dark light

LmRaptor

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 751 through 765 (of 832 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-22 internal fuel #2499249
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    Jwcook – Maximum internal fuel never refers to maximum useable internal fuel. There is a difference between the two; and that fact probably explains the difference in the quoted figures.

    Also – The F-22 program is unlike the EF program which is a multinational program, this means it has to be a lot more transparent. As such it is my belief that a lot of the actual figures released relating to the Raptor program, are actually heavily sanitised.

    in reply to: Nose mounted pitot tubes, or not? #2502922
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    Isnt that gonna increase your overall emmisions though, broadcasting in effect where you are by using a radar or is it like an LPI type radar beam that can’t very well be picked up?

    It could be LPI or not, dependant completely on the radar or forward looking ground proximatey warning system.
    ________
    Bestsquirtdoll

    in reply to: Nose mounted pitot tubes, or not? #2502939
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    Radar systems can replace the pitot tube in gathering ground clearance and speed.
    ________
    BBW Webcams

    in reply to: Mig-25 vs. SR-71 and XB-70 vs. T-4 #2502940
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    Depending on the grade of steel, it can be stronger in many characteristics than titanium – at the expense of weight. Certain steels have a higher Young’s Modulus than titanium. Infact they offer higher E/mass aswell. Titanium has other advantages though.
    ________
    Chevrolet Corvair Engine

    in reply to: radome tubes? #2455120
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    They are pitot tubes that measure total and static pressure of the aircraft. Giving it altitude information/airspeed information and rate of climb information.
    ________
    Half-Baked

    in reply to: Design the perfect fighter for the 1960s #2455234
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    Bristol is a wonderful place. Is the top of Whiteladies Road still so vibey, or has the waterfront picked up a little? I’m not sure where your old home town is, but I’m currently about 10 000km away from Bristol at the moment.

    The waterfront has picked up quite a bit, especially with the local population. There are some good bars and clubs in the area. The top of whiteladies is basically a student highway down to the university. But the most vibey stretch is between the clifton downs sainsburys and the bottom of park street. My old home town is about 10 000 km from bristol too. 10 minutes walk from a place called kentron. Denel aviation etc.
    ________
    No2 vaporizer reviews

    in reply to: US Military Aviation News #2456346
    LmRaptor
    Participant
    in reply to: Design the perfect fighter for the 1960s #2456430
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    I see you’re studying in my old home town …… how is Bristol these days? Has it stopped raining yet?

    Not too sure which other roles the Tornado was designed for apart from low level attack/maritime strike?:confused:

    I’m aware of the SEAD and recce versions, but those came later, and you could argue that the Bucc could fulfill these roles just as well apart from top end speed utilised briefly or not at all.

    I know that during the gulf war, when required to fulfill medium level missions, the Tornado was distinctly underpowered. Note that I’m excluding the Tornado fighter operated by the RAF as this was a later requirment that had a redesigned forward fuselage and slightly different model engines.

    Bristol is really wonderful, its great fun as a university town. The weather has been suprisingly good over the past few days, not helping in terms of revision for my fluids and thermodynamics exam on thursday next week though. From some of your other posts I assume you live pretty close to my old hometown.

    The Tornado was designed in a time when multi-capability in a single airframe was much more desirable. This entailed a supersonic aircraft, with capacity for future growth. While low level strike at its inception was its main priority, Id be very surprised if the engineers intended to limit its capability to soley this role. Otherwise there would be no need for a Mach 2 airframe whatsoever. If the low level mission was all it was intended for they’d have beefed it up completely, given it supersonic performance at low level, and a weapons bay, while forsaking the high end speed.

    Instead they gave it Mach 2 capability, at the expense of range and a weapons bay. Allowing it to be more survivable and lethal as a Recce, SEAD and ADV aircraft.
    ________
    VOLCANO VAPORIZER EASY VALVE VS SOLID VALVE

    in reply to: Design the perfect fighter for the 1960s #2456439
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    Being used as TSR.2s avionics testbed does not necessarily mean it could have adopted them in an operational airframe – while maintaining all of its advantages. The unfeasible TSR.2 was a massive aircraft, 10 tons heavier than the Bucc. Who knows?
    ________
    Zx14 Vs Hayabusa

