I don`t care what Showers stated about F-22 climb profile in other circumstances, what I care about and what I was referring to was his claim about climb profile he described as 90° NH from the deck to 20000ft strait up. He claims that he would break every time to climb record that way with fully loaded F-22, I even bolded that part.

Again, so? Perhaps he is telling a pilot tale, perhaps he is telling the truth. Who cares? Operationally, the F-22 outclimbs the F-15 which is one of the fastest climbers in it’s own right.

I`m sure it has no sense in your own universe, but the rest of us are living outside of it.
7.5G is not the G limit for the air show, it is target G load for certain maneuvers at certain weight. It means that there exist no such limit and if necessary plane can go above 7.5G`s.

6.3. Airspeed and G Limits. Demonstration pilots will not exceed 0.94 Mach. The maximum target G for this demonstration is 7.5 Gs. This does not preclude a momentary increase in G for safety considerations.– from the demonstration regulations, so exactly how full of crap would you say you are?

Or more Minimum radius turns “Target Parameters Entry 500’ 440 KCAS Power setting MAX G 7.5”.

Another thing did it ever occur to you that in the airshow climb from the manual, it enters the 75° climb at 250 KCAS because that is part of the airshow restrictions? Most likely to keep most of the performance within view of the audience? Or are you just assuming that entering a steep climb at 250 KCAS would demonstrate max climb performance? Just. Plain. Dumb. Stop trying to use the airshow regulations and demonstrations to prove your point, it is embarrassing.

Another thing regarding stress, airframe does not “care” about MTOW, it cares about G forces. G forces are what causes the stress to airframe, not the MOTW. The more weight you put on, the less G`s you are able to pull.

This is the stupidest thing you said, flight control systems and services do care about weight in maneuvers and the stress they put on the airframe. That is why most modern FCS have CAT limiters for weights and loads carried, and why there is a MTOW limit for the airshows.

obviously have no clue what are you talking about.
First of all, puling “only” 7.5G or 9G is not a limiting factor for fastest climb rate at given weight and maneuvers such as J-turn and high AoA maneuvers you are talking about are far below the 7.5G “threshold”. They exhibit very low G forces because of low speed they are executed at.

You obviously missed the point in your silly tirade. I said nothing about G threshold in the fastest climb rate. All I mentioned was that services are more concerned with the possibility to “over-G” aircraft in pitch maneuvers. Most FCS are effective at limiting over g in turns, even momentarily exceeding G limits in a turn are unlikely to overstress an airframe. The same is not true in pitch up maneuvers, as the rapid onset of G coupled with the stress on airframe is a major concern.

And all this stuff you are talking about has nothing to do with my point, and that point was to show the weight for F-22 during takeoff so we could compare it with what pilot Showers stated. His plane had about 2400lb more at the takeoff. In other words his plane would have lower level of acceleration than the plane in the video I posted.
I hope you are satisfied with the explanation and the reason why I used the maneuver description document for analysis?

No it is still stupid. You are comparing a takeoff video with a max climb rate. All’s it shows is that you’ve no idea what you are talking about. YouTube away! maybe you can tell weights, afterburner stage, and airshow restriction with the naked eyeball, or maybe the evidence you are using is flawed, hmmmm. I think I know the answer.

This has nothing to do with our comparison, but any way, by the time fully loaded F-22 reaches the altitudes where his engines would produce more dry thrust than a F100 in reheat, a record breaking F-15 would be on the half way to the Moon. The level of exes power that F-15 has at the takeoff is brutally higher than the level of exes power F-22 has. You can see from the maneuver description manual that at 75/90° NH climb Raptor is actually losing speed. It drops to 100KCAS at 1000m. F-15 is actually gaining speed and breaking the sound barrier in the 90° NH climb after only 23 seconds! In that time fully loaded F-22 would gain about 300KCAS on the deck and only then would start to pull in to a climb (like we saw in the video).

The above is the final nail in your coffin. You are claiming to know the SEP of the F-15 and F-22 at various speeds and altitudes based on sea level uninstalled thrust…. I will let the stupidity over your comment sink in. No you don’t, you cannot compare the F100 thrust at different FL to the F119 CAUSE YOU DONT KNOW. Therefore you don’t know the Thrust to drag in order to calculate SEP. Period

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=29032&sid=901ad9cd766f1d7cef8f0a39b396b295&start=15

This is what I posted on F-16.net forum (I go with the nick fastestbird) and will quote just the most important parts.

