Cola1973Wrong! The F120 was definitely more unconventional, more innovative and more risky with its variable bypass solution…. but that does not translate into being the “real SC engine” or even a better engine in any paramter… only for fanboys, but not for any engineer who has to make a solution work or be as reliable and effective in every situation as the more conventional version.
LOL and I was once accused of being a “regressive” element and if it’d be my way, USAF would still fly P51D.
The variable bypass was the only real step into the future and American engineering failed to take that step.
Cola1973Well I did not mentione in last post that those values 75/200 kg.kN-1.h-1 and 80/180 respectively are basic SLS values. Real values used in calculation were appropriately adjusted for the right speed and flight altitude (based on data from some 4th gen engines manuals).
Nice numbers. Try dividing them by a 1000… 😀
Cola1973…Guys, his majesty…
…the Lockheed’s flying base/carrier…
Cola1973Yes, litres are all French. :diablo:
It makes it kind of difficult to travel the Europe 😀
Cola1973paralay,
where did you came up, with a figure of 9330kg of fuel, when LM/USAF states 8200 kg?
Anyway, from available data and those have been cross referenced by, at least three sources (USAF/LM, Stevenson’s F22 briefing and a comment of SC flight to Utah/I think), the SFC for F22 on Mach1.5 goes to 20-22 kg/nm and about 7 kg/nm for Mach0.8…and…there are no American and Russian liters. 😀 It’s not like US and UK gallon.
Cola1973I thought “Supercruise” wasn’t planned nor really not mean’t to be one of the Typhoon’s tricks? It just happened to be capable of doing it like the EE Lightning could…I’m 100% sure that was it. Don’t think it was planned to have it from whenever.
Anywho, so sorry to bring up another type of aircraft on an American aircraft thread, know how some fan boys don’t like it, but saying that some of the same ones think its cool to bring an American aircraft up on say, a Gripen thread, for example. Pffft some of these threads are so pointless because they just turn into a “VS” thread…Anyway, sign off & back to a life in the real world*.
Ta-Ta!
Well, one doesn’t just get supercruise.
It’s a process to achieve it. Aerodynamic handling at supersonic speeds through foreplanes/wing layout (as opposed to Rafale), aspect ratio which puts wingtips way behind shock wave (for higher Mach numbers) and above all, the EJ200 engine. EFA could have gone with F404, or PW1120, but would stay subsonic in cruise, so EADS opted for EJ200. No coincidence here.
Anyway, I don’t mind bringing other planes into the thread. The original topic has been dealt with, in 5 posts. We have some declassified range data, we know F22’s fuel capacity and so we have the best possible estimation quickly. But then, once we get to some figure, I think it’s ok to compare it, to competition.
Cola1973We will, when it is about range and a mission in need of that too.
Please do look at the related details before doing such a claim.
The chart does give the data for internal fuel (269 USgal) and a clean fighter.
To that you have to add two 110 USgal ETs and the related reduction in cruise speed for best range. 😉
With our example non can claim military secrets.
Let’s avoid the unnecessary debate. Here’s a link to some people that already done that:
http://www.af.mil/information/transcripts/story.asp?storyID=123006547
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123006538
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-51_variants
Cola1973Wikipedia is quite enough, to prove my point.
So, I merely posted Wiki data since it’s reasonably close to actual data.
As for cruising speeds and range, I think you should study this document a bit. Nowhere close to B17.
And so, after many lines of textual data, you came to a practical radius for Mustang 600+ miles and that’s less than half of B17’s.
Let’s better get back to topic…
Cola1973Cola,
There’s no doubt that Rafale and Typhoon can wipe the floor with the teen series when it comes to airshow appearances. Indeed only the vectoring Russians can give a more impressive show.
I would never, ever, rate Super Hornet or F-16 as being a better or more agile aircraft than either Rafale or Typhoon.
But at Paris this year, they gave better, more exciting displays, and looked more agile. The Super Hornet’s max g pull up and max negative pushover was astonishing, for example.
Hats off to you if you think that you can accurately calculate g from a video…… I know that I can’t.
They can wipe the floor with a bit more than just teens, but if I say that aloud, I’m in for a $hitstorm from FANiacs. 😀
Growing up with teens generation myself, I’m a sucker for WOW moments, too 🙂 and I always enjoy a high AoA tail slide, or such. However, you won’t see those by canard aircraft and they overall fly more efficiently, so even when they pull high g, it looks like 3/4 g lower in teens. No help there. 🙂
But once they got “angry”, like that guy in Perth, then all the hell breaks loose…:)…I’d guess, that this LeBourget wasn’t important in terms of possible deals and since French got a request for an offer from UAE on Friday before the show, Rafale pilots got the orders to tune it down and preserve airframe…Well, that’s my guess, anyway.
