Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens
It does not matter if you install a J79 or a F100 engine, because the recovery behavior of the inlet does set the limit.
It is pretty clear that the result will NOT be the same with a F-100.
They are set by the technology at hand and a safety margin for durability.
And of course the level of optimisation the designers are looking for, it looks like you still are missing requiered specs for engines, one does not design an engine the same way for lower ceiling, than for higher ones, hence the difference between M563 and M88, F-119 and F-135.
Pressure Ratio and Bypass Ratio are determining factors.
26.0 vs 28.0 Pressure Ratio F-119/F-135.
0.45 vs 0.56 Bypass Ratio F-119/F-135.
At higher supersonic speed= higher up the main thrust is generated by the inlet- and outlet-system and not by the engine itself….
Makes NO difference on how the engine will perform at its designed Mach and Altitudes.
The Mirage III variants and the Rafale have a limit of 750 kt.
Both respond to to very precise requierement.
Correct and I did claim nothing different.
Now you are. There was a clear difference in pressure recoverry limit between the F-100 and the IPE engines.
The F110 provided 5,000 pounds more thrust than the F100, and required a larger amount of air.
Makes little difference to its pressure recovery limit the F-16 limit with F-100 engines is not thrust related
Yes, because a fixed inlet is designed for a given amount of air and the recovery work is done by the fixed inlet alone.
Inlet pressure recovery limits are different from those of the engines.
A practical value is ~600 kt for a loaden striker at low level for the dash to target.
Actualy curiously it would be M 0.82 whatever altitude you are talking about.
Wrong or you do give a source for that claim please. 😉
Combat ceiling is the altitude some turning capability is left (>1 G) without a forced loss height.
Try a good informed book or L-M archives and Combat ceiling as you describes it for F-35 would be resulting in turn radius the size of the Nevada state.
In the USA, at Edward AFB, Combat Ceiling is the Ceiling at which you obtain your best Climb Rate (in ft/mn), in the case of F-16 it was mixed with a requierement for maximum LIFT for best achievable turn rates at 40.000.
Source: Air Force Flight Test Center, Edward AFB Handbook.
Your guess is from? So far are no values published.
Yes there are. From the time of the JFS programe launch and you don’t get the confirmation by looking in the internet, you have to read archives for requiered specs:
SAME ceilings as HARRIER II+s, as for F-35 (20.000/35.000 Combat/Cruise) today F-35 mission profiles are given with best ceilings possible, combat is done at 20.000 ft.
The F-16C is quoted with 50+ kft, when the practical one is lower due to the safety restrictions through enviromental-system fitted. Loaden strikers are limited well below 30 kft and so it is no disadvantage at all.
This is like ours the ceiling at which they can be used without waring a pressure suit, it is NOT representative of the maximum ceiling nor the Combat ceiling, a Mirage III could reach 75.000 ft.
Going behind Mach 2,2 just briefly will reduce the life-time of that aircraft.
NO it wont since it was designed like the engine for higher Mach, the M 2.2 limit involves the margin requiered for both airframe and engine to meet their requiered life-spans, M53 was originaly designed for the ACF requiered to reach M 2.5, then downgraded for use with the Mirage 2000 (HP Turbine material).
No problem with test-aircraft and their limited life-time in mind. Ordinary pilots will force their fighter into early retirement by that.
Only when Industrial Maximum Structural Loads and engine loads are set too low, some aircrafts have shown much longer longevity than other, even in US design history.
The allowed flying envelope is seldom the absolute possible. All modern fighters are under digital control about that.
NO it is NOT: It is the maximum cleared with safety and life-span margins included.
The related fuel fraction of the Mirage 2000C is 0.27, when it did drop with later variants too. The higher installed thrust of the F100 is compensated by the better sfc compared to that of the M53 f.e.;)
It depends at which altitude.
And the deeper sense of that claim? Just nonsense to stay polite.
I could qualify your posts as such.
By your behavior you do no favor to the useful French designs.
I know my designs, standards, requierements, specs, performances for both US and French enough to keep correcting you, please avoid talking about my behavior, focuse on posting accurate informations instead.
The EODAS is farther along than the F-35 as a whole. As of March 09, it had over 240 hours of flight time and over 25000 hours of lab time. We are well beyond those numbers now.
It changes little to the advance in the capability you are thinking of and shown in the youtube videos (with AIM-120 doing HOBS firing too which is very funny too).
EODAS is FIRST a defense system, the rest, IRST and target designation in both A2G and A2A are still at a different stage of developement, the A2A AAM cueing coming last due to its extreme complexity.
This brief doesn’t tell you everything…
Sign In