Here are some pilots statements:

Based on this statement many believed that F-22 has high supersonic climb rates and F-16.net forum members even came up with the 510m/s number at see level. But this is another story.

Here is the statement from another pilot that debunked previous conclusions:

Lets try to decipher what Lt.Col. Mike Showers is saying.

He says that fully loaded F-22 (fuel and weapons) would brake every time to climb record!

Lets take a look at this video:

Not sure why you are bringing a discussion from F-16.net back here. What Showers stated, actually several times (even on the forum) was that the F-22 climb profile was different. The fastest climb for the F-22 was to go supersonic on the deck then start the climb. The F-15 (even the streak eagle) climbed subsonic until climb rate slowed, nosed over into a dive (Rutowski profile), accelerated to supersonic speeds, then continued the climb.

From maneuver description manual :http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a3_5/publication/afi11-246v1/afi11-246v1.pdf we know that most of the time F-22 is taking off with full fuel load of 18000 pounds. Inert weapons may be loaded, however if the total weight exceeds 1,000 pounds the total fuel at takeoff must be less than 17000 pounds. On the take off F-22 is using max power (full AB). Target speed for the pull is 250 KCAS.

This part makes no sense, the airshow MTOW limit is most likely to prevent undue stress on the airframe (not unlike the 7.5g maneuver limit also mentioned in the airshow restrictions). It has little to do with how the F-22 would perform a high speed climb. Most likely with the J-turn and High AoA maneuvers included in the demonstration, they are worried about stress in the pitch up maneuvers.

Now, lets assume that in the video I presented F-22 is doing aggressive pull at 300 KCAS. That means that after about 20 seconds F-22 is reaching that speed.

I took the data for the 6000, 9000 and 12000 meters climb. In about 15,5 seconds the F-15 is reaching the speed of about 434 KCAS and continues to accelerate and brakes the speed of the sound in the climb at about 23 seconds.

This begs the question?

How on earth can fully loaded F-22 (100% fuel and full weapons load, almost 2400 pounds more than the F-22 in the video) brake this time to climb record when F-15 is reaching speed of sound in the 90° NH climb after only 23 seconds and F-22 with such a load would struggle to pass 300 KCAS still on the deck? And if we look at the data from maneuver description, at about 1000 meters F-22 speed would drop to 100 KCAS in 75/90° NH climb

.

You are trying to compare airshow performance with a time to climb record. What is obvious from the USAF airshow demonstration manual are the restrictions the aircraft operates under. The USAF is not going to over-g, or overstress a several hundred million dollar fighter to wow crowds. If anything another nail in the “airshows demonstrate aircraft capability” argument.

For sure it doesn`t have any sense to me and there isn`t even the slightest possibility for fully loaded F-22 to brake the record, but if we start to count the time from the beginning of the pull at 570 knots at Edwards, the pull Lt.Col. Mike Showers is talking about than we might have another picture.
When you take in to account that even faster Su-27 (P-42) has 2:1 empty weight T/W ratio, there is no possibility for F-22 to have the faster climb rate from the deck at 90° NH climb even in the lightest fuel load.
Striped F-22 (no radar/electronic/gun/RAM etc.) with “tuned” engines would be something else!

What has been stated time and again is that the F-22 can exceed the F-15’s climb performance in an operational configuration. Does it really matter if a stripped F-15, specially prepped Su-27, or F-22 holds the time to climb record? T/W ratios a sea level do not tell the whole story. What has been stated is that the F119 produces more dry thrust at high altitudes than a F100 in reheat.

also don`t pretend to know Raptors climb rate for the whole flight envelope. Pilots are claiming that it has better climb rate than F-15, but F-22 is not the only plane that has better climb rate than F-15. He is probably better than most other fighters and maybe little worse than few in some part of flight envelope. Raptor is just a big, heavy STELATH plane with powerful engines. Guys, don`t make the UFO out of it, or worse, some kind of deity. It is extremely good plane for what is made to do, nothing more, nothing less.

