wrightwingStick to the point. Paul Metz can not read 1600 mph in a cockpit of a F-22!
He does have two speed intruments in the cockpit. The Mach-meter like every jet-plane. Which is related to the never constant air-pressure fed by the pitot. Which does vary even more by higher speeds.
To claim mph hour from that you have to calculate the related kt and from the the mph.
Your other intrument does show the IAS in kt. But that is not the TAS, which is much higher with height, see my 500 kt example about that.
Poor Paul Metz is in need of three steps now. When he can read the IAS and the height inside the cockpit, he has to figure out the TAS for the related height from that and in the end to convert the find kt into mph.
So my intrest about that real words from Paul Metz and not the quote from the journalist alone. I do not have problems to accept, that Paul Metz himself or another test-pilot have pushed a F-22 prototype to its limits. Such examples were not built for some lifetime, just to figure out the border-zone and will end-up in an aviation museum or as a gate-guard at least. 😉
Would it not also stand to reason that after having flown the aircraft to these outer limits, that he’d also be aware of what the limits for safety/durability of typical F-22s would be?:eek:
wrightwingWrightwing…
How much is 41 minutes on Mach 1.5? I mean can you even check the numbers before posting?
41 minute at M1.5 is ~585nm. For the sake of calculations I used 600nm in the post you are quoting.What am I supposed to answer now? You’re quoting the same source I used to calculate F22’s subsonic radius.
“Fuel low” for high bypass F15 is at about 29% of internal fuel. I gave F22 a “Fuel low” margin at lower ~24%, even though it has lower bypass, hence beneficial calculation for F22.
Yes but you’re not including any subsonic legs in the F-22’s combat radius, as it’s obviously not going to take off in supercruise, fly around the airbase supersonically, and then rapidly decelerate to land. This is my whole point about comparing the real combat radius vs. the F-15. It’s going to fly hundreds of miles towards the area where it’ll be performing its CAP(or DEAD mission) subsonically. Another thing to consider, seeing as how M1.5 is the generic number that LM/USAF use for describing supercruise vs. supersonic cruise(i.e. >M1), and how the Raptor has demonstrated M1.7-M1.8 supercruise- this may very well mean that the distance covered over those 41 minutes could be as high as 709nm. Now granted, this is hypothetical seeing as how there aren’t any fact sheets out there for this, but it’s certainly food for thought based upon speeds and times that have been mentioned.
wrightwingOk, I see we need to clear some things here.
The only range given (apart from USAF’s on official site, which isn’t good enough for some unknown reasons/LOL) that I saw is from early this year when a flight of F22’s traveled ~600nm at M1.5, from one base to another (forgot which ones, but I’m sure someone here will remember), after which planes landed for refueling.
Well let me just pose a few questions for you based upon this information.
-how long do you suppose it took the F-22s to reach M1.5?
-how much fuel reserve do you suppose they had when they landed or were they on fumes?
Seeing as how you’re fixated on the stats showing 310/100nm, and these F-22s flew 600nm in supercruise, that alone should raise a red flag that perhaps their radius of action is considerably higher than you’re attributing to them.
The next thing to ponder is the stats from an article in Aviation Week back on June 12, 2006, where it states that in the anti cruise missile role, the F-22 has the ability to cruise at M1.5 for 41 minutes.
Or how in excercises Raptor will supercruise back and forth from Tankers 150nm away, and get back into the fight.
or….
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=87176&page=16
Paths to Air Dominance
New forms of airpower will give Washington more military options at an affordable price
By John A. Tirpak
Air Force Magazine
November 2005The F/A-22’s ability to cruise supersonically is an essential feature. If you didn’t buy it for stealth, you’d buy it for speed, Lewis said. He noted that F/A-22s at Langley can get to Washington, D.C., in just seven minutes and be able to loiter in the area for 41 minutes before going home. This marks a vast improvement over F-15s, which would take longer to arrive and would have to refuel almost immediately.
PS: The distance between Washington, D.C. and Langley Airbase is around 130 miles / 209 km.
Once you start taking in a variety of sources regarding performance attributes, you get a better picture than any fact sheet is going to show you about speed or range.
wrightwingYou don’t need to explain i desagree with your definition.
Let me give you a practical example, since it’s obviously a waste of time trying to argue the point with you.
