Page 187 – Key Publishing

Sintra

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,791 through 2,805 (of 3,443 total)

← 1 2 3 … 186 187 188 … 228 229 230 →

Author

Posts
January 28, 2010 at 11:49 am in reply to: Typhoon Beating F 15 ? Just PR talk ? #2405453

Sintra
Participant

edit, i just noticed you said the f-22 goes further, do you know why ? is it drag, engine efficiency?

No i dont. Dont have numbers, but couldnt fail to notice that the Raptor crosses mach 1.7 on dry! The drag numbers must be something out of this world.

January 28, 2010 at 11:12 am in reply to: Typhoon Beating F 15 ? Just PR talk ? #2405516

Sintra
Participant

@ scorp, height and speed of both please and examples of a few heights so we can make sure one isnt in a bad and one is in a good designed altitude

i guess you’re playing this game becase the f-22 has higher fuel fraction

Hmmm

F-22
Clean weight – 19,70 Ton
Internal fuel – 8,20 ton
Fuel fraction (aircraft clean + internal fuel) – 0,293
Fuel fraction (aircraft clean + internal fuel + 8 AAM´s) – 0,283

Typhoon
Clean weight – 11,15 Ton
Internal fuel – 4,96 ton
Fuel fraction (aircraft clean + internal fuel) – 0,307
Fuel fraction (aircraft clean + internal fuel + 8 AAM´s) – 0,288

Numbers taken from the USAF F-22 Factsheet and Luftwaffe Typhoon description pdf (AFAIK the only official document that discloses the internal fuel of the Eurofighter)

January 28, 2010 at 10:43 am in reply to: Typhoon Beating F 15 ? Just PR talk ? #2405537

Sintra
Participant

Is that 250nm SC a radius, or one way? Is the CAP also supercruise, or is it subsonic? What speed is being used to define supercruise for this specification(i.e. can it travel 250nm at M1.3)?

1 – The 250 NM is radius, i would be surprised (astounded more like it) if it was a two way SC.
2 – CAP numbers not disclosed (if i had to bet i would go for a subsonic one)
3 – Speed not disclosed, but if i had to guess i could bet that the Supercruise definition would “higher than mach one”.

Cheers

January 28, 2010 at 10:27 am in reply to: Typhoon Beating F 15 ? Just PR talk ? #2405597

Sintra
Participant

you’re not really going to say the typhoon matches the f111 and f22 on internal fuel range, are you ?

The F-111 surely not, now for the Raptor If the USAF factsheet is correct they are going to be close (i am the first to acknoladge that the clean weight numbers for the F-22 on that document seems bloody high). (http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=199)
Based on that USAF factsheet the Typhoon actually has a better internal fuel fraction (both aircrafts clean, with internal fuel only).
We dont have numbers for drag, we dont have numbers for the SFC at “bingo” altitude of both engines, and AFAIK (if someone corrects me with official numbers i am going to be a very happy Sintra) we dont have numbers for the maximum Dry thrust of the F119, so dam the Breguet equation, we can only speculate, but there´s every chance that the advantage of the F-22 on range is not massive, far from it.
Of course that this text of mine is dependent on the numbers of that factsheet being correct, if they are not…

And yes, the F-22 has more range than the Typhoon on internal fuel, but dont lump it together with the Aardvark, those two aircrafts are (literaly) “miles away”.

Cheers

January 27, 2010 at 10:28 pm in reply to: Typhoon Beating F 15 ? Just PR talk ? #2406289

Sintra
Participant

thanks for making my point for me and the same applies for the f-22

No it doesnt. The internal fuel fraction of the Raptor is nothing to write home about.

January 27, 2010 at 10:20 pm in reply to: Typhoon Beating F 15 ? Just PR talk ? #2406300

Sintra
Participant

the claim is it stays with the f-111 and f-22
your post shows it doesnt

What!

In terms of range those numbers are actualy superior to the original ATF KPP´s…

January 27, 2010 at 10:04 pm in reply to: Typhoon Beating F 15 ? Just PR talk ? #2406350

Sintra
Participant

not with those fuel pods you wont and without them its bingo real quick

250 NM supercruise plus 30 min CAP on internal fuel its not “bingo real quick”… Not here not in the moon…

EF official numbers from the 2006 Norway presentation.

January 26, 2010 at 8:52 pm in reply to: F-35 News and Discussion #2408177

Sintra
Participant

Anybody who’s been following his “articles” on Ares over the last three or four months could tell you he’s about as objective as Kopp when it comes to the F-35.

