Eurofighter supercruise (Oh no not again)
John Cook
I was looking through WAJ No 38, and found a nice little snippet on
the Eurofighter, Its by Bill Sweetman while talking about the F22 and
its supercruise capability.
he states "Eurofighter supercruises (routinley) at Mach 1.3" when he
compares the two.
Well well well...
I'm not mentioning names, but.
Its nice to see the Typhoon cruise past "spiffing cruise" well into
the "super cruise" arena...
Now who owes me a beer?...
Cheers
John Cook
Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
Eurofighter website:-
Bill Norcott
John Cook <Jwc...@fishinternet.com.au> wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I was looking through WAJ No 38, and found a nice little snippet on
> the Eurofighter, Its by Bill Sweetman while talking about the F22 and
> its supercruise capability.
> he states "Eurofighter supercruises (routinley) at Mach 1.3" when he
> compares the two.
>
> Well well well...
>
> I'm not mentioning names, but.
>
> Its nice to see the Typhoon cruise past "spiffing cruise" well into
> the "super cruise" arena...
>
> Now who owes me a beer?...
>
Speaking of Sweetman, he has also has some comments in the 1999 DSR. I
guess when you write as much as he does you contradict yourself
sometimes.
"The United Arab Emirates' order for 80 F-16 Block 60s is very
significant. An updated version of a 25-year-old design, the Block 60
defeated Europe's government-endorsed champions, even though the UAE
has to pay a development bill that must be close to a billion
dollars... Lockheed Martin has tolerated Eurofighter's extravagant
claims of its performance, versus the F-22 and F-16, because of its
many UK interests."
Bill
--
"Wars have never hurt anybody except the people who die."
- Salvador Dali
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Vladimir Malukh
Alex Pavloff wrote:
> >Its nice to see the Typhoon cruise past "spiffing cruise" well into
> >the "super cruise" arena...
>
> If the F-22 never makes it into production, I guess the Typhoon will
> be the only supercruise fighter around, huh?
Su-32FN with Al-41F is good candidate for opportunity :)
--
Vladimir Malukh Novosibirsk, Russia
-----------------------------------------
p_...@my-deja.com
Bill Norcott <wnor...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <rmn57s4803u4larua...@4ax.com>,
> John Cook <Jwc...@fishinternet.com.au> wrote:
> > Hi All
> >
> > I was looking through WAJ No 38, and found a nice little snippet on
> > the Eurofighter, Its by Bill Sweetman while talking about the F22 and
> > its supercruise capability.
> > he states "Eurofighter supercruises (routinley) at Mach 1.3" when he
> > compares the two.
> >
> > Well well well...
> >
> > I'm not mentioning names, but.
> >
> > the "super cruise" arena...
> >
> >
>
> Speaking of Sweetman, he has also has some comments in the 1999 DSR. I
> guess when you write as much as he does you contradict yourself
> sometimes.
>
> "The United Arab Emirates' order for 80 F-16 Block 60s is very
> significant. An updated version of a 25-year-old design, the Block 60
> defeated Europe's government-endorsed champions, even though the UAE
> has to pay a development bill that must be close to a billion
> dollars... Lockheed Martin has tolerated Eurofighter's extravagant
> claims of its performance, versus the F-22 and F-16, because of its
> many UK interests."
>
> Bill
> --
> "Wars have never hurt anybody except the people who die."
> - Salvador Dali
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
cost and a final customer price for EF. Is it close
to F22?
Michael
Ken Duffey
> Alex Pavloff wrote:
>
> > >Its nice to see the Typhoon cruise past "spiffing cruise" well into
> > >the "super cruise" arena...
> >
> > If the F-22 never makes it into production, I guess the Typhoon will
> > be the only supercruise fighter around, huh?
>
> Su-32FN with Al-41F is good candidate for opportunity :)
>
> --
>
> Vladimir Malukh Novosibirsk, Russia
> -----------------------------------------
Except that the Su-32FN is not a 'fighter' as such - just a bomb-truck
(although a VERY capable one).
And - aren't the Su-34/32FN intakes configured for subsonic cruise ? - the
variable inlet ramps and spill doors are replaced by a simple slot on the
intake bottom.
Now - a single-seat Su-27 or Su-35/37 with AL-41F's - that would be
something.
Or even the S-37 Berkut ?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers - http://www.lindenhillimports.com/flankers.htm
S-37 Model - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/5634/
Genuine E-mailers - remove the x after uk
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Vladimir Malukh
Ken Duffey wrote:
> Except that the Su-32FN is not a 'fighter' as such - just a bomb-truck
> (although a VERY capable one).
It still capable to carry an use all of R-77 and R-73
missiles. Regarding to dogfight - well, how many
"pure figthers" can perform in way Su-32 did on MAKS'99? :)
> And - aren't the Su-34/32FN intakes configured for subsonic cruise ? - the
> variable inlet ramps and spill doors are replaced by a simple slot on the
> intake bottom.
It's not exactly subsonic- these intakes are can not perform
on high-supersonic, but M1.4 is fine. Main reasons to remove
ramps was to keep weight and free some space for larger landing
gears. Almost certainly inlets for Al-41 will be different, since
engine "eats" more air. Also very possible that Su-32 will
have just AL-41 (not 41F), which will keep weight, still
produce supercruise ability.
> Now - a single-seat Su-27 or Su-35/37 with AL-41F's - that would be
> something.
May be :) At the moment there were announces that -41 engine
is most likely to be introduced on Su-32.
> Or even the S-37 Berkut ?
This a/c is far way form 5th gen fighter. Its just experimental
fighter, I wouldn't count it as real contendor.
PS: Just couple of days ago I saw couple of Su-32
flying over our city, seems these ones are newly
built - they were unpainted.
D. Scott Ferrin
<Jwc...@fishinternet.com.au> wrote:
>Hi All
>
>
>I was looking through WAJ No 38, and found a nice little snippet on
>the Eurofighter, Its by Bill Sweetman while talking about the F22 and
>its supercruise capability.
