firebarIt could be that the F-104s run was only one way. Still 988 mph. Sheesh. I’ve often wondered though if a the Mig-23 variant with the 28,000lb thrust engine could maybe beat it. There was talk over on r.a.m. about the possiblity of the F-111F beating it but I don’t recall what the verdict was.
No,it was not 988 mph. That is the point.
The F-104RB was home built, more powerful, modified with Reaction Control System and Water Injection Compressor Precooling but could not surpass F-4 record.
firebaryou prefer not to mention, that there is no longer a low level world-record to achive since decades. The FAI ended those attempts for safety reasons.
Sens, FAI did not end speed records attempts at sea level.
What is ended for safety reasons is absolute speed records at sea level, from 1955.
Before 1955, all absolute speed records were attempted at sea level, after that at high level.
But, sea level speed records are never ended by FAI.
Did you find out why F-104 Red Baron record attempt in 1977 has not been officialy recognised ? The Darryl Greenamyer attempted second run in 1978 but has crashed.
For your information, it is extremely hard to surpass 1,17 Mach record of F-4.
It is not easy at all.
firebarThe A-12 hit Mach 3.29 on a test flight out of Groom Lake. But that couldn’t be possible by your logic. The YF-12As were outfitted at Edwards with progressively more powerful J-58 variants and the most current systems.
.
I have some old sources which say it’s max speed was 3,6 Mach!! All these data are, of course, totaly incorrect.
Regarding more powerful J-58, mind that it’s max speed was not limited by engine power, but stability and construction.
firebarI am quite sure that the f/a22 has demostrated “”””SUSTAINED””” AOA of +- 60 degrees…as far as transient capabilities i have found no credible published info on the exact figure
You will not find it because it was max AoA achieved by F-22 in tests.
firebarTransient is ramping in time. For instance with Cobra maneuver you gor some 120 deg AoA, but trasient, ergo the AoA angle is ramped, not constant.
Yes, I know that. But I say that YF-22 achieved max 60 degrees AoA in tests, and not more.
The instantaneous AoA is always much higher than sustained AoA.
If YF-22 achieved 60 degrees in sustained flight, than somebody tell us what instantaneous AoA did it achieve.
firebarErrrr, I had just viewed it, it is not quite a Cobra, although a similar maneuvre. Cobra maneuver prescribes NO ALTITUDE GAIN, but the MATV on video clearly is performing vertical climb during the high-angle phase.
It was a F-16 MATV specialy designed with TVC to explore flight at high AoA.
It has nothing to do with service F-16 which is limited to pathetic 26 degrees. Above that deep stall is a sure thing in F-16.
The point is that west airplanes can do high alpha maneuvers only with specially designed planes with Thrust Vector Control and than only in firmly controlled tests.
The SU-27/Mig-29 do it without TVC and with production, service airplanes, even with full underwing missile stores.!!! That is an example of incredible aerodynamic advantage.
The SU-37 with TVC, with its unlimited AoA, 360 degrees rotation, represents entirely new class.
firebarthe 60 degrees AOA was a SUSTAINED performance target for the f/a-22…We must not confuse SUSTAINED with TRANSIENT
Are you sure ? Than tell us what is its max transient AoA.
firebarThe problem with destabilising nose of F-12 was never fully solved. The directional stability was too weak and even added ventral fins did not restore required stability.
The YF-12 was full of unsolved technical problems and it was a black hole for american tax payers.
Department of Defence in final conclusion said:” No aircraft could hit a target at 140 miles away.”
So, its testing with AIM-47 missiles were faked.
firebarThere is a lot that happens in flight testing that you don’t see at airshows mostly since it’s not worth the risk. The F-14 Tomcat flew at up to 90 degress AOA in testing. The F-15 did up to 120.
The testing is one thing and production aircraft capabilities are something entirely different.
The F-16 in tests has been doing a 90 degrees, like F-14.
But production F-16 is limited to 26 degrees and production F-14 to 50 degrees.
The aircraft are tested to much broader envelopes than possible in service.
Do not mix that.
firebarHow about with a video clip of the F-22 flying at high AOA?
The F-22A flying at a CONTROLLED and SUSTAINED what looks to be at least 45 degrees AOA.
It only looks that way. It can be deceiving differentiating between the AOA and the angle of pitch. When you want to see 45 degrees it will be 45 degrees.
Can you find any serious source which states that F-22 can achieve more than 60 degrees AOA ?
Do you know that its max AOA without TVC is only 35 degrees and 60 degrees with it. Above that it departures. And look what Mig-29/SU-27 do without TVC.
The secret is in superior aerodynamics.
The stealth design produces a lot of aerodynamic compromisses.
firebarDesign speed of F-12 was in the Mach 3.2 range. 60-6936 was used for the record flights. A few months later it was firing guided AIM-47s. On September 28, 1965, a launch from 60-6934 was even made at Mach 3.26. Just because the speed record the YF-12A set was at 2070mph, does not mean in any way that it represented the maximum speed of the aircraft.
Remember the Mach 3.31, 2193mph speed record set by the SR-71A?
Its radar worked exactly as expected, thanks to the inclusion of travelling wave tubes. It had a detection and engagement range against a bomber-sized target of well over 100 miles. The main drawback was that it could engage one target at a time.
The SR-71 was the fastest of the series because of more elaborate SAS and digital flight control system, allowing better stability at high speed.
The F-12 had a far less effective flight control system and it was not stable above 3,13 Mach at all. Everything above that and plane would lose directional and longitudinal stability.
The max in production would have been 3,1 Mach.
Regarding radars, I recomend to you some literature about pulse dopler radar theory. These radar simply do not work properly without digital technology.