What is the airspeed of an aircraft traveling M1.2 at sea level?
What is the airspeed of an aircraft traveling M1.2 at 40,000′?
Remember the speed of sound at sea level is ~760mph, and at 40k is ~660mph.
wrightwingOf course, what a FAIR comparison, do you remember the LWF requierements and if yes why do you even think of comparing them with the F-16 with a drop tank?
Come on.
In otherwords, without the EFT, the F-16 would run out of gas trying to keep up. The F-16 had to use afterburner, while the F-35 was climbing in dry power.
NO it wasn’t and it never was question of Mach 1.6 in requeried specs.
First Supersonic Dash was requiered, the only figure given at the time was of M 1.5.
We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
NOT with its original AIM-9 only design NO, it would out accelerate and out-turn F-35 with two AIM mounted internaly, expecially with only the 50% internal fuel it was designed to fight with; with with the same TWR it is a better aerodynamic plaform, it accelerates faster, turns tighter.
Compare them at their respective combat weight you will see for yourself for F-16 its 50% internal fuel and two AIM-9, sounds low but it is what it was designed for, anything else is no far comparison.
The F-35 with combat load, handles/accelerates like an F-16 that’s clean.
An F-16 with 50% fuel wouldn’t be able to fight for long.
That’s the WHOLE point.
Mach is a constant value, airspeed a variable depending on athmospheric pressure.
“The ratio of true airspeed to the local speed of sound”.
The Mach gives you the strutcural limit NOT the airspeed limit. :rolleyes:
The Mach number was assigned to the airspeed(i.e. at altitude M1 is roughly 660mph), therefore 1600mph is ~M2.42. Nothing more, nothing less is trying to be put out here.
Yeah sure, ahem i would like you to elaborate technicaly please, so what limits are these?.
I don’t know what those limits are because they’re classified(if you were paying attention to his remarks). Something >M2.42 though.:cool:
wrightwingIn which configuration?
The F-16 or the F-35? The F-16 had to carry an EFT to have enough fuel to keep up with the F-35.
We keep hearing this and reading something else:
It is officialy.
Much like some F-22 brochures say M1.5 SC and M1.8 top speed?:rolleyes::cool:
M1.6 was a minimum KPP for the F-35, and there have been slides/brochures stating M1.8+ as well.
Your comment on the drag race is funny, F-35 airfoil is optimised for the transonic regime but also drags a little more in supersonic, its critical Mach is lower than F-16 too.
In the subsonic region, the F-16 lacks the thrust to exceed the F-35. In the supersonic region, it lacks the fuel. Add on external stores, and it’s no contest.
What mach limit does he means?
Many aircraft have the potential to go faster, F-16, Mirage 2000, Rafale, ALL are digitaly Mach limited.
Their limits depends either on inlet/engines prerssure recovery limit, structural kinetic heating (Mirage 2000 could do M 2.5 with the thrust) or aerodynamic optimisation of the airframe.
Whatever these figures mean for you i know exactly what they are, we have the same.
He didn’t mention a Mach. He mentioned a specific airspeed that the F-22 would do, which at altitude works out to M2.42. He also mentioned that the actual top speed was classified, meaning that it’s not any lower than 1600mph, and being that he mentioned 1600mph, that’s obviously not the top speed.
wrightwingIn general the supersonic range of the F-22A is double of that of an ordinary F-15 without ETs or fastpacks. The design point for best performance is Mach 1,5 for the F-22A, when it is in the transonic speed range for the F-15.
The F-22’s supersonic range is more than twice that of the F-15’s. The F-15 can only stay supersonic ~7 minutes. Based upon a number of articles with Raptor pilot, it’s supersonic range(not to include the subsonic legs) is more in the 30-40 minute time frame.
wrightwingYes well, did I happen to mention the F22 has F119s?
On the other hand, F22 can’t achieve F15’s subsonic range on any airspeed.
That’s not necessarily the case if you’re speaking about internal fuel only.
Heard this before. Do you know at what speed, altitude or loading, or anything else for that matter? Was it F16/79 perhaps? 😀
Anyway, it’s possible that F35 out accelerates F16 from 0-200 kts on take off, since it has ~50% more thrust available and at low speeds aerodynamics doesn’t play part since there isn’t any drag at 0 kts, is there?
