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? 😀

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.

Look, 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.

Your typical rambling and cluttered response requires me to tackle it in a general manner:

*I stated that with the limited data available to you – you couldn’t establish whether the F-22 had a higher or lower critical mach than the Typhoon

*I was attempting to establish if you knew the determining factors behind increasing an aircrafts critical mach.

*I clearly pointed out to you that the most obvious factors such as sweep/wing location don’t tell you the full story.

*The other factors include things such as t/c ratio, camber & AoA to name a few.

It is easy to assume that the higher sweep on the Typhoon gives it a higher critical mach number than the Raptor. But without knowing the difference in t/c ratio for a given AoA – you simply can not justify your conclusion. Engineering logic would lead one to assume that the 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.

Consider also – based on parametic data used for tier one aircraft sizing – that a single percent change in t/c has more effect on critical mach than a single percent change in sweep angle. The Typhoon – due to its sweep angle has an equivalent freestreem velocity of about 17% less than what the F-22 has over its wing due to its sweep. This velocity difference could easily be made up by a slightly lower t/c ratio on the F-22.

Also don’t confuse the mach angle (when the aircrafts geometry falls outside the shock generated by the nose) with critical mach – because supervelocities will be experienced well before you get to the required mach.

So in short – unless you have the wing data required – your conclusion is flawed. Oh, Dare I actually prefer the Typhoon to the F-22/35 – as an overall weapon system when it comes to bang for buck – im not an american….

S will likely be slightly different aswell due to different trim conditions.

Overg, the point I made was about tech transfer and had absolutely nothing to do with how “uber high tech” the F-22/F-35 are. Your typical response clearly shows your massive chip on the shoulder regarding the Raptor.

The point is BAE Inc. deal with a lot of the “ultra top end sensor systems” that populate the USAF – not just the AN/ALR-94 on the F-22. If you had an inkling of the history of what used to make up what is now BAE Inc. you would understand why that is the case. With that in mind you would also understand why the US government set up a Special Security Arrangement to protect a lot of the tech developed by BAE Inc. in its previous guises. This SSA means BAE Inc. is virtually an American company with most of its technology firewalled from the UK BAE Systems side, and there are many quotes to support this on the net.

So this leads me to the fact that they are developing part of the avionics suite in the F-35 – a hot area of recent controversy over the transfer of technology issues i.e. the source code. What BAE Inc. are developing therefore is not shared with BAE and thus the UK – which is the point. The stuff BAE itself is developing is less related to the software side of things.

Of course not, but since the work is being done at Brough, Samlesbury, Warton and Woodford in England then I’d assume it was under military air systems and part of what you or I might have called old school BAe, rather than the US division of BAE that due to certain agreements have to have US management.

IIRC

BAE Systems North America now known as BAE Systems Inc. is virtually an all US company with US employee’s and US leadership. I believe the only thing BAE Systems gets from BAE Inc is the profit – in other words they have no access to any of the IP.

BAE Inc do the AN/ALR-94 and I think they are responsible for a lot of the defensive aids on F-35 – but I could be wrong.

Cheers for that Jack – you need to clear up your mail box, you’ve reached your limit.

Typhoons performance is astonishing!

Jack what do you mean by: “The results were entirely as you’d predict.”

This sounds very interesting.

Do we know if the UAE used this exercise for evaluation purposes and is this one of the reasons they now seem less keen on Rafale?

Do we know if any of the Raptors participated?

Do we know what role each of the participants adopted?