http://www.eurofighter.com/po_bl.asp?id=36

Can’t say when it happened though, but reader of aviation week may have a fuller version..

Oh it comes from that BLOG :rolleyes:.

F-22A flight show in UK, 2008?

http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=mMeNz7J0zzo

EF-2000 flight show with one 1000 liter external fuel tank?

http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=nypwKZT6MZw

Both fighters had performed traditional horizontal 360-degree turn with afterburners during their flight shows. I think we can calculate the time they need to make a traditional 360-degree turn in these video and make a little comparision…….

According to my personal view and calculation:

1. In the video, it takes Eurofighter (with one 1000 liter external fuel tank) around 18 to 22 seconds to achieve a 360-degree turn, horizontally or vertically.

2. It seems that the time the Raptor needs to achieve a 360 degrees traditional turn is not less than the time the Eurofighter needs to do the same thing. Although Raptor has the much better performance in the skills of high AoA and superagility.

Sorry buddy this just wont work :). We dont know as others have said if these are even close to max turn rates. Or what speeds they are conducted at – altitudes etc etc; with so many other factors to take into consideration too. And neither of these videos are the best representations for their particular aircraft that I have seen. Over at F-16.net there are some videos with much better turn rates for the F-22 and the same holds true for the tiffy.

I’m much more interested in STR and ITR than flight envelopes though, especially down low. Are there any published numbers available anywhere? You were talking about turn rates before.

So, as long as the F-22 is keeping it’s flight level it is constantly flying at an AoA of 0?, unless at the edge of its operational ceiling? Not even 2? or 3? alpha?

Hey :). Yes, as I said any data on turn rates/rate of climb/top speed/ceiling etc etc is classified. Especially the F-22 and anything released is generally sanitised. The same holds true for the Tiffy – Rafale – Gripen despite them being more forthcoming on some of the stats. So in short there is NO public data available. The best I had seen in terms of direct comparisons of operational capabilities was the F-22/Tiffy/F-15/Su-30 comparisons I saw toan post based on Speed vs Height at the Eurofighter website. They were based on published sources etc so I thought id just put them in. But NO DOUBT THEY are also santised and perhaps erroneous.

As to the 2nd point. I will stress it once again – the F-22 will easily and I mean easily be able to fly at 0 alpha in any operational conditions with an A-A config. Fighters are designed with one big thing in mind LIFT. Their high speeds mean they produce lift (L is basically proportional to V^2)- their huge wing means they produce lift – their fuselage designs aid in producing lift. Lift is essential for everything the fighter does and when a modern 11-20 ton jet turns at a very rapid rate it is the massive lift that maintains its circular motion – where a jet is at 9gs +. They are as such, very comfortable with flying in straight and level flight at almost any alpha 🙂 from – to 0 to +. So yes, the F-22 wont need any angle of incidence to fly in its operation configs… It will need it at the heights of its ceiling or say at its close to stall speeds; but thats it. Thats pretty much the same with any of the NG jets – the F-22 does however use the TVC to trim the jet up high and at high speeds – this is a less draggy/more efficient means to do so than without TVC- helping its supersonic persistence.
________
HOW TO ROLL BLUNTS

3D TVC is the single most important part of flight performance.

star49 :), you are a funny bloke, you make my day – what would the world be like if everyone had your passion to defend your jet so much :)?

If you are right, I must say it’s a real pitty we have yet to produce an operational fighter here in the west, that doesn’t need its wings like your Su-35.

Shouldn’t additional weight increase angle of attack at a given flight regime and therefore increase drag? 🙂

Don’t know how it works out in numbers, but at least a slight penalty should be there, shouldn’t it?

Weight won’t increase the AoA – the F-22 has two positive lift generating surfaces in the wings and horizontal stabs and its CoG is balanced between them with the help of its advanced FCS system. The F-22 is not like James May’s little cessna :). In straight and level flight with the huge amount of lift generated by those wings and the massive amount of speed generated by the F-119 combo it really has an excess amount of lift in any condition – the pilot wont need to increase AoA to sustain flight except at the edge of its opertional ceiling and that is also dependent on the classified thrust ratings of the F-119 at those altitudes. Which would be the case for any jet. Thus it really wont be suffering a drag penalty as such. If it were a Remos G-3 🙂 with a small Rotax engine and a tiny wing yes weight then does become more of a factor :). Drag from externals however is a big thing, the F-15C can’t break Mach 2 – and ive seen numbers as low as Mach 1.7 – with just a missile config, thats a Mach 0.5 + performance drop from its max speed; with just Amraams/Winders.
________
Vermont dispensaries

Just going on what I’ve seen, but I understand what you are saying. Tell you what though, its good to see a decent, areospace qualified engineer on here to make proper statements on things.:) So if you took TVC of the F-22, it still would have a higher sustained turn rate?

Not qualified, but in the process of becoming qualified :). As to the question though – the F-22s turn rate really is dependent on the lift generated by the wings and body – it becomes the force that one could describe as the centripetal force towards the pivot or centre of its turning circle. It is the force that opposes its natural motion to continue in the direction of the tangent of its turning circle. The TVC basically changes the AoA of the jet – which in turn can have an increased lift effect on the wings – but it also creates more drag due to the increase in cross sectional area so the effect is pretty much negated. So really, any speed above the stall regime depends on the lifting surfaces on the jet to turn it and less so, on the TVC. There is a brilliant article in AF monthly that explains this and explains where TVC becomes more important, such as at very high altitudes where the air is thinner or stall speed. If you took the TVC off the Raptor it would still munch up the Eagle :).
________
Rhode Island Marijuana Dispensaries

Picture request please.

Does anyone have pictures of the F-22s departing Fairford yesterday on their way back to the states? Any pictures of the F-22 flying with the tiddy in formation as it was apparently supposed to do on friday/saterday/sunday?
________
LovelyWendie

Pilots 🙂