>he states "Eurofighter supercruises (routinley) at Mach 1.3" when he
>compares the two.
>
>Well well well...
>
>I'm not mentioning names, but.
>
>Its nice to see the Typhoon cruise past "spiffing cruise" well into
>the "super cruise" arena...
>
>Now who owes me a beer?...
Nobody. Check WAJ Vol. 35 (the one with the big Eurofighter article)
page 97
"When flying at Mach 1.4, Eurofighter prototypes have decelerated to
Mach 1.1 when afterburner was cancelled, and then have sustained that
speed on dry power alone."
Several aircraft can do that so it looks like you'll be thirsty.
D. Scott Ferrin
>>Nobody. Check WAJ Vol. 35 (the one with the big Eurofighter article)
>>
>>page 97
>>
>>"When flying at Mach 1.4, Eurofighter prototypes have decelerated to
>>Mach 1.1 when afterburner was cancelled, and then have sustained that
>>speed on dry power alone."
>
>
Which means nothing.
he is talking about a
>set of tests which quite surprised the pilots, they were not trying to
>demonstrate spiffingcruise!!!, it just happened,
So what are you saying? That if it had been "planned" they would have
been able to go faster?
he also doesn't
>mention which engines were used, the old tornado engines fitted to
>earlier on to the DA's or the evaluation EJ200, the production EJ200
>are yet again a little different.
Just for comparison the F-22 hit Mach 1.5 at 60% *military* power.
"Sustaining the target Mach was not difficult for the Raptor," said
Col. C.D. Moore, Combined Test Force commander, at Edwards Air Force
Base, Calif. "The difficulty was keeping the Raptor from going faster
than the target speed. Yesterday the airplane demonstrated that it can
achieve awesome speed, flying above 1.5 Mach at a low power setting,
for a sustained period of time. No other fighter in the world can do
that."
(Of course now that I want to find it I can't locate the 60% quote. )
>
>>Several aircraft can do that so it looks like you'll be thirsty.
>
>Really!!, are they production models with a full AA load?. :-),
>(remember that film 'ice cold from alice', where they all sit in a bar
>at the end and have a beer after nearly dying of thirst in the desert
>- I want one of them and make it a light beer, I'm driving.......)
>
>Cheers
>
As for Bill Sweetman, though I consider him to be knowledgable I have
seen some stuff he's written that was WAY out there. He also states
the F-22 is "almost as fast WITH afterburner as without" which makes
it sound like it's slower in afterburner. Obviously that isn't so and
I doubt he meant it that way but I have noticed some authors flinging
around the term "supercruise" just to describe flying above Mach 1 and
ignoring the afterburner/no afterburner destinction. When I first
read the article you refer to it raised an eyebrow because you could
bet if the Eurofighter could actually sustain 1.3 in dry thrust and
armed the manufacturers would be shouting it for all to hear. So far
I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else so for now I'm interpreting
it as a goof on the part of Bill Sweetman.
Damien Burke
wrote:
>Which means nothing.
It almost certainly means they were talking about an RB199-fitted
prototype. I'm pretty sure this is the case as I remember reading
another article that stated that with the RB199 they were exceeding mach
1 on dry thrust alone.
--
Damien Burke (add 'k' to end of address if replying)
British military aircraft site: http://www.totavia.com/jetman/
Matthew Saroff (Remove .123456 to reply)
>If the F-22 never makes it into production, I guess the Typhoon will
>be the only supercruise fighter around, huh?
article, it can do M1.05 at sea level, which implies more speed
at 15-30K feet.
--
Matthew Saroff | Standard Disclaimer: Not only do I speak for
_____ | No one else, I don't even Speak for me. All my
/ o o \ | personalities and the spirits that I channel
______|_____|_____| disavow all knowledge of my activities. ;-)
uuu U uuu |
| In fact, all my personalities and channeled spirits
Saroff wuz here | hate my guts. (Well, maybe with garlic & butter...)
For law enforcment officials monitoring the net: abortion, marijuana, cocaine,
cia,plutonium, ammonium nitrate, militia, dea, nsa, pgp, hacker, assassinate.
Send suggestions for new and interesting words to:
msa...@123456.pobox.com. (remove the numbers to reply)
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page
Bill Norcott
> >the "super cruise" arena...
>
> be the only supercruise fighter around, huh?
>
Supercruise means sustained ability to cruise beyond Mach 1.5 without
afterburner. So Eurofighter does not supercruise. But if you are
willing to lower the bar to Mach 1.3 for the benefit of Eurofighter,
in that case both the Joint Strike Fighter demonstrators will also be
able to supercruise.
John Cook
wrote:
>In article <rmn57s4803u4larua...@4ax.com>,
> John Cook <Jwc...@fishinternet.com.au> wrote:
>> Hi All
>>
>> I was looking through WAJ No 38, and found a nice little snippet on
>> the Eurofighter, Its by Bill Sweetman while talking about the F22 and
>> its supercruise capability.
>> he states "Eurofighter supercruises (routinley) at Mach 1.3" when he
>> compares the two.
>>
>> Well well well...
>>
>> I'm not mentioning names, but.
>>
>> Its nice to see the Typhoon cruise past "spiffing cruise" well into
>> the "super cruise" arena...
>>
>> Now who owes me a beer?...
>>
>
>Speaking of Sweetman, he has also has some comments in the 1999 DSR. I
>guess when you write as much as he does you contradict yourself
>sometimes.
>
>"The United Arab Emirates' order for 80 F-16 Block 60s is very
>significant. An updated version of a 25-year-old design, the Block 60
>defeated Europe's government-endorsed champions,
Makes you wonder if Bill sweetman thought the Typhoon was in with a
chance in the UAE, which means he was the only one!!!, the chances of
the UAE buying non a non US fighter were about on par with Isreal's.