As for measuring, I can hit it within a second and on a 15 seconds strip it’s a 6.7% deviation, quite enough to get reasonably accurate measurement, or to confirm calculations.
Cola1973Cola,
Good answer.
There’s an element of that, I’m sure. But it’s not just that we’re comparing Rafale with Super Bug and -16, it seemed tame in comparison with previous Rafale displays.
As did the Typhoon display at Le Bourget. Now I can put my finger on what was wrong with the Typhoon display (I’ve seen more Typhoon displays), and that was the lack of HAVV rolls, the lack of really energetic pull ups, and the poorly planned display that saw the aircraft looking ‘too small in the sky, too much of the time’.
To be honest, I didn’t see much of the Rafale flying, but the movie arthuro pointed out, is very indicative.
At one point Rafale pulls about 9g sustained turn and I’ve measured turn rate and compared to theoretical value I got from calculations and it really is 9g sustained turn. Now, a few shots from tail camera discloses that, although pulling 9g, the Rafale has almost laminar boundary layer airflow over the wing and that’s, well, incredible, or I didn’t expect to see that, at least.
There’s aerodynamic explanation for this, but I didn’t think Dassault made it so accurate. It turned out I was wrong and Rafale flies heavy g loads with ease, indeed.
Anyway, Jacko you may be right and this isn’t the best of Rafale’s displays, but is way more than anyone else can do (except other Eurocanards) and if this is not enough for you guys, well I’d say you’re a bit spoiled. :):):)
Typhoon’s display was less “WOW” as well, as there was no Perth’s wings ripping at a motherload of g.
But then again, even in such “reduced” shows, those two can beat pretty much anything else flying (and trying) around and I think that’s the real display of power.
Cola1973It didn’t look like an aggressive, high g display to me, however, and it looked a bit tame to me, and to others. Had it been a succession of 9 g turns it would have had more of a wow factor, in my opinion. Unless you have an alternative explanation?
Explain then. Why have so many people remarked on how tame the Rafale display was? Were we all watching a display full of 9g turns and suffered some mass hallucination?
Why did the 9g F-16 and F/A-18 displays look tighter and punchier?
Guys, the thing is in control force mechanics.
Now, let’s take Rafale (EF, Gripen,…) and SH or any other elevator-ed aircraft including F22.
With elevatored aircraft the thing is they, first and foremost, need to overcome AoA (push tail down) and only after that, they’ll begin to rotate around lateral axis. This quick AoA buildup at such planes, causes “WOW” effect. However, during this same “WOW” moment the plane still flies straight forward vector!
In comparison canard+delta doesn’t push the tail down, but lifts its nose (canards generate positive lift vector, while elevators generate negative lift vector). In the end the effect is the same (nose goes up), but the force mechanics is different. So, as Rafale pulls its nose up (and is still low on AoA), it has already begun moving its flight vector around the lateral axis.
So, while ppl “WOW” on SH’s AoA buildup, the Rafale has already did some flight vector deflection, but more smoothly and that’s not so much “WOW”. In reality, “WOW” is, well, just “WOW”, but with very limited combat value, if any, because it generates enormous amount of drag and doesn’t actually move flight vector around, making the performing aircraft a prime candidate for “low, slow and out of ideas”.
However, this is only one of the advantages the canard+delta has over elevatored aircraft. The same goes for EF and Gripen, too.
Cola1973Nothing about guessing as long as the personal opinion is shown. Sometimes the own memory is misleading to stay polite.
Some data about 44/45.
P-51D max range ~3325 km
P-38L max range ~3620 km
B-24J max range ~3360 km
B-17G max range ~2960 km
The escort task was even split. The first and last leg were covered by P-47s and Spitfires f.e., when the P-51s and P-38s did cover the other legs.
The task of the B-2s were to go after Soviet mobile ICBM, like SS-24 and SS-25 f.e. The US bombers had to approach via the arctic or Baltic f.e.. The interdiction work was left for the strikers. Just in the 90s all US-bombers were modified for the non-nuclear role too, see the related Blocks about that.
All aircraft are built to specifications set by the demands of a main mission within the doctrine.
Chris Chant ‘The World’s Great Bombers’ is a easy read about that topic.
Ok, Sens.