The F-4J’s AWG-10 had look down range against Migs in Vietnam of only a couple of miles. Only when digital AWG-10A appeared, detection range has been improved.
firebarThe only reason the F-12B never entered service is because McNamara kept freezing the funding to begin production, which Congress voted to approve THREE TIMES.
As it stands, the aircraft still had a faster re-attack time than the F-106…
The F-12 had alert time measured in hours. Do not deceive yourself with tales.
-The fueling of special JP-7 fuel takes hours.
-Its engine oil must be carefully preheated to exactly determined
temperature.
-Its engines must be started at least half an hour before flight.
Every Blackbird pilot say: ” Blackbird mission take hours of preparation.”
” The recovery time after the mission is 6 hours.”
The F-12 was, therefore, totaly unsuitable as interceptor.
Because of that, SR-71 is unsuitable as tactical reccon aircraft where short alert time is needed for mobile targets.
It is only suitable for strategic recce missions for static targets.
The U-2 is much more flexible in that respect and more useful.
firebarThe “record holder” is a modified F-104RB ‘Red Baron’ from Darryl Greemayer 1977: 859 kt or Mach 1,3
Sens, I say again, you have not a good information sources about aviation.
The F-104RB of Darryl Greenamyer was not a production aircraft. It was a home built, specially modified aircraft with Reaction Control System and Water Injection for engine compressor. It was very different to production F-104.
The Greenamyer attempted speed record in 1977, but its record was not recognised by FAI. Do you know why ? Try to find out.
In his second attempt in 1978, he crushed during his try, and aircraft was destroyed.
The F-4 still holds speed record at sea level, with 1,17 Mach. I repeat, there is no production aircraft which could fly faster.
Do not believe everything in open literature.
firebar> flex297
> the BEST RCS value of the F/A-22 is -22dBsm, ergo cca. 0.0065 sq m, its
> typical values vary from 0.01 to 1.0 sq m.
Let us start by agreing to disagree! What you are stating is that the F-22 has a higher RCS than the F-117 or B-2 bomber. That is a direct contradiction to what the USAF has stated that, “the F-22 is the stealthies of their aircraft.
Each successive stealth aircraft has been more stealthy than the previous stealth aircraft.> F-23 being more agile than Flanker?
YES both the F-22 and F-23 can perform maneuvers of which the Sukhoi family of Su-27’s and modifications can do.> JG73 pilots talking about the exercises held here in Europe where the F-16
> pilots could not achieve a single kill in dogfight
This was an evaluation of the MiG.-29/AA-11 Archer versus the F-16C/Sidewinder-9M combination. In thirty-three test, the F-16 only won one engagement. When the F-16’s learned tactics to defeat the HMDS the F-16’s started winning the bulk of the engagements.
The F-16 is the T/W fighter while the MiG.-29 is the maneuver fighter. The F-16 should try and fight in the vertical plane while the MiG.-29 should push for the horizontal plane> firebar
> Max dry speed of YF-22 was 1,58 Mach
That was a “milestone” not the end point. Top (sustained) supercruise speed is Mach 1.7. The F-22 can get up to Mach 1.8 for short periods.
The new material was developed for the wing panels, the USAF decided to give up Mach 0.2 in top speed and Mach 0.1 in supercruise to use “bismaleimide” (BMI)! This material was more durable, far cheaper to produce and, maunfacture. The liability is that the material is sensative to heat!
How do you know exact RCS of F-22 when it is a classified information?
Of course that F-22 has a far greater RCS than F-117 or B-2.
Designers of F-22 had to make a compromises in RCS regarding maneuverability. In F-117 and B-2, maneuverability was not a requirement.
It is a far easier to make low RCS aircraft when requirement is only a streight line flight.
So, do not compare F-22 and F-117 in RCS.
The YF-23 never demonstrated any maneuver. That was the reason it has lost. It was a bit faster than F-22 and had smaller RCS but was unmaneuverable.
Its wing aspect ratio and tail vertical area were ridiculously low to be effective fighter.
Regarding Mig-29/F-16 combat simulations, there is no effective tactics against Mig which F-16 could use.
The F-16 is a simply outdated fighter compared to Mig-29, because it can’t went beyond 26 degrees AOA, its wing loading is too high, its engine is prone to compressor stall and losses to much power at higher altitudes.
Also it has not Helmet Mounted Sight, high off-bore sight missiles, laser/electrooptical lock-on system.
The JG-73 commander of Mig-29 said: ”We beat them too quickly, so that we had a kill registration problem. No matter what was put against us.” So, do not deceive yourself. The Mig-29 and F-16 have a similar T/W ratio (about 1,2 :1 at combat weight) but Mig has a much lower wing loading.
The YF-22 demonstrated 1,58 Mach at military thrust, but that was a prototype with smaller wing span and much lower aspect ratio wing (that is: with lower drag). Production F-22 has 1,4 M at max dry thrust.
The Bismaleimide material is nothing new. It was used in prototype YF-22 also.
firebarIndeed it did do a Cobra and a tailslide… 🙂
From the video link posted by someone here, the F22 demonstrated a tailslide and also a cobra. :
The F-22 never demonstrated AOA more than 60 degrees with TVC and 35 degrees without it. So, Cobra like maneuver is out of the question.
Also, it demonstrated max pitch rate of 40 degrees/sec.
The Su-27 has 60 degrees/sec pitch rate. That is the reason it could do Cobra maneuver. It takes a very powerful horizontal tail which could bring back the aircraft to lower AOA.
The SU-37 even demonstrated Super Cobra, a full rotation 360 degrees about lateral axes, which is, aerodynamicaly, truly unbelievable.
So, do not compare F-22 with them in high AOA maneuvers.
The X-31 is the only aircraft in the west which could do a Cobra maneuver safely.
Sign In