> even though the UAE
>has to pay a development bill that must be close to a billion
>dollars... Lockheed Martin has tolerated Eurofighter's extravagant
>claims of its performance, versus the F-22 and F-16, because of its
>many UK interests."
Extravagant claims about fighter performance are not just the sole
property of Eurofighter!. Now if he could cite an example of such a
claim....... we could debate that to death.
cheers
>
>
>Bill
John Cook
>In article <84vats$mkr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Bill Norcott <wnor...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> In article <rmn57s4803u4larua...@4ax.com>,
>> John Cook <Jwc...@fishinternet.com.au> wrote:
>> > Hi All
>> >
>> > I was looking through WAJ No 38, and found a nice little snippet on
>> > the Eurofighter, Its by Bill Sweetman while talking about the F22 and
>> > its supercruise capability.
>> > he states "Eurofighter supercruises (routinley) at Mach 1.3" when he
>> > compares the two.
>> >
>> > Well well well...
>> >
>> > I'm not mentioning names, but.
>> >
>> > Its nice to see the Typhoon cruise past "spiffing cruise" well into
>> > the "super cruise" arena...
>> >
>> > Now who owes me a beer?...
>> >
>>
>> Speaking of Sweetman, he has also has some comments in the 1999 DSR. I
>> guess when you write as much as he does you contradict yourself
>> sometimes.
>>
>> "The United Arab Emirates' order for 80 F-16 Block 60s is very
>> significant. An updated version of a 25-year-old design, the Block 60
>> defeated Europe's government-endorsed champions, even though the UAE
>> has to pay a development bill that must be close to a billion
>> dollars... Lockheed Martin has tolerated Eurofighter's extravagant
>> claims of its performance, versus the F-22 and F-16, because of its
>> many UK interests."
>>
>> Bill
>> --
>> "Wars have never hurt anybody except the people who die."
>> - Salvador Dali
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
>>
>I would like to know what is the current production
>cost and a final customer price for EF. Is it close
>to F22?
No, eurofighters flyaway price is about $50 -65M, The raptor $85-100M
real rough figures.
If anyone has more accurate figures, feel free to educate me..
>Michael
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
John Cook
John Cook
Ferrin) wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Jan 2000 17:07:47 +1100, John Cook
><Jwc...@fishinternet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Hi All
>>
>>
>>I was looking through WAJ No 38, and found a nice little snippet on
>>the Eurofighter, Its by Bill Sweetman while talking about the F22 and
>>its supercruise capability.
>>he states "Eurofighter supercruises (routinley) at Mach 1.3" when he
>>compares the two.
>>
>>Well well well...
>>
>>I'm not mentioning names, but.
>>
>>Its nice to see the Typhoon cruise past "spiffing cruise" well into
>>the "super cruise" arena...
>>
>>Now who owes me a beer?...
>
>
>Nobody. Check WAJ Vol. 35 (the one with the big Eurofighter article)
>
>page 97
>
>"When flying at Mach 1.4, Eurofighter prototypes have decelerated to
>Mach 1.1 when afterburner was cancelled, and then have sustained that
>speed on dry power alone."
Apart from the articule being about 2 years old, he is talking about a
set of tests which quite surprised the pilots, they were not trying to
demonstrate spiffingcruise!!!, it just happened, he also doesn't
mention which engines were used, the old tornado engines fitted to
earlier on to the DA's or the evaluation EJ200, the production EJ200
are yet again a little different.
>Several aircraft can do that so it looks like you'll be thirsty.
Really!!, are they production models with a full AA load?. :-),
(remember that film 'ice cold from alice', where they all sit in a bar
at the end and have a beer after nearly dying of thirst in the desert
- I want one of them and make it a light beer, I'm driving.......)
Cheers
.
Cheers
>
>
>
>>
>>Cheers
Bill Norcott
> > even though the UAE
> >has to pay a development bill that must be close to a billion
> >dollars... Lockheed Martin has tolerated Eurofighter's extravagant
> >claims of its performance, versus the F-22 and F-16, because of its
> >many UK interests."
>
> property of Eurofighter!. Now if he could cite an example of such a
> claim....... we could debate that to death.
>
> cheers
>
That "Mach 1.3 = supercruise" is an extravagant claim on the face of
it. Come to think of it, why not just re-define supercruise all the
way down to say .85 Mach, and enter the Jaguar in the competition as
well?
The other extravagant claim of Eurofighter of course is the cost/value
proposition. The Eurofighter unit cost estimate from last summer was
£69.4 million or about $114 million a whack. Maybe the price has
something to do with why the UAE bought F-16 Block 60 instead of
Eurofighter? The UAE can by whatever they want but Eurofighter turned
out not to be quite the value proposition it was advertised to be. I
look forward to seeing some actual deliveries of Eurofighters to any
country, but especially to non-EU countries as only these can be
called "export sales" in any sense of the word. Norway of course is
also quite interested in F-16 Block 60; neither are the Norwegians
known for squandering their defence dollars. Eurofighter apparently
thought they had Norway in the bag, but that was not the case.
Just a couple of extravagant Eurofighter claims that came to mind...
Punch Bunny
>I would like to know what is the current production
>cost and a final customer price for EF. Is it close
>to F22?
Not sure on exact figures, but I heard the EF cost about the same as
the F-15, and the F-22 cost 2x to 3x that of an F-15. Of course, I
could be just plain wrong :-)
- Steve
John Cook
wrote:
>In article <h=FyOO7pO+oAbYy...@4ax.com>,
> Alex Pavloff <IDONTLIK...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Jan 2000 17:07:47 +1100, John Cook
>> >Its nice to see the Typhoon cruise past "spiffing cruise" well into
>> >the "super cruise" arena...
>>
>> If the F-22 never makes it into production, I guess the Typhoon will
>> be the only supercruise fighter around, huh?
>>
>
>Supercruise means sustained ability to cruise beyond Mach 1.5 without
>afterburner. So Eurofighter does not supercruise. But if you are
>willing to lower the bar to Mach 1.3 for the benefit of Eurofighter,
>in that case both the Joint Strike Fighter demonstrators will also be
>able to supercruise.
