F-22 undefeated at Al Dhafra

Here are some opinions from a participant (F 22 pilot). It clears some BS siad about this exercise:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/12/f-22-undefeated-at-al-dhafra-2.html
________
Vaporizer

Really?? How come it did 1/10th of scheduled flights this year then??

Sorry kid, it does. Reported and confirmed by LM themselves. Read news…

In a prototype it take longer because they must determine the flaw. In an “older’ fighter such as f 16 it takes 1 hour. I think you knew it.

…and who says F35 will? USAF alone cut ~700 pcs so far.

Nope

What production contracts? How many planes LM received downpayment for? Still sailing in the clouds, eh?
LM hasn’t produced a single F35 below $200m so far and I won’t even get into UK’s price for 3 LRIP pieces.
What are you talking about? LM will drop prices 3 times? Get real

LRIP SuperHornet were 2.5 more expensive than production ones. And BTW 200 mil is weapon system cost. Flywawy cost is 1/2 maybe, which is comparable with EF fllyaway cost. If the LRIP cost of F 35=cost of EF in full production, then it’s not LM that have to be nervous…
________
Porn

The F-18 can hit Mach 1,8 in full burner temporary high up in clean condition, but with some AAM it will seldom pass Mach 1,5 !:cool:

The F 35 will be in the same situation with F 18 (i.e. “clean”) even if it carry 6 AAMs inside. And all fighters have to be in “full burner” and “high up” in order to reach 1.8 M, including EF, Rafale, F 15, F16, Su xx, and yes, even the F 22 has to use it (although this one has to use only MIN. AUG. not MAX AUG. as the others).
________
Free Kmart Gift Cards

Dynamo

Without knowing the exact altitude that the profile is flown, using the data on the Norwegian pdf its impossible to calculate the exact mach number that is described by the term “supercruise”.
There are too many variables, and a variation of Mach 0.1/0.2 is well inside of a probable “error margin” (at least when i do those same calculations, but i was a disaster in maths at University, so… :o).

(I do imagine that you are aware that the mach number varies with altitude, air density, etc).

Cheers

I pick up from tables the sound of speed at 36,000 ft, because it is mentioned in various EF documents.
________
Depakote problems

What do you mean by “real” figures?

You have compared peak speed of the F-22 with average speed over a mission, including time spent accelerating, for Typhoon. This has been pointed out to you, & yet you not only persist in your error, but add to it.

Please compare like with like.

Eurofighter Switzerland website (repeated on the Austrian site, & probably others) –

http://www.eurofighter.ch/1024/de/eurofighter/roles/bvr/bvr.html
No mention of weapons there, but elsewhere, dry thrust speeds of M1.2-M1.3 with AAMs & external fuel are given.

Nobody claims that Typhoon has the same performance in dry thrust as the F-22, but there’s no need to exaggerate the difference by understating the performance of Typhoon.

First, I didn’t mention the F 22 peak speed anywhere in my posts. AFAIK it’s classified. The SC speed is OTOH official and it’s ~ 1.7M.

I did include the time EF climb and accelerate, but the figure is still lower than the 1.2M-1.3M claimed.

This means that an EF may very well go 1.3m with full A-A load (as I already said), but to go for a meaningfull distance, the SC speed is lower. The same goes for max. speed with AB: with A-A load an EF can go to 1,8M, but for how long? Not too much, you can bet. That’s why the first scenario in the Norway presentation is flown in AB at ~ 1.3M.

The same goes for F 22 too. According to AFA journal the combat radius is 400 Nmiles including 100 Nmiles in SC, but it goes up to 590 Nmiles when flying in subsonic.
________
Marijuana seed

I think that firsrt you have to revise your figures to lower ones, then have a look at the history of Northrop to understand what is the design behind the performances for the 24* wing of the S/H.

Q: At which Mach does the last block of F/A-18 fly in Mil power?

“Passed M 1.0” is NOT being supersonic, you need to figure its Critical Mach and when it reaches its supersonic zone.

To be specific and accurate i should dig tons of infos (benn focusing on other airrafts than the SuperBug and it takes a lot OF RESEARCH WORK and ANALYSIS) but there are good reasons for F-35 lower performances i have quoted a few:

Design points: Inlets and engine optimisation (celling/Mach/Maximum output altitude for the STVOL), pressure recovery limits, wing profile, wing area, optimisation of its aerodynamic for lower Mach in view of its primary role.

F/A-18 is derivated from the LWF programe, otherwise said, it is a navalised and later optimised for A2G role) air superiority fighter which design is derivated from the YF-17, not originaly designed for the A2G role and lower ceillings.

Interess yourself to these points, history of the programe, role, design points, optimisation and resulting performances, with enough informations, datas and the rest you will be able to figure what makes sense and what does not, (with a lot of understanding of the aerodynamic principles behind the designs that is)…

It’s no naivity, it could be though, either plain deshonnesty or delusion.

OK, but that’s a fact, the Hornet can fly 1.8M. Hell, even the SuperHorror can, with its horrific design. So, you really convinced that with a superior T/W ratio, clean airframe, with a more appropriate wingweep, with the wing pushed far towards tail, the F 35 can’t do more than 1.6M?

BTW, inlet design, in F 35 case, wouldn’t be a limmiting factor…
________
Uggs

Oh have they stated any supercruise speed in the norwegian presentation? No they haven’t but I know you refer to the time required to reach the point and do the math. But is it said that this doesn’t include take off, time to climb and accelerate? The aircraft doesn’t start mid air at supersonic speeds but has to get there.

It’s true the speed was not mentioned and I did the math. OTOH, isn’t EF supposed to reach its >30,000 ft. in ~ 2 min? Even if we re-do the math, it’s around 1.1 M. Impressive, but by no means close to F 22.

Also, in AB, according to the same paper, the EF (with only AAMs) will travel to ~ 1.3M. Still far from the 1.8M trumpeted. The point is that the EF would fly 1.8M and supercruise to 1.2M , but not for too long. The real figures are lower.
________
IKEA GIFT CARDS