore what makes the standards which makes the designs which results in performances, then call people whatever name suits you including inpolite or unmannered…
You mean like calling people boy, or questioning their intelligence?
It wont make you comprehend why F-22 is not necessarly cruising at M 1.75 and certainly not why it is much unlikely that it would go any faster in Sry power, however much you believe this “inclassified thing of yours for convenience.
I have never said that the F-22 CRUISES at M1.75, and neither has anyone else on this forum. The F-22’s cruise speed is likely in the M.85-.95 range. Supercruise on the other hand is an entirely different term, and that seems to be what is confusing you. It’s not related to the cruise speed at all. It is the optimum Mach number/throttle setting for supersonic persistence, without the use of afterburner. In other words, not Max Military Power. Or to further break it down- if you go faster than Mach X, your range is going to suffer considerably, so for practical purposes you don’t go faster than Mach X unless you’re wanting to briefly increase the kinematic performance of your weapons, OR you’re evading an incoming threat.
For astute fellows like yourselves, I’d think that you’d understand that vanilla fact sheets that are public domain, do not represent the end all be all with regards to performance potential.
They also happen to be more representative to REAL operational valkues than your Sci-fi stories.
I don’t necessarily consider Air Force publications, Aviation Week, etc.. to be hearsay or Sci-Fi, especially once figures are corroborated in multiple sources, pilot anecdotes, etc…
wrightwingEX.CU.SE ME! 😎
If you’re using your Oxford to comprehend what CRUISE means in USAF jargon you’re not going to improve your knowlege base even with the Queen’s english and all her buttler’s manners.
Furthermore i do NOT lack maners when i just point out something you don’t like, but it is your lot, not that of others.
I was putting the terms in plain English. Feel free to use your “obviously” superior skills of comprehension to correct my fallacies with regards to what cruise means. Then while you’re at it feel free to explain the definition of supercruise, how the USAF understands it.
Now that’s charriot riders language, not manners, boy. :diablo:
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander as they say.
Anmd according to YOU, which engine is designed for maximum fuel effisciency with the throttle on the firewall?
I’ve explicitly said on a continual basis that the throttle isn’t on the firewall, and have asked for sources showing that it indeed was, to achieve the speeds mentioned. It’s not that the USAF is all of a sudden discovering previously unknown raw performance, but there’s a BIG difference between what’s known, and what’s permitted to be publicly released. For astute fellows like yourselves, I’d think that you’d understand that vanilla fact sheets that are public domain, do not represent the end all be all with regards to performance potential. That’s why getting a composite picture from multiple sources gives much more insight as to the true limits.
wrightwingHe is still looking for the definition of the word cruise.
😀
You can look to the response right before this for that. You may want to look of the definition of manners, condescension, and meglomania, while we’re hitting the dictionaries.
wrightwingWhat throttle settings? Where have you seen me using those?
No, I would not bet a single cent on that.
If they say “F-22 can supercruise at M1.78”, then that means F-22 can fly M1.78 without using afterburner. Nothing else.. It does not say a single thing about throttle settings being economical or not. The aircraft can be swallowing more fuel in that regime than if it was using AB, but most important is that you got your “my F-22 has larger d!ck than your XY” type claim, not to really highlight any operational advantage.
Most likely Raptors are typically cruising at around M1.5 as USAF claims and for all speeds above that it’s much wiser to use AB than to set the throttle to 100% and then wait forever until the bird accelerates to >M1.7 while guzzling even more fuel, especially if the opponents won’t hesitate to engage the burners and to accelerate to M2.2 twice as fast.
But as I said, it all comes down to whether you really want to talk about planes or just have urgent need to make your toy win at all cost in style *my F-22 does M1.78 and your Typhoon only M1.3+, your Typhoon $ucks.*
So you’re making an assumption that any speed that makes other plane’s performance look less rosy, must be an exaggeration? That’s why I asked for a source showing that any speed above M1.5 must merely be for marketing purposes, and couldn’t possibly achieved without full military power. It sounds more like p@n#$ envy to me.
wrightwingIt’s NOT about ” If they’re using the term supercruising” it’s about knowing what we dont know nor what YOU want to aknowlege.