Bill
Supercruise is defined (within this newsgroup also) as the ability to
cruise over mach 1 without afterburners, you could add that using
reheat to get you over Mach 1 is not supercruising.
It has absolutly nothing to do with lowering the bar.
cheers
>
>Bill
John Cook
Quoting the WAPJ again, the Eurofighter is around the price of a AH64
apache, cheaper than a Rafale, or F15F, and within a hairs breath of a
F/A 18c, plus it will be cheaper to own.
cheers
>- Steve
John Cook
wrote:
>
>> > even though the UAE
>> >has to pay a development bill that must be close to a billion
>> >dollars... Lockheed Martin has tolerated Eurofighter's extravagant
>> >claims of its performance, versus the F-22 and F-16, because of its
>> >many UK interests."
>>
>> Extravagant claims about fighter performance are not just the sole
>> property of Eurofighter!. Now if he could cite an example of such a
>> claim....... we could debate that to death.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>
>That "Mach 1.3 = supercruise" is an extravagant claim on the face of
>it. Come to think of it, why not just re-define supercruise all the
>way down to say .85 Mach, and enter the Jaguar in the competition as
>well?
OK Bill care to show me a definition of supercruise, not written by
the F22 team?.
Mach 1 plus without afterburner, can't be much simpler could it.
Concorde supercruise at mach 2, perhaps we should raise the bar to
exclude all those fighter supercruise wannabes.......
>The other extravagant claim of Eurofighter of course is the cost/value
>proposition. The Eurofighter unit cost estimate from last summer was
>£69.4 million or about $114 million a whack. Maybe the price has
($114m is for the British version, which is also the most expensive.
by about $24m)
That's perfectly true if you include the development costs, however if
you include the eurofighters development costs you should also include
the F22's development costs, you would get a price of £121m or $200m
per F22, so please keep the little details in mind when quoting
prices.
>something to do with why the UAE bought F-16 Block 60 instead of
>Eurofighter? The UAE can by whatever they want but Eurofighter turned
>out not to be quite the value proposition it was advertised to be. I
I have serious doubts about the UAE impartiality...
>look forward to seeing some actual deliveries of Eurofighters to any
>country, but especially to non-EU countries as only these can be
>called "export sales" in any sense of the word. Norway of course is
Greece is very interested!!!, why non EU countries may I ask.....
>also quite interested in F-16 Block 60; neither are the Norwegians
>known for squandering their defence dollars. Eurofighter apparently
>thought they had Norway in the bag, but that was not the case.
I would be surprised if Norway went the F16 route, not impossible, but
surprising to me at least.
>
>Just a couple of extravagant Eurofighter claims that came to mind...
>
>Bill
John Cook
John Cook
Ferrin) wrote:
>
>>>Nobody. Check WAJ Vol. 35 (the one with the big Eurofighter article)
>>>
>>>page 97
>>>
>>>"When flying at Mach 1.4, Eurofighter prototypes have decelerated to
>>>Mach 1.1 when afterburner was cancelled, and then have sustained that
>>>speed on dry power alone."
>>
>>
>>Apart from the articule being about 2 years old,
>
>
>Which means nothing.
The Ej200 have moved on since then in power and reliability, this does
have some bearing on the speed issue. :-)
>
>
>
>
>he is talking about a
>>set of tests which quite surprised the pilots, they were not trying to
>>demonstrate spiffingcruise!!!, it just happened,
>
>So what are you saying? That if it had been "planned" they would have
>been able to go faster?
It wasn't expected to supercruise on the power setting/height they
were flying, they were surprised how well it did..
>
>
>
>
>he also doesn't
>>mention which engines were used, the old tornado engines fitted to
>>earlier on to the DA's or the evaluation EJ200, the production EJ200
>>are yet again a little different.
>
>Just for comparison the F-22 hit Mach 1.5 at 60% *military* power.
>
>
>"Sustaining the target Mach was not difficult for the Raptor," said
>Col. C.D. Moore, Combined Test Force commander, at Edwards Air Force
>Base, Calif. "The difficulty was keeping the Raptor from going faster
>than the target speed. Yesterday the airplane demonstrated that it can
>achieve awesome speed, flying above 1.5 Mach at a low power setting,
>for a sustained period of time. No other fighter in the world can do
>that."
I said nothing about the raptor, even if it can cruise at mach 20 it
shouldn't affect the speed at which a eurofighter flies!!!.
>
>(Of course now that I want to find it I can't locate the 60% quote. )
I have not seen the power setting mention in any text, would be
interesting if you could cite a reference.
>
>
>>
>>>Several aircraft can do that so it looks like you'll be thirsty.
>>
>>Really!!, are they production models with a full AA load?. :-),
>>(remember that film 'ice cold from alice', where they all sit in a bar
>>at the end and have a beer after nearly dying of thirst in the desert
>>- I want one of them and make it a light beer, I'm driving.......)
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>
>
>As for Bill Sweetman, though I consider him to be knowledgable I have
>seen some stuff he's written that was WAY out there. He also states
>the F-22 is "almost as fast WITH afterburner as without" which makes
>it sound like it's slower in afterburner. Obviously that isn't so and
I know what he's getting at and its true, the afterburners on the F22
are there for short bursts only, and the max spped is limited by
things other than power output.
>I doubt he meant it that way but I have noticed some authors flinging
>around the term "supercruise" just to describe flying above Mach 1 and
>ignoring the afterburner/no afterburner destinction. When I first
>read the article you refer to it raised an eyebrow because you could
>bet if the Eurofighter could actually sustain 1.3 in dry thrust and
>armed the manufacturers would be shouting it for all to hear. So far
>I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else so for now I'm interpreting
>it as a goof on the part of Bill Sweetman.
quite possibly a goof, but from the things I have read the Eurofighter
should be way above the oft quoted M1.1. - visit the site mentioned
below.
