Dare2About supercruise…
:diablo:
The development work was a blast. We learned a lot about the airplane in the program. The F-16XL is an airplane to behold. With the new engine, it has some spectacular performance. It’s a shame that we didn’t have a chance to fly it for what it could do. We have some supersonic persistence that cannot be beat by anything else flying today. Except for the Concord, the SR-71 may be the only other airplane that has more supersonic persistence than the XL. We did supercruise quite accidentally early on. That is, we achieved Mach 1.1 at 20,000 feet with throttles in military power, no afterburner. The engine guys at General Electric were quite pleased. But we didn’t make a big deal about it at the time.
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1994/articles/apr_94/apra_94.html
Now i’m sure we’re going to be told these guys ALSO doesn’t know what they are talking about…
Read AGAIN:
We did supercruise quite accidentally early on. That is, we achieved Mach 1.1 at 20,000 feet with throttles in military power, no afterburner.
😉
Dare2Singapore – F-15 won, Typhoon may have won the AF technical evaluation. The evidence is patchy. Thank goodness Typhoon lost out, winning a Singapore order then would have been an embarrassing disaster.
Explain how it would have won the TechEval and still being eliminated of the final stage of the competition?
Netherlands – The F-35 (then unflown) won a paperwork exercise that was primarily economic and industrial, and its aim aim was to examine the advantages and disadvantages of Dutch participation in the JSF programme. Comparing competing aircraft was a side issue, and was still primarily economic.
Rafale lost by 2 points to F-35, had the real F-35 programe and unit cost been known it would have lost it.
F-35 : 697/850.
Rafale : 695/850.
Eurofighter : 585/850.
Dare2Vitesse max : Mach 1,3 (840 nœuds) your quote. 😎
Even in France a noeud is 1,852 km/h = 1,852*840 = 1556 km/h 😉
Mach 1 in the Tropopause is 573 noeuds and by that 1556 km/h are Mach 1,47!
By Asterix the French did built a supercruise fighter in 1977 already. :diablo:
At least you are correct in your claim, someone in France was caught “with his pants down” not questioning such claims seriously. 😉
Listen BOY.
WE know its Max Mach is 1.3, if the webmaster had typoed whatever it still wouldn’t be no reason for you to interpret it as you being right, WE BOTH served in the Air Force (He still is) and i guess you didn’t, reading what you keep posting.
Btw i would loose this fascination for the tropopause if i were you, the SEM like F-35 is designed for a much lower ceilling about 36.000 ft/11.000 m as for most strikers (No wonder you keep getting your datas all wrong)…
So you can post whatever you want, the correct datas in this site ARE M 1.3 and 36.000 ft, 840 kt being the equivalent airspeed limit (as used for engine in terms of incompressible dynamic pressure); that makes you WRONG. (AGAIN).
Vitesse max. (11000 m) Mach 1.3
http://www.netmarine.net/aero/aeronefs/setendard/caracter.htm
Source: Website of Marine Nationale Vets, Active and retired.
They know their ABC and the SEM. Cheers
By Asterix the French did built a supercruise fighter in 1977 already
Actually 1963 Mirage III Avon at M 1.3.
Dare2Mr Dare2 only considers wing sweep a determining factor for critical mach number and top speed; there are numerous other factors.
My day. Yet another one jumping on the bandwagon without actualy reading my posts.
NO you’re wrong, i take the main and predominent factors only dismissing the minute differences when they are not significant enough to weight significantly in the result (meaning i know their values and simplifies for the stake of the readers) and in the case of this particular comparision t/c is a minute factor because differences are too small between the two.
The main factor here is wingsweep particularly because from 42* to 53* its effect also increases in emplitude compared to 35* to 40*, no other factor comes anywhere near to affect the difference as significantly as that and there are other factors playing vs F-22 as well.
It wouldn’t take ten years to refine the design of a modern combat plane if it was that simple.
Less than yourself and Raptor assuming what i write without actualy reading it and getting it right, i actually mentioned t/c several time over before the local genius tried to have a go at me.
As for refining design of modern combat aircrafts you’d be surprised to know what principles they actually used to design Typhoon and F-22.
The reduction of t/c at the wingroot the case of F-22 had little to do with Critical Mach btw but vortex generation, as is the case for the LEX.
