The F-22 has a total range of approximately 2,000 statued miles, this is without external wing tanks and that is the ferry range also. Now, for combat range the radius is 750 miles and this includes the total of approximately 300 miles in supercruise

THX A LOT ADRIAN

:confused: :confused: :confused: , you both, keep dreaming…

i know, that here will start all those f22 fans/idiots….. :rolleyes:

Why is this? The 3D flow, or the vortex flow, can be generated by both wings, but due to the lack of surface area near the rear region, the vortex breaks down at a rather low AoA(for the lightening), thus the Cl-alpha curve doesn’t reflect the added lift from the 3D lift. This is the reason why i said it’s predominantly dependent on the aspect ratio.

etc,etc,etc….

vortex…….what the hell are you saying???, the conventional lighting wing has better aspect ratio than the delta!!!

Im talking about low speed aerodynamics, the high leading angles deltas vortexs-lift are at higher speeds, but that isnt also so simple, because when you use deltas-vortexs these last focalised in the rear wing area inducing nose down movement (something that can be fixed with unstable design)

LERX vortexs dont have energy at 100-250knots, is obvious that will generate some lift, but not important thing, at such speeds there are other characteristics that are more important (V wing offer the best configuration, because angle and aspect), thats the reason why a hawk can be a serious opponent against modern fighters at very low speeds

aero maneuvres are confused easely as i said before

Vortex, you are confused in some things, subsonic lift depends on aspect, yes, but wing sweep angle also afects AoA, there two AoA, the max lift angle, and the max possible (that is more relationated with the sweep), the flanker V wing is the best for subsonic maneuovres and is obvious the function of their huge vertical fins, LEX dont have much influence in very low speeds, because ther arent much vortex energy, and computers arent so “clever” (but im not sating that compus arent important), all that also depends with AoA lower limits and upper limits.

modern “triplanes” arent soo “triplanes”, flankers “tris” uses their canards more for soft control (that also depends in high AoA) more that other lift surfaces

its obvius that the cobra isnt combat manoeuvre, but it reveals the su27 subsonic performance

man thats commun knowledge , if i remember well, the rafale has a 115-110 knots, the EF and f16 arround 120,if you want search by your self, only WWII planes have that 50 knots controll speed, the f15 “cobra” is pretty famous, look im not here to that “i know more than you” fight, im only say what i know, and if you want you can confirm my opinions, but again i respect your comments, lets end this, now if you want the last word, for me isnt a problem, but please just make a little reasearch

ahhh, SOC, man you are right, absoluty right, happy now???, lets end this…..

SOC, believe me man, at 50knots you dont have enough lift and speed to that maneuovre, modern tech is ready to M3 planes but the sr71 is other case, and you know that (cost, philosophy, etc), this is endless…so well, you can think what you want

MAN, thats a classic low speed (veeeeyy low -50knots-) stand, you can stand with the f16 at 90º (if the pilot is good)

SOC, man, what i say is some cobra traumatizated guys and authors that see things where arent there, like the famous f15 cobra, that was in fact was a bell, now that combined with the classic romantic cryes “this was better”, well….

i dont doubt the f18-16 tech with TVCs, but aerodynamicaly my doubts are very strong, anyway i respect your position, you dont need to start with that ” the first Cobra maneuver? That’s the problem isn’t it?”, comon….

over G out