Vladimir Malukh
Bill Norcott wrote:
>
> In article <h=FyOO7pO+oAbYy...@4ax.com>,
> Alex Pavloff <IDONTLIK...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 05 Jan 2000 17:07:47 +1100, John Cook
> > >Its nice to see the Typhoon cruise past "spiffing cruise" well into
> > >the "super cruise" arena...
> >
> > If the F-22 never makes it into production, I guess the Typhoon will
> > be the only supercruise fighter around, huh?
> >
>
> Supercruise means sustained ability to cruise beyond Mach 1.5
^^^^^^^^
Being person sortof "pain in the neck", I'd say beyond Mach 1,
1.5 or 1.3 or 2.3 - doesn't matter.
EB Jet
the Pelican,sorry I mean Raptor won't hit that supercruise speed(M1.5),if it
ever goes into full scale production.
Strider
wrote:
>
>> > even though the UAE
>> >has to pay a development bill that must be close to a billion
>> >dollars... Lockheed Martin has tolerated Eurofighter's extravagant
>> >claims of its performance, versus the F-22 and F-16, because of its
>> >many UK interests."
>>
>> Extravagant claims about fighter performance are not just the sole
>> property of Eurofighter!. Now if he could cite an example of such a
>> claim....... we could debate that to death.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>
>That "Mach 1.3 = supercruise" is an extravagant claim on the face of
>it. Come to think of it, why not just re-define supercruise all the
>way down to say .85 Mach, and enter the Jaguar in the competition as
>well?
I thought supercruise was when an a/c can sustain > mach 1.0 velocity
wirthout afterburners, am I wrong? So why shouldn´t mach 1.3 count as
supercruise?
/Strider
Strider
wrote:
>In article <h=FyOO7pO+oAbYy...@4ax.com>,
> Alex Pavloff <IDONTLIK...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Jan 2000 17:07:47 +1100, John Cook
>> >Its nice to see the Typhoon cruise past "spiffing cruise" well into
>> >the "super cruise" arena...
>>
>> If the F-22 never makes it into production, I guess the Typhoon will
>> be the only supercruise fighter around, huh?
>>
>
>Supercruise means sustained ability to cruise beyond Mach 1.5 without
>afterburner. So Eurofighter does not supercruise. But if you are
>willing to lower the bar to Mach 1.3 for the benefit of Eurofighter,
>in that case both the Joint Strike Fighter demonstrators will also be
>able to supercruise.
Call me an moron but why mach 1.5? I thought supersruising was the
ability to fly supersonic (super) without afterburners. Who said that
you must pass mach 1.5 to supercruise? Doesn´t make sense to say that
mach 1.5 is supercrusing but mach 1.4 isn´t.
/Strider
Ralph Savelsberg
supercruise is the ability to cruise beyond Mach 1 without the use of
afterburner, not Mach 1.5 as you wrote. If Eurofighter can indeed cruise
at Mach 1.3 that means it can supercruise.
Ralph
Bill Norcott wrote:
>
>
> Supercruise means sustained ability to cruise beyond Mach 1.5 without
> afterburner. So Eurofighter does not supercruise. But if you are
> willing to lower the bar to Mach 1.3 for the benefit of Eurofighter,
> in that case both the Joint Strike Fighter demonstrators will also be
> able to supercruise.
>
> Bill
>
D. Scott Ferrin
<Jwc...@fishinternet.com.au> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 04:38:29 GMT, Bill Norcott <wnor...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>> > even though the UAE
>>> >has to pay a development bill that must be close to a billion
>>> >dollars... Lockheed Martin has tolerated Eurofighter's extravagant
>>> >claims of its performance, versus the F-22 and F-16, because of its
>>> >many UK interests."
>>>
>>> Extravagant claims about fighter performance are not just the sole
>>> property of Eurofighter!. Now if he could cite an example of such a
>>> claim....... we could debate that to death.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>
>>That "Mach 1.3 = supercruise" is an extravagant claim on the face of
>>it. Come to think of it, why not just re-define supercruise all the
>>way down to say .85 Mach, and enter the Jaguar in the competition as
>>well?
>
>OK Bill care to show me a definition of supercruise, not written by
>the F22 team?.
>
>Mach 1 plus without afterburner, can't be much simpler could it.
>
>Concorde supercruise at mach 2, perhaps we should raise the bar to
>exclude all those fighter supercruise wannabes.......
>
Isn't Concord in burner most of the time? Or does it just use it to
get through Mach 1?
D. Scott Ferrin
Why? Are they going to change the airframe so it has more drag? Are
they going to reduce the power of the engines? Are the going to use
7-11 gas? Even if it manages to gain a few pounds it's got plenty of
power to hit it still.
Colin Radford
Ferrin) wrote:
>Isn't Concord in burner most of the time? Or does it just use it to
>get through Mach 1?
According to the Microsoft Flight Sim 2000 manual (not a definative
reference I know!) burners on Concorde are turned off at speeds over
Mach 1.7 because the engines are more efficient without them above
this speed.
Paul S. Owen
D. Scott Ferrin wrote in message <3873b521...@news.xmission.com>...
|
Yowsers, and here I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in these
arguments anymore given my website ;)
|>Apart from the articule being about 2 years old,
|
|Which means nothing.
Oh come on be sensible, you're seriously telling me that 'time' makes no
difference?! Two years ago DA1 and DA2 the primary "flight trials" aircraft
were fitted with RB.199's delivering something like 33% less dry thrust with
a core not rated nor designed for sustained supersonic flight and a TWR
substantially lower than the EJ's! Given that articles around that time
_were_ discussing those particularly equipped DA's I think it's not unsafe
to assume that discussions concerning the accidental maintanence of M1+
involved those engines.
|he is talking about a
|>set of tests which quite surprised the pilots, they were not trying to
|>demonstrate spiffingcruise!!!, it just happened,
|
|So what are you saying? That if it had been "planned" they would have
|been able to go faster?