ONE: Which power setting is the most fuel effiscient for the F-119 in supersonic?
The point that had been made was that M1.78 was at a throttle setting that wasn’t optimized for efficiency. I asked for the source showing this to be the case.
TWO: What does CRUISE mean?
That question was answered already. However due to the obtuse nature of the question, I’ll point out that there is a difference between cruise and supercruise. They each have different meanings. Cruise is the speed at which the aircraft is most fuel efficient/has longest range. Supercruise is the the speed in which an aircraft can reach without afterburner, and maintain for prolonged periods, as it also is at an optimized throttle setting(i.e. not max military power), for best supersonic range.
We answered the second question already but obviously we still have “maximum dry power settings” in your minds which is already in the wrong side of reality.
You didn’t answer any questions. No one(certainly not I) is claiming that maximum dry power settings =supercruise. What I am saying is that the F-22 isn’t using maximum dry power to achieve that speed(or the M1.82 and higher, which have also been mentioned in other sources).
So the figures M 2.0 and 1.5 S/C looks like a far better bet than your guesses based upon standards you already don’t understand or refuse to aknowlege.
What I(and many others here) find amusing that is that French pilots remarks can be taken as Gospel, but if an American pilot states something, it must of been misquoted, marketing lies, never said, etc…
I’m not guessing, I’m merely reporting what multiple pilots have said, much like you reporting 11gs as being an advantage over every other plane.
wrightwingI still wonder what this crap with SC is about. Depending on condition, a flight with first stage AB can be more economical than squeezing the last sh!t out of military power juist to brag about SC numbers.
Sustained supercruise only makes sense in the most economical regime and this is hardly M1.78 for the F-22 even if this number was true. If it’s a short-term value only, then it does not constitute ANY operational advantage because in emergency other aircraft can make it even much more faster with engaged AB.
Can you show us what source you’re using that says what throttle settings the F-22 is using while supercruising? If they’re using the term supercruising, then you can bet that the most economical throttle setting(for supersonic flgiht conditions) IS being used.
wrightwingIs that a FACT?
Length 51.5 ft
Height 14.2 ft
Wingspan 35 ft
Wing area 460 sq ft
Horizontal tail span 23 ft
Weight empty 29,300 lb
Maximum weight 70,000 lb class
Internal fuel 18,000 + lbs
Speed Mach 1.6 (~1,200 mph)
Range ~1.200 n. mi
Combat radius 610 n. mi
Power plant One P&W F135 or GE F136
Engine thrust 40,000 lb (with after burner)
There is more recent information available, that more accurately reflects reality, but you conveniently overlook it. That chart doesn’t have the current weight after reduction, the accurate thrust (43K+ lbs), etc…
Absolutly NOT and btw, performance-wise F-35 design was taken to a lower level than LWF requierements.
This has been posted many times before, but just in case you missed it.
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/July%202009/0709Fighter.aspx
With a full internal load of fuel and weapons, the F-35 is as agile as a “clean” F-16 carrying no weapons. In other words, in stealth mode, the F-35 gives up nothing in range or weaponry, but adds considerable ability to penetrate enemy air defenses.
Now cut the nonsense with the mantra that the F-35 is an A-7,F-105, type aircraft with modern avionics(that are less advanced than those of late model 4th Gen aircraft).
wrightwingActually NO.
F-22 TVC kicks in at a given speed because it is where it needs it most, then they also are used to compensate for the loss of control effisciency at high altitudes, trim drag reduction is one of the main effects of TVC at any Mach, nose pointing abilities the second, appart for the drag reduction the gain in turn rates is nil.
The speed is, i think 250 kt but it also can be used at much higher speed depending on pilot input if needed.
