LordAssapCAPTOR-E is still only proposed for tranche 3.
So what? You imply it will NEVER be level (over a 30 years life-span?) with F-35 when in FACT at some levels it already is equal.
Thales IRST for ex.
Rafale wouldn’t have been good enough anyway for the UK and Germany.
Say WHO? You? What it would have done is p!ss off British and German designers which it does even if they have Typhoon in their respective A-F in view of the amount of B-S BAe and EADS are publishing on it…
LordAssapaurcov;1350360]I see that you persist.
Again: you can’t take the total time an engine can run on mil thrust as the time that engine will supercruise!
What YOU persist into IGNORING yourself is the root-definitions of the very words you employ…
CRUISE: = (?) Please?
SUPERSONIC: = (?) Please?
By this twisted logic, a Su 30 with 11 ton of fuel will supercruise for an hour, while an F 15 E with 15.5 tons will do it for 1.5 hours. Everybody knows that ‘s not true.
If the aircraft have the capability of flying out of its transonic region in military power only i don’t see where your problem is…
The NG had yet to go >1M, but some people are convinced that it will supercruise 2xRaptor!
Some people might understand what aerodynamics does for these aircrafts no?
Even if it will supercruise, I wonder for how long with 3.175 tons of fuel! Or they plan to supercruise with those new, fat 1700 liter EFTs…
This is not the case for known values such as Gripen C/NG/Typhoon and Rafale.
LordAssap=RPG type 7v;1350128]What’s makes these aircraft greater than 4+ Gen (Gripen, EF, Raf, SH, etc)?
Commercials from the US?:D
Did they have ANY VLO aspects?
Yes Rafale in particular have much developed all-aspect EM and well developed IR L.O. Not the F-22/35 class though although the IR aspect is WAY more developed than that of F-35….
much more then others lets mention internal weapons bay ,twin canted vertical stabilisators instead of 1,curved intakes….
Exactly, but this applies to some degree also to the European fighters, lik S-shaped inlets for ex.
Any integrated avionics?
ok much bigger platform and more room for radar and other things, that would be integrated in some time if program continued…
Advanced Radars?
…………..no comment.
YES comment…
All Aspect FLIR and IRST (ala 360 EOTS & DAS on F-35)?
…………..no comment.
YES comment; EOTS is ONLY a repackaged SNIPER with ONE single channel and is more VMC limited than equival;ent european IRSTs; to this respect it is not more advanced than OSF.
Supercruise?
,longer and faster then all you other fighters.
NOT F-35 NO.
America tested a forward swept wing fighter and found that the benefits did not outweigh the problems.
What problems? X29 was probalby one of the most trouble-free NASA programmes.
Summary
Overall, VFC, like the forward-swept wings, showed promise for the future of aircraft design. The X-29 did not demonstrate the overall reduction in aerodynamic drag that earlier studies had suggested, but this discovery should not be interpreted to mean that a more optimized design with forward-swept wings could not yield a reduction in drag. Overall, the X-29 program demonstrated several new technologies as well as new uses of proven technologies. These included: aeroelastic tailoring to control structural divergence; use of a relatively large, close-coupled canard for longitudinal control; control of an aircraft with extreme instability while still providing good handling qualities; use of three-surface longitudinal control; use of a double-hinged trailing-edge flaperon at supersonic speeds; control effectiveness at high angle of attack; vortex control; and military utility of the overall design.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-008-DFRC.html
How was the 1.44 any better than either of the eurocards?
I don’t think it was.
LordAssapAnd EF will still be behind in sensors.
That’s a HELL of an assumption methink….:cool:
LordAssap=Sens;1350346]Now you do start guessing about the data available. That has nothing to do with the engine in AB, but a lot with the related inlet and outlet system.
No mate it have to do with bypass ratio.:D
Available thrust in AB or not will always depends on this at different altitudes…
The F3 for low level and endurance, but still has a speed envelope of Mach 1,2 to 2,2 (800kt) and a service ceiling of 21300 m or
I dont believe the 70.000 feet figure is being “Service” at all, it is the sheer MAXIMUM…
http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/turbth.html
Turbofans such as the RB are designed to be more efficient at lower altitudes but their performances suffers at higher ones.
LordAssapGepard;1350335]Eurofighter and Rafale demonstrate above all else a European unwillingness to be innovative at the requirements stage (no steakth, supercruise etc,
You have no ideas what you’re about i’m sorry to say, the US are designwise MUCH more conservative than europe, bar the stealth features (including supercruise).
The most inovative fighter design they produced was turned down i.e F-23 and close scrutiny reveals that the main SIGNIFICANT difference between F-35 and the european aircrafts is electric Actuators (ully FBW controls).
For ther reat it’s either repackaged existing technologies (even with some extra like DAS or with LESS but a hell of a sci-fi look EOTS) several generations of AESA radars when europe went through developement of 2 or 3 only…
(aforementioned stealth, advanced turbofan, turbojet technology, AESA)
Please inform yourself…
The rest is not so hot, once you wash out the “commercials” effect…
I’m not going to bash up Typhoon design again, so let’s stick to other FACTS.
Typhoon suffers from europe’s “US Buber Alles” syndrome. 🙁 Results; development of upgraded versions suffers.