No, he's saying that given the engines used they were amazed that the
aircraft managed what it did. Since then and more so since fitting the
EJ200's supercruise has become much more of a core interest according to all
the sources I've read, from Hugh Harkin's book through BAe, MBB and ITP
literature (as given on my site).
|he also doesn't
|>mention which engines were used, the old tornado engines fitted to
|>earlier on to the DA's or the evaluation EJ200, the production EJ200
|>are yet again a little different.
|
|Just for comparison the F-22 hit Mach 1.5 at 60% *military* power.
?? Why do you feel it necessary to mention the F-22? We all _know_ the F-22
is capable of sustained supersonic flight, people here and at LM are
_forever_ going on about it.
|As for Bill Sweetman, though I consider him to be knowledgable I have
|seen some stuff he's written that was WAY out there.
Indeed, which is why this comment should be taken with a pinch of salt ...
I'm trying to find out more details as I write this ...
|He also states
|the F-22 is "almost as fast WITH afterburner as without" which makes
|it sound like it's slower in afterburner.
No he's using common sense which suggests the low BPR and fixed inlets
result in a greater amount of total achievable thrust being deliverable
without afterburn and thus afterburn resulting in a lower increase in
achievable output compared to other powerplants.
|I doubt he meant it that way but I have noticed some authors flinging
|around the term "supercruise" just to describe flying above Mach 1 and
|ignoring the afterburner/no afterburner destinction.
I've never come accross that personally ...
|When I first
|read the article you refer to it raised an eyebrow because you could
|bet if the Eurofighter could actually sustain 1.3 in dry thrust and
|armed the manufacturers would be shouting it for all to hear.
hhmmmm, not necessarily ... don't forget how coy Britain in particular is
about performance of its systems. Those who _need_ to know the performance
will know it.
|So far
|I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else so for now I'm interpreting
|it as a goof on the part of Bill Sweetman.
Look on my site, certainly ITP literature is _forever_ discussing the
'supersonic cruise regime of M1.2 without reheat at altitude' ... as for
M1.3 I too remain a little sceptical, guess we'll have to wait and see ..
___________
Paul S. Owen : To reply add co.uk to address
CPSE, Imperial College, London, UK
http://www.pso-online.businesswebworks.com/
Paul S. Owen
Bill Norcott wrote in message <850n4e$ou1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
|
|Supercruise means sustained ability to cruise beyond Mach 1.5 without
|afterburner.
Why M1.5? Can you _guarantee_ that _all_ aircraft are completely within the
supersonic regime at M1.5? What about those that manage it at M1.05? Or
those that don't achieve it till M1.9? I think personally that M1.5 was
chosen primarily by LM (who after all seem to have been the ones to first
coin the phrase widely) as a 'round' figure fitting in with their general
requirements and likely achievable targets at the time.
To me _any_ aircraft able to sustain M1.0+ is already achieving something
the _vast_ majority of aircraft cannot. I'm not talking about those that can
manage M1.05 or M1.1 for 5 minutes before having to decelerate to prevent
their turbines from breaking up. I mean _sustaining_ flight at M1.0+ for
extended periods of time ... compared to most aircraft at M0.9 that's
something ...
Paul S. Owen
|
|The other extravagant claim of Eurofighter of course is the cost/value
|proposition. The Eurofighter unit cost estimate from last summer was
|£69.4 million or about $114 million a whack.
er? That 'unit cost' includes R&D Bill. The _official_ MoD/RAF figure is
£40-45M a pop flyaway, around $65M. If you include R&D in the F-22 'unit
price' what will you get? $150-200M?!
|Maybe the price has
|something to do with why the UAE bought F-16 Block 60 instead of
|Eurofighter?
Haven't the UAE reopened that competition ...
The UAE can by whatever they want but Eurofighter turned
|out not to be quite the value proposition it was advertised to be.
er, Bill I think you'll find primary concerns about the suitability of the
EF for UAE were availability and technology transfer. Given that LM keep
pushing back availability of the Block-60 it wasn't surprising that they
reopened the tender I guess ...
|I
|look forward to seeing some actual deliveries of Eurofighters to any
|country,
We get ours next Summer, Spain soon after followed by Italy and Germany.
Greece will get theirs in 2002 and Norway whenever they want 'em ;)
|but especially to non-EU countries as only these can be
|called "export sales" in any sense of the word.
Ah, let's redefine "export sales" just like "supercruise" eh Bill? ;)
Paul S. Owen
|Isn't Concord in burner most of the time? Or does it just use it to
|get through Mach 1?
!!!! Where would they store all the fuel?! It uses burner to break through
the transonic region whereupon it cruises ...
Bill Norcott
John Cook <Jwc...@fishinternet.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 04:38:29 GMT, Bill Norcott <wnor...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> > even though the UAE
> >> >has to pay a development bill that must be close to a billion
> >> >dollars... Lockheed Martin has tolerated Eurofighter's extravagant
> >> >claims of its performance, versus the F-22 and F-16, because of
its
> >> >many UK interests."
> >>
> >> Extravagant claims about fighter performance are not just the sole
> >> property of Eurofighter!. Now if he could cite an example of such a
> >> claim....... we could debate that to death.
> >>
> >> cheers
> >>
> >
> >That "Mach 1.3 = supercruise" is an extravagant claim on the face of
> >it. Come to think of it, why not just re-define supercruise all the
> >way down to say .85 Mach, and enter the Jaguar in the competition as
> >well?
>
> OK Bill care to show me a definition of supercruise, not written by
> the F22 team?.
>
The US Air Force defined the performance requirement at Mach 1.5+ w/o
afterburner. Click on the following USAF News link:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/n19990721_991378.htm
The difference here is that the USAF set the measure of success in
advance (several years ago, in fact), and the F-22 achieved it. That is
different than testing the Eurofighter, finding out it can do Mach 1.1,
and calling Mach 1.1 "supercruise" after the fact. I don't recall
Eurofighter presenting any concrete definition of supercruise.