The top speed of the MiG-25/31 and even the Mirage 2000 has been brought up but the limiting factors in these case are not aerdynamic but engine related.
WRONG in the case of M53…
The Mirage is way more restricted by reasons of kinetic energy than engine design.
The M53 P2 programe was meant from the outlet for the ACF and requiered to reach M 3.0 with small and simple modification and is perfectly capable of M 2.5 as it is (tested in the CEPr).
It is the Mirage 2000 structure which is not designed for the kinetic heating encountered above M 2.2 which is the determining factor for its Maximum Mach limit and i bet you two X-Mass turkey that this also applies to F-22 although the F-119 is certainly not designed for M 3.0 nor M 2.5.
Source: COMAERO Centre de Haute Etudes de l’Armement.
There are other factors to consider.
Thank you for your visit. 😀
Dare2That incident did prove that a MiG-25 could be pushed briefly behind Mach 3 without critical damages from doing so.
True but everyone should remember that this is bound to happen with ANY aircraft even if the western engine technology is more advanced than that of Russia.
Reason for laughing at the rumours of aircraft flying at M 2.4 with a Normal shock inlet, even if F-119 is optimised for cruise at supersonic speeds.
What applies in the case of this Mig is also valid in the case of western aircrafts when FADECS are set at higher limits or engines pushed to their maximum pressure recovery limit for too long.
These limits exits for all engines/designs and even F-119 have a dynamic pressure limitation above M 1.5, as it was designed (engine/inlets) for M 2.0 you can bet it is close to it too.
Cola1973
so this is a good start to have a lower alpha and smaller t/c ratio, if thickness has been the same.
It would have an effect if the difference was more than double what it actually is, Raptor trying to imply otherwise is misleading the readers, as simple as that.
Cola1973
As for cambering, both wings are supercritical and I’d imagine F22’s cambering (particularly in wave drag sense) is more limited due elevator boundary stream requirement.
Where do you get this from? BTW they both use variable camber which negates Raptor’s claim although Typhoon have a problem at this level but not due to its Critical Mach…
I take notice that you got a point here but i didn’t look at the interection trainling edge/elevator, still the upward moment of the F-22 trailing edge should be limited for this reason, you’re right to point this out.
Dare2Look, Dare, I don’t want to argue with you anymore than neccessary, but I won’t pander to your personal insecurities, that are clearly based on ignorance.
What was I saying, more flaming material from the superior being who is going to make the demonstration of the century. 😀
“Ignorance” is what you canot demonstrate to be wrong, which by every standard is quiet a lot, as for the rest of your post it is your usual…
But without knowing the difference in t/c ratio for a given AoA
First who told you i didn’t know their respective t/c ratio, second compute both at 0* AoA for a starter please (Mach 1.2 42.000 ft 57.600 lb) and stop trying to lecture people just to demonstrate you know something, try at least to prove a point other than “i know better”, i know what you don’t know and it is what i DO know.
F-22s wing has a lower maximum and average t/c than the Typhoon – because that is the tradeoff one makes when designing for a high speed wing. Higher t/c – requires higher sweep for a given performance – in general terms.
Sure!
Actually you are wrong; it also have a dragier supercritical wing profile in supersonic and the difference in t/c (at the wing root only) wouldn’t compensate for the combination of 42* vs 53* swept wing, wing twist (results from the supercritical profile) and extra drag from thick LEX (see below WHY) btw, Typhoon’s downwash effect of the canard wingtips reducing drag further don’t spare you the humilation of inventing stuff to try to make a point.
Funniest part of your post is that you qualify of “High speed” a Mach 2.0 delta at 53* and fail to notice that the F-22 sweep is a LEXed 42* supercritical (NOT a laminary).
Of course NO “tradeoff one makes when desiging for a high speed wing” in this case since F-22 despite the need to add LEX for causes of boundary layer separation due to the combination of wing profile and sweep (result of ATF studies)…
Obviously is not designed for minimum drag in transonic and is not “high speed” either (Yes the whole design was based on multi-requierements and compromises as i’m sure you knew already)…
For your info, F-22 wing profile only gain is at up to Mach 1.0 (M 0.97 to be precise where it enters its transonic region, leaving it at M 1.08), passed this is actualy drags MORE even at 0* AoA.