– P51D 2775 km with external tanks
(P51H 1865 km with external tanks)
– B17G 3219 km with 6000lbs of payload
Almost 500 km in range and about 250 km in radius, meaning B17s had to fly for some 2 hours alone and just over the target, where it was usually “hot”.
Moreover, Mustang groups spent more fuel/mile, due the low cruising speed the B17 had, because they flew below their optimal cruising speed for which this range was given. And finally, more than often they got engaged by German “in depth” pattern of JG displacement, so P51s had effective range of about half way to the B17’s target. I had a great WW2 photo of range charts of Wester Europe, for Brit Lancasters and US Fortresses and corresponding fighter escort and if I find it I’ll post it here.
But, that’s beside the point.
B2 has indeed 11,100km, but there’s no target in exSSSR at that range anyway, unless they went bombing Vladivostok from UK. So, the targets in exWP zone are within (or partially within) F22’s tactical range, from exUSAFE bases in Germany.
Surely you can see that :confused:…or you’re just pulling my leg, right? 🙂
Cola1973Actually I made points with the Stevenson F-22 brief.
At the same time I know what kind of author Stevenson is, that he is no educated engineer and that he likes to prove his points with “calculations” that could cost your job when working in a credible aeronautical company. So, I take some of his numbers with a grain of salt, and some I’ll dismiss.A specific range is easier to obtain than a value for an acceleration through transonic regime. Just trust me, I know what I am talking about.
So, do you have an acceleration chart you trust, then? Care to share it?
As for Stevenson, he’s a journalist, not an engineer. However, his study on F22 makes a lot of sense and so in absence of more accurate material, I’ll have to “trust” him.
However, if you have something more accurate, let’s have it! 🙂
Cola1973if you want to see a full sustain 9G turn take a look at this video…The turn begins exactly at 6’04…The turning rate is quite amazing…
Great video!
Rafale flies like a Red Bull acro-props. Although to be fair, we need to give EF time to perfect its FCS and manifest its aerodynamics in the best possible manner. I mean, Rafale has been around longer and is more mature program than EF.
Go, go, Europe. 🙂
Cola1973I have no idea, where you got the claim about the escort task of the F-22s for the B-2s from.
I didn’t claim anything. I said, I believe. There’s a difference.
The first flight of the B-2 was 1989. At that time the competition about the future ATF was still undecided. The first flight of the demonstrators was 1990 and the first flight of a later series example was planned for 1996 at best. The SU did end in 1991 already.
Yes, but the op. req. were issued a decade (or more) before that and the combat doctrine changed to accommodate accordingly. Do you really think, the AFs around the world first build the plane and then start figuring out, what to do with it?
The B-2 is ~ 0,8 Mach and with an unrefuelled range of 6000 nm+ and did operate in single ship missions.
Well first, although it was never made official, it seems the F22 didn’t exactly met its operational requirements from before the fall of Iron Curtain, in terms of range.
Second. WW2 Mustangs had shorter range than B17s as well, but still escorted bombers as far as they could and that’s way better than nothing.
If you don’t believe me, ask the bomber pilots.
Third, do you really believe the USAF would just let their B2s go on their own (at Mach 0.8) in an airspace, defended like Warsaw pact countries’ was?
Ok, maybe somewhere on the battlefield periphery, but not vertical and that’s B2’s purpose.
B2 is essentially stealthy B17. It has been designed for the same attack profile.
Now, B1 is something else, especially model A and I may add Valkyrie here, too, but that’s another story.
The production of the B-2 was terminated in 1997, when the first prototyp of the F-22A had its first flight.
Just some data for second thoughts about that. 😉
Not so.
General Op. Req. (the basic idea) was issued at the beginning of 80s and a final bid was issued to Lockheed/GD and McDD/Northrop in 1986. YF-22 first flew in 1990 and that would be one year after B2.
So, by all accounts F22 is conceptually an “anti-SSSR” plane and as such has been criticized by many, but that’s old news.
As I said at the beginning, I do not claim this to be true, but judging by the tactics used by AFs in that period, it seems highly probable, that one of the main goals put in front of F22 constructors was B2’s escort.
After all, RODEO missions are all well and fine, but I’m pretty positive that’s not what the F22 has been designed for.
Now, I know there are many “generals” around here and that’s why I don’t like to take discussions into this direction, but stick to the facts as much as possible.
So, I repeat again. This is my view and doesn’t have to be true. However, I find it possible and even probable. That’s all. 🙂
Sign In