> >The other extravagant claim of Eurofighter of course is the
cost/value
> >proposition. The Eurofighter unit cost estimate from last summer was
> >£69.4 million or about $114 million a whack. Maybe the price has
>
> ($114m is for the British version, which is also the most expensive.
> by about $24m)
>
> That's perfectly true if you include the development costs, however if
> you include the eurofighters development costs you should also include
> the F22's development costs, you would get a price of £121m or $200m
> per F22, so please keep the little details in mind when quoting
> prices.
>
I'm not sure I follow your logic here John, as the F-22 is not an export
fighter. In fact the entire production run of 339 aircraft is for the
benefit of the USAF only. There may well be one or two close allies
that may ask and be granted the purchase of F-22's, but that would be
the exception. We are not developing F-22 to sell them to other
countries; that is part of the equation for an air dominance fighter:
not only is it better than the rest but you keep it to yourself. As a
U.S. taxpayer of course I wish it cost less: however, the unit price has
no bearing on the world arms market, since F-22 is not for sale abroad.
On the other hand the F-16 Block 60, Eurofighter, and JSF are all export
fighters. In that arena, price and performance are both very
important. The price-performance of Eurofighter is simply not
competitive with the American export fighters. You must factor the
development cost into the unit cost, if Eurofighter intends to sell them
at a profit.
Regarding the F-16 Block 60 it is not a major retooling for L-M and the
development costs for L-M are relatively small. JSF has been designed
from the outset to address both development and manufacturing costs
aggressively, and the development cost will be amortized across 3,000
domestic planes plus and estimated 3,000 more export planes. The
Eurofighter program has never had a proper eye towards cost given its
relative value as an aircraft, which in large part is why they had to
scale back to the Eurofighter 2000 after the Germans almost pulled out
of the program.
> >something to do with why the UAE bought F-16 Block 60 instead of
> >Eurofighter? The UAE can by whatever they want but Eurofighter
turned
> >out not to be quite the value proposition it was advertised to be. I
>
> I have serious doubts about the UAE impartiality...
>
Duly noted.
> >look forward to seeing some actual deliveries of Eurofighters to any
> >country, but especially to non-EU countries as only these can be
> >called "export sales" in any sense of the word. Norway of course is
>
> Greece is very interested!!!, why non EU countries may I ask.....
>
I say non-EU countries because Eurofighter can possibly sell within
Europe even if it is perhaps a white elephant, under the aegis of
"Pan-European security". Then there are the myriad trade barriers large
and small of the EU that favor a European design when sold within
Europe, but that have no advantage to international sales.
> >also quite interested in F-16 Block 60; neither are the Norwegians
> >known for squandering their defence dollars. Eurofighter apparently
> >thought they had Norway in the bag, but that was not the case.
>
> I would be surprised if Norway went the F16 route, not impossible, but
> surprising to me at least.
>
Stranger things have happened, John. Respectfully, it remains to be
seen which way it will turn out.
Mary Shafer
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 00:20:43 GMT, Bill Norcott <wnor...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
> >Supercruise means sustained ability to cruise beyond Mach 1.5 without
> >afterburner. So Eurofighter does not supercruise. But if you are
> >willing to lower the bar to Mach 1.3 for the benefit of Eurofighter,
> >in that case both the Joint Strike Fighter demonstrators will also be
> >able to supercruise.
> Supercruise is defined (within this newsgroup also) as the ability to
> cruise over mach 1 without afterburners, you could add that using
> reheat to get you over Mach 1 is not supercruising.
No, it isn't. In this group, informed people define supercruise as
the ability to cruise over Mach 1.5 without afterburner, even if
afterburner was used to get through the transonic region. This
definition was established here some time ago.
Mach 1.3 is transonic, not supersonic, which is why Mach 1.5 is used
to define supercruise.
> It has absolutly nothing to do with lowering the bar.
Yes, it does. Cruising at Mach 1.3 isn't cruising supersonically, but
transonically. Redefining the term "supercruise" doesn't change the
aerodynamics.
--
Mary Shafer http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
Lead Handling Qualities Engineer, SR-71/LASRE
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
For non-aerospace mail, use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com please
Paul J. Adam
<wnor...@my-deja.com> writes
>The other extravagant claim of Eurofighter of course is the cost/value
>proposition. The Eurofighter unit cost estimate from last summer was
>£69.4 million or about $114 million a whack.
Compared to $200m-ish for a F-22?
>Maybe the price has
>something to do with why the UAE bought F-16 Block 60 instead of
>Eurofighter? The UAE can by whatever they want but Eurofighter turned
>out not to be quite the value proposition it was advertised to be.
Funny how they seem to be reopening the competition...
>Just a couple of extravagant Eurofighter claims that came to mind...
Have to keep shovelling the ones for the F-22 out of the way, though
:)
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Mary Shafer
> OK Bill care to show me a definition of supercruise, not written by
> the F22 team?.
I'm not on the F-22 team and I've posted a definition of supercruise
here several times. You can check Deja, although it doesn't go back
far enough to include my first posting of this definition. It's
always been "the ability to cruise at Mach 1.5 or higher without
afterburner, even if afterburner was used in the transonic region".
Concorde supercruises, even though it uses a/b to get from about 0.85
to 1.4 or so.
> Mach 1 plus without afterburner, can't be much simpler could it.
That's "transcruise" up to about Mach 1.5.
> Concorde supercruise at mach 2, perhaps we should raise the bar to
> exclude all those fighter supercruise wannabes.......
I though you wrote that it wasn't supercruise if a/b was required to
get to speed?
Damien Burke
wrote:
>I'm not on the F-22 team and I've posted a definition of supercruise
>here several times. You can check Deja, although it doesn't go back
>far enough to include my first posting of this definition. It's
>always been "the ability to cruise at Mach 1.5 or higher without
>afterburner, even if afterburner was used in the transonic region".
In every publication I have read, it has been Mach 1.0, not 1.5.