The F-15 is competitive with most anything out there in climb rate. I’m sure the Su-35, Typhoon, F-22, can better it to some degree depending on configurations. The F-22 is most likely not better than every fighter out there at all parts of the envelope, no. It’s subsonic acceleration is reportedly on par with the Typhoon, and it’s sustained turn rate at high subsonic (based on the mach .9/30,000 ft- 3.7g kpp) is not really better than the F-15. From what the designers have said, from what pilots have said, it’s high speed/ high altitude performance is a major advance over existing fighters.

It might just be that the F35 is not the aircraft for Canada. That is a possibility. If the RAF considered the F35 for the job the Typhoon is currently doing I would be up in arms. So it is possible that the many strengths of the F35 just happen to be the ones least needed by the Canadians a lot of the time

The UK MoD does not seem to be worried about the F-35B’s ability to project power and provide air cover for a task force.

There seems to be several questions driving Canada’s vacillation over the CF-18 replacement:
1. What role will Canada play in NATO (if any), 2. what service branch can best defend Canada’s arctic interests, and therefore receive limited defense funds? (Navy- Air Force), 3. What roles should be emphasized in shaping the requirements for the CF-18 replacement?
I may be of the minority opinion, but I doubt that there will be any choice made by the Liberal party under Trudeau. There will be delays and paper shuffling. His campaign pledges would make it hard to backtrack and choose the F-35 (after costing taxpayers millions in a wasted open competition). Canadian industry has contracts with the F-35 program, and the government has noted that they continue to be a partner nation throughout the SDD phase. Most likely, 3-5 years down the road after the next national election, Canada will order the F-35.

I am assuming that they are looking for something to intercept at range and bomb as part of a coalition?

Were those the two key requirements, then the F-35 would be perfectly suitable. It is interesting that Norway, faced with similar strategic needs, seems to have ardent supporters within it’s defense establishment.

Canada is a sparsely populated country of monstrous dimensions. The only comparable country is Russia –

Yes, but with 90% of Canada’s population massed on the US northern border preparing to invade…..(joke) God help us if Trump becomes the next US president

Forward directional stability in both subsonic and supersonic speed regime depends largely on the size, shape of Verticals Stabilizers.
..

Don’t tell NG that verticals are needed for subsonic directional stability. {sarcasm off}

BTW, @ Jō Asakura the size and placement of the vertical tails was mostly dictated by two things:

The placement had to cover the verticals intersection from radar. The horizontals block them out from below. They are large so that the tips canted outward can still provide control at high AoA, otherwise the body would shield the verticals leading to a loss of effectiveness/ directional stability.

The design team had this to say about the placement and size of the vertical tails:

Wind tunnel results showed an ultra-sensitive relationship between the placement of the vertical tails and the design of the forward fuselage. The interactions could not be predicted accurately by analysis or by computational fluid dynamics. The airflow over the forebody at certain angles of attack affects the control power exerted by the twin rudders on the vertical tails.

When transitioning from the YF to F-22 the tails were modified again, The YF-22 vertical tails were huge to address directional stability issues that never materialized (mainly associated with higher AoA instability recognized in the F-117), the F-22 verticals were reduced. Buffeting from vortices interacting with the vertical tails is present, but that seems to be the case with every twin tail fighter there is high AoA studies available (F-15, F-22, F-18, F-35)
NASA study on fin buffeting on F-22:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20000052124.pdf

The issue was mentioned in (2002) GAO report:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/240/233932.pdf

The Air Force is also investigating a problem with the aircraft’s vertical tails that could impact performance. The problem involves a “buffet,” or excess movement back and forth, of the aircraft’s two vertical tails when the aircraft is operating at certain speeds and angles

More specific:

Tests are being conducted on aircraft 4001, or Raptor 01, which has been fitted with tufts to help visualise the airflow patterns emanating from the engine inlets, chines and wing root before impinging on the twin-fin tail. Flight tests will involve wind-up turns and other manoeuvres at transonic speeds and angles of attack between 20° and 30°, with an emphasis on 26° where most of the severest buffeting is reported

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/buffeting-problem-may-mean-airframe-changes-for-f-22-120829/

Certainly it is possible that the T-50’s smaller verticals come as a result of better modeling of fluid dynamics available, and are intended to keep the tails clear of vortices, then again the big vertical tails of the F-22 are large for a reason.

