dark light

franc

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 436 through 450 (of 509 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Compare with two DSI #2532597
    franc
    Participant

    The F-16 testbed for the JSF intake reached Mach 2 with the DSI intake, same speed as normal. Should be enough for any fighter.
    And 100kg weight saving is nice.

    Can reach M2 not means have good performence in high speed scope.

    in reply to: Compare with two DSI #2532866
    franc
    Participant

    One, the main “benefit” of the DSI system is that it saves weight by doing away with the diverter plates. Any of the other benefits of a well designed DSI bump is secondary. …….

    The DSI won’t reduce weight much more than stable airintakes I am afraid, 100 kg at the most. Someone said that DSI is a sort of 3D waverider air-inlets, but I cannot quite comprehand it. :confused: He originally say “the DSI is much advanced than CARET on F-22 because it make waveride concept expanding to 3 dimention”. I think this is totally cheeting.

    in reply to: No plans for EJ200 Gripen #2533859
    franc
    Participant

    We should remember that if a country really want to order new fighters, the maneuverability will be the first consideration out of them, so more powerful engine always being better.

    in reply to: Zhuhai 2006 #2533860
    franc
    Participant

    there is no interesting new thing will show in this time zhuhai airshow.

    in reply to: Looking for a line drawing #2533873
    franc
    Participant

    I desire a cutaway of Rafale with English annotation.

    in reply to: Soviet old rare aircraft #1329269
    franc
    Participant

    Hi, Does anyone can show me what Pe-8 looks like, why there is only some blurried image revealed on internet? Are there any more clear? May be you have some books, so you can do it.

    in reply to: No plans for EJ200 Gripen #2535351
    franc
    Participant

    Now, if this time Norwegian chose Gripen as their next generation fighter, then ask EJ-200 to equip JAS-39, I think there is no problem

    in reply to: Review of Reported J-10 Specifications #2542061
    franc
    Participant

    Max Combat Radius
    – Hi-Lo-Hi ————— 1370 nm
    – Lo-Lo-Lo —————- 710 nm

    This combat radius unit is obviously wrong, that should be Km not Nm.

    in reply to: Chinese CJ-7 jettrainer … #2542370
    franc
    Participant

    If you have article with this picture, I can do something for you by my friend who accompany with me thesedays

    franc
    Participant

    So, that’s it, I was thinking why the powerplant on EH-101 is so weak, but now this problem has been solved.

    in reply to: F-22 supercruising at Mach 2? #2559867
    franc
    Participant

    According to published sources (RAND,AFA) the radius (combat ) is as such –

    Supercruising for 100 nm = 450 aprox

    supercruising for 50 nm = 500nm aprox

    all subsonic = aprox 600nm

    Thank u, I have seen quite clearly, and I think that I’ve got your interpretation.
    thanks again…..

    in reply to: F-22 supercruising at Mach 2? #2559891
    franc
    Participant

    Buff provided they have enough fuel onboard the raptor at 40k can do mach 1.5 all day , the only limiting factor is the range and it is for this reason that they mention the fact that it can do a 100nm over a 400-450nm Combat radius or a 50nm supercruise for a total radius of 500-550nm etc etc these are all permutations to give a minimum range requirment as ATF specified a particular range requirement with a particular range at supercruise obviously to maximize total range and radius they would have to slow down a tad bit and go subsonic, however most missions (training simulations) envolve supercruising 50-70nm to the first waypoint , tanking up , supercruising throughout the corridor of threat and RTB , or tanking before RTB . Another scenario that we might see in War-time is F-22’s going up with 2 external jugs , dropping them before entering combat , going supercruise througout the 200-250nm or so mission corridor (hypothetical) and RTB’in

    Sorry, you are teaching a foolishman.
    Let me think about these follow:
    We hypothesis the fuel consume of F119 is amost equal to AĞ”-31 at max dry thrust without afterburner, then
    1) We have known that internal fuel F-22 carried abit more than Cy-27.
    2) According to the aerodynamic design, F-22 has less air drag than Cy-27
    therewith, the result can be got is the period of TIME that F-22 can keeping flying must be longer than Cy-27.
    Now the keypoint is, whether there two degree of fuel consume of F-119 at dry thrust, one is the lowest fuel consume, the other is higher?
    If there is two degree, then we could say that thrust F-22 using at supercruise maybe not the thrust with the lowest fuel consume so that supercruise combat radius(or range) also is not the maximum radius(range).
    But, if the thrust that F-22 using to do supercruise is the lowest degree of fuel consume, then consequentially, because of the supercruise speed is the the highest speed which F-22 using dry thrust without reheater(afterburner) can approach, we can say, only can say that combat radius is the maximum radius as F-22 doing supercruise.
    My calculated results for that link is that reducing 10-15% fuel remain, we say F-22 doing supercruise without afterburner(reheater) for 2 hours and being at lowest fuel consume of turbofan synchronously, we can get a maximum range approximately to 3800 kilometers which is about 1200- 1300 kilometers of combat radius. This is also normal, not too long, not so small.
    However, if these above is totally wrong, I think the combat radius which F-22 can get will be quite short.
    Cry for criticism.

    in reply to: F-22 supercruising at Mach 2? #2560384
    franc
    Participant

    Hi, you guys are all genuine Englishman, who can teach me what does exactly this mean?

    He was pushed by Raptor 01’s two powerful Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 engines to speeds greater than Mach 1.5 during a two hour flight over Edwards

    Does this mean, do supercruise speed in whole 2 hours flight or just sometime do supercruise in 2 hours flight? I mean, does every minutes keep(remain) supercruise or not?
    Thanks for you teaching me. :confused:

    in reply to: F-22 supercruising at Mach 2? #2567175
    franc
    Participant

    Over on F-16.net there is discussion that the F-22A may be able to supercruise as high as Mach 2 and that it’s been mentioned (one of the references was a F-22 pilot who said they’ve dropped JDAMS or SDBs at Mach 1.9 and 60,000ft). Anybody know anything more about this? And for the inevitable knee-jerk reactionarys, before you start screaming “no way!” consider that the F-22 has quite a bit more dry power than either the F-14A or F-15C in full afterburner in which case why wouldn’t it be able to do Mach 2 dry?

    Well, I checked top post again, I don’t want talking semantics. But thing you mentioned still is interesting.
    ” the F-22A MAY BE able to supercruising as high as Mach2″ ????
    What means May Be? Why you or him use As High As? Why he didn’t say Supercruising AT Mach2 ?

    Otherwise.

    No matter you droped bomb how weight it is at any speed, which Do NOT mean or can Not be said “supercruising”.

    Regards.

    in reply to: F-22 supercruising at Mach 2? #2567194
    franc
    Participant

    A couple things to remember though. The production F119 is much more powerful than the prototype engines as those were sized for a 50klb aircraft. Also I’m guessing the F-22A has less drag than the YF-22 for several reasons.

    Rest of you said I have no attitude, but this. For what’s kind of reason given you lead to say F-22 has less drag than YF-22? What are they?
    The angle of F-22A’s swept is less than YF-22, only area of fin tail less than YF-22, so we can say logically, that F-22A has less weight than YF-22 but for drag is uncertain.

    Othe other hand.

    You fly at supersonic without afterburner ≠supercruise! That’s totally different concept!

Viewing 15 posts - 436 through 450 (of 509 total)