Anybody who’s been following his “articles” on Ares over the last three or four YEARS could tell you that he has been consistently right in the development timeline… How many flights were there in 2009? Now go and read Bill´s texts from late 2008…

January 26, 2010 at 3:27 pm in reply to: Rise of the Sea Gripen #2009097

Sintra
Participant

Of course not.

Quite correct, that’s how the story goes… 😉

BAE still works closely yet discreetly with Saab, its officials don’t even bother to state it in public, but hej! you can believe whatever you want! It’s a free world, mostly.

Off course they work together, Warton builds 50% of the wings of the entire Gripen line! (At least they did)
We were discussing marketing, werent we?
I can assure you that in Brasil there wasnt one single BAE functionary, and AFAIK, there hasnt been one in the campaigns since 2005. But i could be wrong, have you any reason to believe otherwise?

January 26, 2010 at 3:24 pm in reply to: the F-35, does it make any sense? #2408558

Sintra
Participant

Hi ELP, missed you…

Sens is French. And Eric Palmer writes under is own name in here.

January 26, 2010 at 3:15 pm in reply to: Rise of the Sea Gripen #2009101

Sintra
Participant

Do bother to take a look to the synthesis of Saab’s promotional team and you will have your answers as to whether BAE is out of the equation or not.

Do you mean the Farnborough office?
Forget it. They are there for the South African, Hungarian and Czech backup suport. There are contracts inked with those three countries in wich BAE is involved, the company who sold (rented to the European countries) those aircrafts was called “Saab-BAe Gripen AB” (it changed its name to “Gripen International in 2001) in wich 50% belonged to “BAESystemsGripenOverseasLtd”.
BAE has no active participation in the Marketing of the Gripen since january 2005.
They were not involved in Thailand, they are not involved in Brasil, they are not involved in India and they are not involved in Switzerland.

January 26, 2010 at 3:03 pm in reply to: Rise of the Sea Gripen #2009104

Sintra
Participant

Other elements of the British government are supporting SAAB though, notably in Brazil, through the British AESA radar. Didn’t Gordon Brown give his backing to it or something?

Odd to think the UK is actually heavily involved in 3 competing fighters.

Yes, it did. There´s an awful lot of British content (including BAE´s) in the NG.

Cheers

January 26, 2010 at 2:27 pm in reply to: Rise of the Sea Gripen #2009115

Sintra
Participant

SAAB don’t have any experience in Carrier Aircraft but as was pointed out BAE do- BAE are still aboard on the project and do offer the marketing service for the Gripen but only where the Typhoon is not in the same competition, if it is, then SAAB take over offering the Gripen and BAE offer the Typhoon- this was the understanding of the agreement (Basically BAE win no matter what).

BAE is out of the equation (marketing services) for six years now… They dont have nothing to do with any of the Gripen offers that are going round the world, and that has been for quite some time. Think Thailand, there were no British chaps there and the Typhoon wasnt offered.
BAE is not only part of rhe Eurofighter consortium, but is also the only Tier 1 partner in the JSF team.

January 21, 2010 at 11:50 pm in reply to: New Aircraft Cost Overuns #2411390

Sintra
Participant

Stay serious, just in that case the claim class was far fetched. The four ships had different builders and were produced under high time pressure. Their short life-time was just enough to cover the critical WW1, when outdated by the lessons learned from 1916.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Orion_(1910)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_class_battleship

I am staying serious, and it seems that unlike you i have read a few books about this, i dont use wiki has my main source…
Did you know that almost ALL German dreadnoughts between the begining of the twentyeth century and the first world war crossed the budget? Some of them grossly? Try to check “Molkte Battlecruisers”.
Did you know that the original specifications for the “SMS Seydlitz” included triple 305 mm turrets that were deleted because of financial constraints and budget over runs?
Or the negotiations between Tirpitz himself and the German Industry to lower costs, discounts by Krupp on armor, B&Voss on yard work on severall of the German ships?
Or we can go to other Dreadnoughts from Italian, Russian, French, etc, designs, can we speak of the Gangut Class?
How many examples do you want?
There were a LOT of over budget Dreadnought (and Battlecruisers) from almost every single navy who operated them. Over budget and stretched time frames dont apply only to the 21 first century…

January 21, 2010 at 11:17 pm in reply to: Typhoon question. #2411451

Sintra
Participant

The Spanish also call them “Tifon” or “Typhoon”.
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 2,791 through 2,805 (of 3,443 total)

← 1 2 3 … 186 187 188 … 228 229 230 →