Breaking News “Fighter Selection 2020 News conference”

Air force chief of staff

“Thank you for coming, we have selected _____________ as a replacement fighter over the F-35. In this process, we decided to forego the usual criteria and base our choice on YouTube/Wikipedia research”
“Instead on basing the decision on flight testing, advanced modeling using real word threat analysis, and operational suitability, we looked up the wing loading and thrust to weight numbers from wikipedia while deciding to ignore that these are dynamic values.”

Reporter-

“Sir what role did airshow youtube videos play in your decision?”

Chief of Staff

“ While we know that most air combat takes place at starting altitudes in excess of 20,000 ft. We ignored E-M diagrams and combat cycle time, as well as basics like acceleration and lift at different altitudes. My deputy stood on the ground with a stopwatch while the aircraft completed a turn”. “It was difficult to throw out determining factors like: different corner speeds, different fuel factors, performance degradation from Cat limiters for different stores, and just go with the aircraft that could turn the fastest at SL. While carrying nothing but the pilot”

Reporter

“What about other factors, such as range, load carrying, survivability?”

Chief of staff

“Well, we used simple ferry range to compare, or manufacturer listed combat radius”. “Sure, the ___________ with 2000L EFT is subsonic and CAT stores limited in maneuver, and it would have a high mission kill percent when faced with an adversary due to the need to drop tanks if threatened, but we just figure we can rely on the US tanker fleet to support us in any operation”.

“Survivability? There have been advances in VHF/UHF tracking radars, so we decided to forego low observability and use on board jamming.” “Sure, jamming and low observability combined enhances mission success and operation in a non-permissive environment, but we’ve heard stealth is overrated”

Reporter

“what about other fighter competitions where ____________ was not chosen?”

Chief of staff

“Well, we feel that their selection process was tainted, they obviously chose Boeing due to the free trip to Tahiti, over national defense. The free toaster oven thrown in was the kicker, after all, the Generals of X nation obviously would compromise national security over choosing our vastly superior fighter”.

Reporter

“Vastly Superior?, wasn’t a 30 year old fighter designed for carrier operation deemed only slightly inferior in the Swiss competition”?

Chief of staff

“Oh, that, (foot shuffling). Um, you see that didn’t taking into account capabilities we could have on our fighter if ever funded, and of course they just don’t understand close coupled canards give magical aerodynamic properties”

Reporter

“speaking of magic, is it true that Eurocanards don’t have an buffet at extreme AoA?”

Chief of staff

“C-L-O-S-E coupled canards, they defy the laws of fluid dynamics”

Obviously, the above is a joke. The unfunny part is that many of these arguments have been made by some of the more, ahem active posters on this farce of a thread. So, to complete the turn to unreality this thread has taken…. Enjoy

but I, too, have a decent grasp on the performance of various fighters, be it teen series, F-22, Eurocanards or Russkies.. And I am slowly starting to get an idea about the F-35, as well..

With the sake of sounding argumentative, I doubt the above. Of the F-22, there are some performance indicators, but they are seriously inadequate to formulating definitive conclusions about the F-22 performance envelope ( 3 KPP – 3.7G mach .9, 30,000 ft, .8 to mach 1.5 in 52.4 seconds, 30,000 ft, and v/max military power, mach 1.76). The maneuverability KPP is a particularly flawed benchmark in the case of the F-22. A few years past, there were some revelations about F-22 performance posted on other forums, and that is all.

Regarding the Eurocanards, there are some manufacturer released and approved specs (or rough figures as on https://typhoon.starstreak.net/). Pilot interviews, and the like. Again, enough to form a definitive opinion, no. At best a rough idea of generalities in their performance in relation to each other.

Of the F-35, what information is out there supports, in breadth, what the services have been saying, what I’ve stated for years. Your opinion is an outlier (not by popular opinion, which is very much negative toward the F-35), but by what performance numbers for the F-35 suggest and what those who operate the aircraft have been stating.