It wasn’t an F-16/79. It was F-16s with -229 and -132 motors in afterburner, and throughout the subsonic range.
But as the speed increases the drag increases as well, until M2 for F16 and M1.6 (or so) for F35. So, it’s pretty clear that F35 has some serious drag issues and therefore ~18.5t thrust engine and therefore need for large fuel reserves and hence weight, larger than even F15’s.
So, the real question is not if, but when the F16 begins to overtake F35?
According to available data, I’d say much sooner than you wishfully think and at 350+kts (air combat speeds) F16 is already ahead of F35.
With a combat load, the F-16 will never overtake an F-35, and the F-35’s max speed isn’t M1.6.
QUESTION: Does anyone know for a fact, if F22 has ever reached M2.4 in actual flight, or mr.Metz’ “can do”, is all there is? (Yes, No and a link will suffice)
Mr. Metz said that the top speed was classified(meaning higher than 1600mph), but that the F-22 would do 1600mph. I’m not sure how much more clarification is needed, considering he was one of the guys responsible for flying the F-22 out to its limits. Think about it this way- why even mention 1600mph at all(when he’s saying it’ll go faster), if neither speed is attainable? I think it’s safe to say, he’s flown the plane faster than the speed he mentioned, even if a direct quote is unavailable, based upon what his tasks were.
wrightwingYes, but that missile has some 7 sec worth of burn, gonna need to miniature a lot just to make that 8 sec, and 1 sec extra worth of burn won’t do alot.
A lofted target will allow it to reach longer especially vs an easy target like like an AWAC in a descending glide. But i guess time will tell.
Where are you getting the data for the burn time, on the D model?
wrightwinghttp://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=86033&highlight=amraam+dual+pulse
That will seriosly improve the performance, but the AIM 120D will need to be bigger to provide the extra fuel, and given F-22 weapons bay, how feasable is that ?
Not necessarily. Earlier model AMRAAMs increased motor size due to miniaturization of the onboard electronics. The D also has optimized flight profiles to maximize the effective range.
wrightwingCan anyone please give me information about the long range AMRAAM designed to fill the role of the Phoenix
Regards
Nick
Well there’s some non-specific info out there-
50 percent increase in range over the C7
2 way datalink w/ third party targeting
greater HOBS
greater ECCM
HOJ
GPS/INS
improved warhead fuzing
just for starters.
wrightwingwrightwing, you don’t understand the problem, the problem, i think, is not about the space in the bay, but the space for a safe launching, you can fit another missile, but how can you launch it in a safe way? there is no enough space, can you show me the picture with 3 missiles?, for sure they need a deployable system.
Fitting 2 missiles on the bomb’s place , i still don’t see enough space for a safe launching
It would obviously require a different ejector sytem than the Blk 3 variant. I’m sure we’ll see what that system looks like in time.
wrightwingNot sure, but the problem i see to fit another ejector (if there is actually space for another one and it related system) is that there is not enough space for a safe launching, so most likely would need some sort of telescopic/deployable system.
But then, who knows, i think we should stick to the facts,right now another launching pad is just a “should, would, could”
As has been said before on numerous occasions, the F-35 has deeper, wider, and longer weapons bays than the F-22, which currently carries 6 AIM-120s internally. The LM briefing shows Blk 5 F-35s carrying 6 AIM-120s internally. Multiple interviews have been given by LM and USAF officials to Aviation Week, etc… saying there’s room for 6(or more). At what point will the naysayers concede that it’s not just a possibility, and that this will be the future capability(and not distant future).
wrightwingAs a stealth fighter the F-35 will have 4 AAMs in the internal weapons-bay.
Even that has to be tested.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/F-35_weapons_bay.jpeg/800px-F-35_weapons_bay.jpeg
http://www.ahrtp.com/EG_Images3/Lockheed%20Martin%20F-35_flight_weaponsbay_opt600x424_air-attack.jpg
If we’re going to be honest you would be more accurate in saying-“as a stealth fighter, the F-35 Blk 3 will have 4 AAMs in the internal weapons bay, however the Blk 5 will be able carry 6(or more).”
wrightwingU gotta be a good democrat before u wish to pay more taxes, like F-22 for instance.
More F-22s could be bought without raising taxes. You would just have to prioritize the spending differently.
Sign In