Where Typhoon is loosing is on the need to have 4* elevons pitch up keep it a 1 g flight in supersonic (M 1.8 at 35.000 ft by memory) due to the lack of canard integration (NO dynamic instability reducing pitch drag), add TVC to it, (F-22 reduces trim drag with TVC as well and have LOADS more of it due to the size of its elevators) and you got a much less dragy Typhoon altogether and of course no relation with Critical Mach here.
If you don’t like my post ignore and pass; your flaming tactics based on pure ignorance of what i know or not (and have as informations) is funny at least, you wouldn’t be posting these flame bates and lies if you had bothered reading the topic in the first place.
You failed.
Oh i forgot, no need to be American to love Hollywood, we know where your tastes lies and it’s clearly not in Europe (interesting read on your guys visions of Typhoon Mirage 2000 and Rafale), so please also keep your vulgarities and familiarities for your buddies at F-16. org. Cheers.
@pfcem
Keep making us laugh.
Dare2That being said, I can’t see how you have access to such data, or if you even know what the other data you need for such a claim is ;)!
Dear LmRaptor, i will avoid getting into the flame war you consistantly launch every time someone writes anything on your favourites that you fail as much consistantly to demonstrate as being wrong.
Datas as you imply are not needed for a rough approximation here, and I happen to have enough documentation on both aircrafts aerodynamics to make this staments.
I also know that YOU canot prove differently otherwise than implying that you are the only one qualified to know what data is needed for making such a claim but can’t because you don’t have the data.
Once again you demonstrate the usual “i know better but i canot tell you because i can’t” on the basis that basic aerodynamic rules doesn’t apply to US fighters, is that about F-35 “novel aerodynamics” by any chance?
(You know the ones that reproduces exactly the same old vortexes problems than the F-18/F-22 with the same structural issues as a result).
For your info the aerodynamic characteristics of F-22 and Typhoon have ben published in enough details by both Dryden, Lockheed Martin and Eurofighter to make a proper analysis and figure their respective Critical Machs values.
Enjoy your time writing about what other can’t do and try to figure where these docs are, for the moment you are the one with no datas, please do not assume that when you can’t others are in the same case.
The difficult, we do immediatly, the impossible just requiers a little more time… Who said that once? 😀
Cola1973
Did F22 actually flew over M2 in it’s operational configuration (F-22A) and is there a tachogram of the flight??
Only once we get the answer to this question, we can accept that value.
It probably did but the gain in terms of speed is minimal for the loss of engine/airframe service life, (just like ours).
The day an aircraft optimised for supercruise at M 1.5 will be structuraly and aerodynamicaly built for speeds above M 2.0 without compromising the first design point optimisation isn’t passed, it is in the far future if at all, because technologies aren’t here even today to allow for both, it’s all a question of compromise.
Note that the ATF requierements for M 2.5 were droped early in the programe due to the complexity of designing a multishock inlet with low RCS.
Dare2M2.4 is certainly not a ridiculous speed to achieve, especially with 20,000lb more thrust than an F-15, and no external stores.
What is ridiculous is to believe that the USAF would lie to everyone by saying M 2.0 Dash and that a one/half shock inlet allows for a higher Mach, btw there was no requierements for it either.
Just a thaught.
Dare2Dare2’s argument is that he doesn’t believe that Metz made any claims at all, because he’s unwilling to believe he’d ever use miles per hour as a measurement, even speaking to a layman.
Well here is a typical example of what i was saying which was:
What i did understand is that he was only repported to have said….
There are two reasons why i am and will stay more than sceptical in this topic.
1) There is no reasons to believe his comments was repported accurately.
2) There is NO evidence whatsoever that Paul Metz DID says this.
Other than that the very fact that a test pilot think primarily in terms of kt and Mach makes me think it is hearsay and little more than that, i have seen and known a few top fighter/test pilots they never used m/p/h as a measurement standard.
Just compare to what you allege i said and we got the 0.4 Mach creeping out of a Klingon device somewhere at Hollywood.
Quiet franckly i have had it with this sort of posts where US aircrafts beats gravity with just wind from a reported test-pilot comment, be it inacurate or plain invention.
There are logical explainations for every facts and those are the SAME for our air forces and aircrafts, since we happen to have pilots graduated from Edward, Eglin or IPER, using the same standards, at least we can understand them.
But of course these doesn’t apply when it comes to comparing ludicrous figures and throwing them at others faces vs evidences that these creepy stories are either stories or perfecly explainable unique facts, not operational standards and datas.