I remember there were plans to make RAFALE D which was a redesign to involve far more stealth but it was abandoned as unneccesary,
Rafale D for “Discreet” WAS the original Rafale, the C01 first to roll out, its features were not abandoned at all to the exeption of (perhaps) more performance-restricting inlets, the rest was simple developed to be viable for production at lower cost (RAM paint extc.)
I never recall Eurofighter being in a position to undertake a full redesign.
Rafale D wasn’t structuraly or aerodynamicaly different from the other production aircraft, it was a pre-production aircraft.
The Europeans have always chosen to match advances but don’t fund breakthrough research hence their designs trailing the pack compared to the U.S for instance.
The breakthrough you’re thinking of simply didn’t exist in europe at the time and these features couldn’t be part of their design, furtermore there wasnt any real requierement for full stealth, while there is for the next generation.
And at an aerodynamic level i regard all european delta-canards as more advanced and comparatively performant designs, stick a resized TVCed F-119 in them and they’ll turn circles around the Raptor…
http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/F_22.html
LordAssap=Sens;1350198]Wrong claim.
Wrong topic, we’re talking supercrusie over here.
In AB there is no difference in behavior of both.
Yes there IS, the Jet effect of a M53 is never something you will see happening with a RB199 at the speed you are thinking of.
The TF has even a higher AB ratio, when the penalty of that is the higher sfc in AB.
At heigt and supersonic the Tj or low bypath Tf is the preferred choise. 😉
It’s Tornados F3 turning to a slouch at altitudes above 40.000 ft when the 2000 is making a mokery of F-16 performances, keeps accelerating and out-turns it…
LordAssapRegardless, it will be interesting when the hard fact become available……….of course that’s some time off?:(
One hard fact, L-M says F-35 doesnt NOT supercruise…:D
The Lightening II could fly 56 minutes given the same unbelievable situation…
What’s so unbelievable with aerodynamics, physics and L-M statments.
LordAssapWhat are the throttle settings on each aircraft to cruise at the same speed though? That’s the more important take away. The F-22 has enough excess thrust that it doesn’t need to fly on max dry thrust to maintain supercruise.
Term CRUISING; best range-to-power output ratio AND typicaly below 90% throttle settings.
In some aircraft the cruise settings are achieved through FCS…
LordAssapWrong as usual!? Scooter!
the 1.05 is the Gripen C, not with 25-40% more thust F414G!?
AND probably at the drag pick of the transonic region, thus NOT supercruising either…
LordAssapWait who said engine thrust decreases with mach or the Rafale supercruises for 2 hours?
So much about inventing stuff and learning the basics 😀
Boy please stick to playing Orange and Lemon with someone your size.
YES engine thrust generaly decreases with speed unless you use a turbojet that is, YOU wouldn’t know.:D
As for Rafale, mystaking figures happens to the best of US it’s no reason to mix your standards with that of oters, it’s likely to be <> 80mn with a 1.250 l.
Schorsch
So I guess operational speed would – if no software restriction applies – not get much above M1.7ish, if at all.
The more interesting thing would be how long it takes to get to this top speed.
Some aircraft may fly M2.0, even with some weapons, but virtually burn all fuel to accelerate to that point.
Agreed, although i still cant see M 1.6 as anythnig else than designed Mach limit I’d like to see their respective thickness ratios plus the F35 wing profile is a supercritical with a supersonic drag penalty over that of the S-H.
LordAssapaurcov;1350066] For exemple, F 16 blk. 50, F 15 E,I, with P&W 229, F15K with GE 129 (without CFTs) and even the F 18C (with the 402 engine) could all do ~1.2M but only clean. This is why I asked for details (configuration, time).
CRUISE: Best Range to Power output ratio.
Supersonic. Succeding the TRANSONIC Zone.
You will figure that MANY of the examples you quoted aren’t technicaly supercruising, simply because as opposed to what you think, passed M 1.0 for and airframe doesn’t MEAN supersonic.
OUT of the transonic zone is when ALL parts of the airframe ARE supersonic; in the case of the F-16 ABOVE its cruising speed of M 1.1 in DRY power by 0.05 M+.
As for the J 10, there is no mention of supercruise in the attached material. I presume that such a capability, if present, would have been mentioned.
NOT necessarly. I mentioned it because it have the right aerodynamic features to achieve this.
LordAssapDon’t confuse class with KPP THRESHOLD!
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D!!!!
LordAssapI’ve read tho that F-22 are not allowed to fly faster then that due to excessive stress on its tail.
I believe it is very much much the same problem than for ours, engine/inlets pressure recovery limits not realy a structural limit since it was designed for M 2.0 and the 12.7+ is the red-lined zone too…
LordAssappesho;1349934]Not a good comparison.
Why is that?
They were the main opponents for both side as M 2.0 fighters during the Vietnam war, and for your info, i knew some about the Mig 21 people still doesn’t today.
My instructor flew it during the Normandy Niemen visit to their French counter part in Reims in 1973, i was his pupil two years later.
He was impressed with the 21, the only thing he didn’t like was the gunsight G-limitation to <> 3.5 and the balistic of the 23mm amunition compared to that of the Mirage III and its DEFA 30 mm.
Different roles and requirements, and furthermore MiG-21 was a good plane at what it was designed for.
F-4 was designed as an Air superiority fighter, so was the Mig; it only had more relaxed specs as to range and weight (WVR point Defense).
You cant realy compare the F-8 Crusader to the 21 much better either…
Sign In