So before trying to imply it didn’t use TVC, you first have to comprehend what LIFT and Wingload does for an aircraft (expecially of this weight) on the topic of instantaneous turn and read the Raptor datas as provided by the USAF.
With a higher wingload and lower total cl (no close-coupled canards there) i don’t think it will beat a 11.0 g true instantaneous turn rate at this altitude and speed.
Thrust is more important on the topic of SUSTAINED turn rates and visibly there is something odd with the pitch up moment of this Raptor demo, in particular on the clip posted.
So i wouldn’t call it a high energy turn untill i am proven it didn’t use TVC at all and that the velocity vector position was that of a real turn, which i don’t think it was looking at it.
Btw, Rafale also passed PSMs, J-turns and others during tests, i do not know if its FCS allows for these in operations though.
To summerise, when Raptor have its nose poited at 90* it can also mean it actually achieved a much lower turn value, weither it is not the case for a Rafale, 10.0 g at 13.9* AoA and 440 kt proves my point, you are generaly mystaking nose pointing abilities with actual turn rates.
BTW, i checked and have to stand corrected (partially here is why) the official S/C Mach of F-22 WAS, according to the USAF webpage at the time i saved it (21 October 2008, 14:44:55)M 1.72.
They also got their empty weight all wrong… Weight: 19,700 pounds (8,935 kilograms) they corrected these datas to Weight: 43,340 pounds (19,700 kilograms) Speed: Mach 2 class with supercruise capability .
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=199
The F-22 uses TVC for nose pointing under post stall conditions. Under non-stalled conditions, its control surfaces provide the maneuvering ability required.
wrightwingIt’s certainly a VERY fast instantaneous turn but we still have no evidence it hits this value, please provide us with one (other than the youtube comments made by viewers)…
BTW before looking impressed as you do, perhaps you would like to know the speed at which the turn was ahieved and the way TVC was used (how much was actual TVC nose pointing and how much was turn)…
It could just as easely read the same than this but with a 45* AoA instead of 13.9* and being at a much lower speed than the 440+ kt indicated. (Photo courtesy of Kovy).
So it will be interesting for you guys to inform us on this particular topic.
That’s not how the F-22 uses TVC. It uses TVC to maintain control authority when the aerodynamic surfaces don’t have enough lift on their own, mimization of drag, etc….
wrightwingSo they hammered an aircraft that apparently had been forbidden to take part in WVR fighting with the Dassualt machine.
And depending on your definition of several, the rafale either drew or bested the F-22 more times than it was beaten.
hmmmmm
Considering that the F-22 was undefeated, the Rafale didn’t beat it in any engagement. The fact that it was only in the crosshairs(i.e. WVR) once means that the other kills were likely BVR.
wrightwingAnd when will that enter front-line service still with 4 AAMs only?!
IOC is supposed to be ~2012 for the first ones.
wrightwingNot the inlet of the F-35, just the functionality of a diverter with a F-16 in the 90s to stick to the fact. 😉
Proof of concept was successful, so it might be premature to say categorically what the F-35 can’t do.
wrightwingCompletely agree.
I was just pointing that is only fair that if we are going to use in an argument “improvements” that quite recently LM said that its not pursuing (the six internal AIM-120 arrangement) or “stealthy” caracteristics of an external pylon with a “nineX” on it, than its only fair to point to some impressive features of the road map of the RAFALE EW or the fact that the proposed AESA set for the Typhoon has more 20% TR modules than the AN/APG-81 on a stereable antena…
Those eurocanards improvements are not budgeted? Well, that “six internal AIM120” arrangement isnt either.Cheers
Do you have a link to where they’ve deleted the 6 AAM carriage for Block 4s and beyond. I just read a recent link about the stealthy pylons for the 9xs too.
wrightwingWe still have to see Block 1s in operational service, the other X-mass wishes aside. 😎
The first planes entering service will be Block 3s.
Sign In