We have squadron noises too over here and performances to make F-22 looks blame from Mirage IVs or 2000 only they weren’t obtained under standard operational settings.
Passed this, Sci-fi is always going to show when people refuse to admit that guys who write the books by which every single air force and test pilots in the west are flying, knows tons more and better than they can ever comprehend.
Personaly i am still learning and i am lucky i love it.
Enough fun had we? 😀
Dare2I am sure you understand.
What i did understand is that he was only repported to have said….
There are two reasons why i am and will stay more than sceptical in this topic.
1) There is no reasons to believe his comments was repported accurately.
2) There is NO evidence whatsoever that Paul Metz DID says this.
Other than that the very fact that a test pilot think primarily in terms of kt and Mach makes me think it is hearsay and little more than that, i have seen and known a few top fighter/test pilots they never used m/p/h as a measurement standard.
wrightwing
But the implication of what he said was that the actual top speed is higher than the top speed he was willing to confirm. That’s why I don’t agree with the Mig-25/Mach 3 analogy.
Sorry NO: The implication is that HE was reported to have said that the actual top speed is higher than the top speed he was willing to confirm.
You keep puting words in his mouth without the slightest evidence that he was repported correctly or even made these comments.
There’s only one of us that’s confused by the terminology, and it’s not me.
Of course it is YOU, the Edward handbook is cristal clear and all i am doing is to read it, understand and basically report what the terminologies are.
You simply dont know what CRUISE is defined by, how and why.
It certainly makes it easy to debate others, if you simply dismiss things out of hand. Of course if you had evidence it might make for an even stronger argument.
That’s called reverse psychology, YOU do not have ANY evidence of what you say and only can allege that Paul Metz said….
I’m not sure why you keep bringing this up, when we were discussing what supercruise meant vs. cruise, but since you are, what’s the wing sweep of an F-104, an F-5, or even an F-18 for that matter?
That’s where we see who knows his ABC and who doesn’t.
First of all, F-104 had a wingspan and resulting wing surface much lower than F-35 or F-16, second, if you had studied the subject, t/c does play a big part too (although not as important as wingsweep), those of F-35 and F-16 are quiet similar, not that of F-104.
Then there is the little matter of Northrop design philosophy story; i’d advise you to have a look at their own conceipt for the F-5 and resulting design of the F-18 which BTW doesn’t supercruise, having been hiting a drag/endurence issues due to the crusing speed expected and related to….. Critical Mach.
To finish, none of these had a supercritical wing profile optimised for transonic and boosting a higher drag ratio in supersonic, since the polars are curves you can bet that its drag is higher at M 1.1 than that of a laminary, because the polar is not going to fall suddently once in supersonic.
AGAIN the design is meant to perform better BELOW Mach 1.0.
So please don’t try analogies when you totaly fail to get the basics of the designs right in the first place, it just doesn’t work in these cases.
Dare2So you have evidence that he never said that, and if so would you be so kind as to share it?
You have no evidence that he DID or that this was repported accurately either, yet as for the rest you are making use of pure assumptions vs all proper sources and evidences people can throw at you.
Yes, and not applicable.
Well, im’ not surprise you comprehed so little about it since they write the standards by which every single western pilot flies and understand how it is done.
Better your standards and procedures allowing optimised subsonic designs with 33* wingsweep to cruise passed their transonic zone with the same TWR then the Viper.
This explains a lot. 😎
Here’s some reality for you. An F-22 can fly further at M.95, than it can if it includes a supercruise leg. The same goes for any other modern fighter capable of supersonic speeds in dry thrust.
Sorry: AGAIN you should write people posts even if the technical terms are confusing you, you never know you might just learn something accidentaly.
So for your benefice, i dare quoting myself:
My comments using Edward AFB Flight Test Center standard procedures to define CRUISE:
I guess simplifying standards help getting Maximum up by a good 0.4 Mach in both case.
Crusing is defined by the SR (specific range) and RF (range factor) parameters, it means be it sub or supersonic the best ratio speed/range, at a known (depending on types) throttle setting.
At Edward they compute this with an accuracy of 1% using this method, cruise tests are meant to determine range and endurence and relies on precise datas including the relationship between DRAG, THRUST and FUEL FLOW.