    in reply to: Design the perfect fighter for the 1960s #2456441
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    Comparing the Tornado to a modernised Bucc, in the high speed low-level strike mission (the Bucc’s specialist mission), is hardly what I call fair. One is a jack of all trades and one has its main niche. The Tornado being a jack of all trades is from an engineering point of view, a compromise. It could never incorporate the internal weapons bay that gave the Bucc its “practical” low-level speed advantage or its huge internal fuel capacity and still be effective in its other roles. But being the jack of all trades the Tornado is; means it can do things the Bucc could never do. At the same time as offering a respectable capability in each of its roles.
    ________
    NO2 VAPORIZERS

    in reply to: F-22 vs. F-35 #2457567
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    for starters, i know what supercruise is. A little history first. the lightning prototype, the P1, first flown on the 4th of August 1954 by roland beaumont, was the first aircraft ever to exceed the speed of sound in level flight without afterburners, only being able to sustain a speed of about mach 1.02 ill think you will find that the later versions of the lighning IE the F3 and more notably, the F6 could supercruise at almost the same speed. maximum speed of the lightning is mach 2.27 at altitude with the highest height being reached by one somewhere in the region of 87,000 feet, in fact im pretty sure i remember hearing of a lightning that intercepted a U2 and going above it. 380kt cruise speed is rather entertaining, considering that the approach speed is something ridiculously high, i forget now but something like 140kts, im sure someone knows.

    “Compare that to the Lightning’s figures, on standard internal tanks (filling the over-wing tanks prior to take-off gave no advantage, the extra weight burned off so much fuel that it was never practised unless a low level only trip was planned, otherwise in flight refuelling was the norm), the maximum attainable range was (and this was stretching things a bit) 900 miles. Even this required a cruise let down to conserve the juice. If nothing else it emphasises the shortage of fuel that British fighters have always suffered.”

    Max range was 900 miles, thats not the combat radius.

    http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/memories.html

    EEL has 10,600lbs of fuel (internal).
    The F-15 has 13,455lbs of fuel (internal).
    The F-22 has depending on the source 18000lbs – 25000lbs of internal fuel, while I believe its actual fuel load is about +-20600lb; this translates to max ranges of 2700km-3500km-3700km depending on the source.
    ________
    UGGS

    in reply to: How good of a fighter was the Mirage F1? #2457753
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    Agreed, hence I used the word larger, to explain the performance drop. I was just questioning if it wasn’t also heavier and indeed it was.
    ________
    LovelyWendie99

    in reply to: How good of a fighter was the Mirage F1? #2458096
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    Better take-off performance (weight & runway length), better range on same fuel, better climb & acceleration at low altitude . . .

    But –

    lower maximum speed, & worse performance at altitude. How much of the latter was due to the engine, & how much to the aerodynamic changes necessitated by fitting it (the cause of the top speed loss), I don’t know.

    If you wanted to build a 1960s high-altitude interceptor, I wouldn’t recommend the Spey. For a 1960s tactical fighter-bomber, it looks like a better engine than the J79. Better T/W ratio (lighter & more thrust) at low/medium altitude, better SFC.

    The Spey that went into the Phantom was larger (heavier?) than the J79. This being one of the reasons its high altitude performance was degraded, Mach 2.1 vs 2.3?; as it required major reworks of the aft-fueslage.

    Or perhaps the J79s static TWR wasn’t the whole story? Perhaps in dynamic conditions, it enjoyed performance advantages in certain envelopes of flight?

    I think its a bit of both. It would be interesting to see how modern western jet engines perform other than at static level. Id put my money on the F-119 being the most impressive in higher-end flight regimes. EJ200 following on and then the rest.
    ________
    Colorado Medical Marijuana

    in reply to: F-22 vs. F-35 #2459990
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    the f-22 doesnt have link 16

    It has link 16 recieve capability. It doesnt have send capability, yet, as link 16 is not a LPI datalink. Currently, however the USAF are fixing this issue. One solution is to fly a Gulfstream behind the main fighter force of F-22s, and convert its LPI IFDL into link 16, thus keeping the F-22 stealthy and allowing the rest of the fighting force to utilise data collected by the F-22.

    The F-35 will have exactly the same issue and hence it will probably adopt the same solution as the F-22. Both jets are slated to get Link 16 send capability later on however; this being used in non stealthy configurations when VLO/LO is not needed.

    http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=25686
    ________
    ANAL HARDCORE

    in reply to: F-22 vs. F-35 #2459998
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    Is there anywhere one can download the episode? Hyperwarp?
    ________
    SexyBosom

Viewing 15 posts - 751 through 765 (of 832 total)