If your drag polar allow for a lower consumption compared to another aircraft you will go further at the same speed/Mach while cruisining in subsonic or supersonic regime alike.
OBVIOUSLY because the laws of aerodynamics prevails (See the drag polar posted earlier) your consumption will always be higher in supersonic, it doesn’t change the definition of CRUISE.
So i’m sorry to say but it is you who have your wires all crossed when it comes to specific technical points on the subject.
Got it? 😀
Dare2Shows a ~6 seconds at 3.33??
what do you think?
Not bad, expected and consistant with this type of 9.0 g aircraft.
Dare2No, Paul Metz said the F-22’s top speed was classified, but could do over 1600mph. Where you take objection is what Mach number that works out to.
Suffice it to say, is that it is about Mach 2.
SORRY NO: Paul Metz was REPORTED to say…
It’s obvious you don’t understand what supercruise means vs. cruise.
Is that SO?
So according to you the definitions given by the USAF flight Test Center of Edward AFB aren’t good enough? 😎
If an F-22 stays subsonic at its optimal cruise speed, it can travel further than if travelling supersonically.
It got nothing to do with your extreme simplification of reality, it all got to do with standards, physics and aerodynamics.
Supercruise doesn’t mean that the plane is flying its most efficient flight profile.
It means CRUISE at SUPERSONIC regime, meaning not CRUISE at SUBSONIC regime, whatever the Mach it will still result on a ratio/fuel/speed/range.
It just means that the plane can fly supersonically in dry thrust for a prolonged period(i.e. tactically significant).
I guess simplifying standards help getting Maximum up by a good 0.4 Mach in both case. 😀
Crusing is defined by the SR (specific range) and RF (range factor) parameters, it means be it sub or supersonic the best ratio speed/range, at a known (depending on types) throttle setting.
At Edward they compute this with an accuracy of 1% using this method, cruise tests are meant to determine range and endurence and relies on precise datas including the relationship between DRAG, THRUST and FUEL FLOW.
If your drag polar allow for a lower consumption compared to another aircraft you will go further at the same speed/Mach while cruisining in subsonic or supersonic regime alike.
OBVIOUSLY because the laws of aerodynamics prevails (See the drag polar posted earlier) your consumption will always be higher in supersonic, it doesn’t change the definition of CRUISE.
So i’m sorry to say but it is you who have your wires all crossed when it comes to specific technical points on the subject. :diablo:
Dare2It’s hearsay from someone with quite a bit of experience flying the F-22.
NO it’s hearsay from someone allegedely repporting having heared someone with quite a bit of experience flying the F-22 saying it and totaly incapable to prove it.
It does help your theories even if they don’t fit the laws of physics and aerodynamic though.
How fast does it go with a 8AAMs?
I’m afraid it is a classified information but the Mirage III was cleared for M 2.0 operations with 3 of them, my wild guess is M 2.0 with 6 AAMs at best altitude.
Even fighters that can supercruise, aren’t flying at their optimum speed for fuel efficiency.
It all depends on their Critical Mach, as far as we know a Rafale or Typhoon have a higher CM than F-22 and this, you don’t know appart for the commercial noises made by Eurofighter and the absence of it by Dassault-Aviation.
A higher Critical Mach means a much lower supersonic drag and faster droping drag polar passed the transonic region, the difference lies in the engines, F-119 is optimised for this flight regime, M-88 and EJ200 probably not.
Were that the case the F-22 could fly its entire combat mission profile supersonically.
Way slower than the Mirage IV and for a much shorter period of time.
The fact that the F-35’s cruise speed is listed as M.98 does NOT mean that it can’t exceed M1 using dry thrust, or even operate supersonically for prolonged periods.
I’m curious to know what you really have understood from all the technicality of cruising around the highest Mach point of your drag polar.
And more to it, what it will mean for F-35.
In the event that it have the thrust to beat the drag to reach M 1.0 in Mil power, it still will not be supercruising according to every USAF handbooks definition of the words Supersonic and Cruise, if it does pass M 1.0 in Mil, it still will be in its transonic region.
Dare2I know that site and some data are as questionable as that given in the USA.
Considering how you interpret them, after the USAF service and flight Test Center, it is not surprising that you can pretend to know better than the Minister who uses them.
Sorry, but as we say in France you were caught “with your pants down”, READ plain WRONG.
Sign In