--
Damien Burke (add 'k' to end of address if replying)
British military aircraft site: http://www.totavia.com/jetman/
Mary Shafer
> On 06 Jan 2000 10:42:14 -0800, Mary Shafer <sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm not on the F-22 team and I've posted a definition of supercruise
> >here several times. You can check Deja, although it doesn't go back
> >far enough to include my first posting of this definition. It's
> >always been "the ability to cruise at Mach 1.5 or higher without
> >afterburner, even if afterburner was used in the transonic region".
>
> In every publication I have read, it has been Mach 1.0, not 1.5.
We must be reading different publications, then.
Ad Astra
> > >here several times. You can check Deja, although it doesn't go back
> > >far enough to include my first posting of this definition. It's
> > >always been "the ability to cruise at Mach 1.5 or higher without
> > >afterburner, even if afterburner was used in the transonic region".
> >
> > In every publication I have read, it has been Mach 1.0, not 1.5.
>
> We must be reading different publications, then.
The definition I'm familiar with is, very simply, "supersonic cruise without
afterburn augmentation."
Cheers!
Gary
------
Therefore it is said that victorious warriors win first and then go to war,
while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
- Sun Tzu - "The Art of War"
Steve Richardson
>Call me an moron but why mach 1.5? I thought supersruising was the
>ability to fly supersonic (super) without afterburners.
Nope, you're completely right.
- S. Richardson
St Louis MO
Paul J. Adam
Astra <ada...@home.com> writes
>The definition I'm familiar with is, very simply, "supersonic cruise without
>afterburn augmentation."
Confusingly, Mach 1.0 is not necessarily supersonic - truly supersonic
flight, as I understand it, is when the airflow around the aircraft is
wholly supersonic with no pockets of transonic airflow, which is
somewhere above 1.0 . I'm sure the aero types can post a better
definition - I'm a clankie :)
Mary Shafer
> In article <BS7d4.1292$26.1...@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com>, Ad
> Astra <ada...@home.com> writes
> >The definition I'm familiar with is, very simply, "supersonic cruise without
> >afterburn augmentation."
>
> Confusingly, Mach 1.0 is not necessarily supersonic - truly supersonic
> flight, as I understand it, is when the airflow around the aircraft is
> wholly supersonic with no pockets of transonic airflow, which is
> somewhere above 1.0 . I'm sure the aero types can post a better
> definition - I'm a clankie :)
One more time--it's aerodynamics and definitions. It's subsonic
flight if all the flow is subsonic, transonic flight if some of the
flow is subsonic and some is supersonic, and supersonic flight if all
the flow is supersonic.
While the Mach number at which some flow can be supersonic has been
documented is as low as 0.5 Mach, the usual number for the beginning
of transonic flow is 0.8. Similarly, some aircraft aren't completely
supersonic until Mach 2 or even higher, but the usual number for the
end of transonic flight is 1.4.
To supercruise, which is to cruise supersonically without afterburner,
it's necessary that the plane be flying supersonically and that means
that it must be at a Mach number where all the flow is supersonic,
meaning at or above Mach 1.4.
Of course, if it's proven that all the flow is supersonic at 1.3 for
the Eurofighter, then it is indeed supercruising at 1.3. However, I
don't believe any such proof exists. In its absence, then, the 1.4
that's accepted as the boundary means that it's not supercruising at
1.3.
Mind you, going Mach 1.3 without afterburner is no small achievement
and it's not my intention to belittle the accomplishment. It's just
that it's not supercruising. I like the term "spiffingcruise", so
let's define that as meaning high transonic cruise without
afterburner. Do you think it'll catch on?
It's sort of like saying that a plane going Mach 4.5 is hypersonic,
when everyone knows that hypersonic flight starts at Mach 5. That's
because the air doesn't change into different species until you go
that fast. Again, just a definition.
Alex Stoll
> missiles. Regarding to dogfight - well, how many
> "pure figthers" can perform in way Su-32 did on MAKS'99? :)
I read the only A-A armament the Su-32/34 can carry is two R-73s on the
outer pylons. Where does it carry R-77s? Can it carry more than two
R-77s/73s?
> Also very possible that Su-32 will
> have just AL-41 (not 41F), which will keep weight, still
> produce supercruise ability.
What's the difference between the -41 and the -41F? I've never heard of just
a -41 before.
--
Alex Stoll
N2...@hotmail.com
http://AlexStoll.cjb.net
http://www.robotgroup.org/lubbock/futureframe.htm
AIM - N22YF
Alex Stoll
> willing to lower the bar to Mach 1.3 for the benefit of Eurofighter,
> in that case both the Joint Strike Fighter demonstrators will also be
> able to supercruise.
What? I thought the JSFs couldn't supercruise?
Also I've never heard of supercruise being Mach 1.5+ w/o AB; I always heard
it was supersonic w/o AB (in level flight I assume) - am I wrong?
Alex Stoll
> real rough figures.
> If anyone has more accurate figures, feel free to educate me..
I read that the F-22 is closer to $165-180 million, which is more than a
C-17! But that may not have been the flyaway price...
Ad Astra
without
> >afterburn augmentation."
>
> Confusingly, Mach 1.0 is not necessarily supersonic - truly supersonic
> flight, as I understand it, is when the airflow around the aircraft is
> wholly supersonic with no pockets of transonic airflow, which is
> somewhere above 1.0 . I'm sure the aero types can post a better
> definition - I'm a clankie :)
I'm an aero type. You'll notice that I didn't mention mach-decimal-anything
in my definition.
BTW, Mach 1.0 is "the speed of sound" so you are, I guess, quite correct in
saying "Mach 1.0 isn't supersonic", as being "at" the speed is not being
"above" (super) the speed of sound.
Paul S. Owen
|and calling Mach 1.1 "supercruise" after the fact. I don't recall
|Eurofighter presenting any concrete definition of supercruise.
If you look through the earlier publications you'll find BAe referring to it
at as "sustained supersonic flight without the use of reheat". As I said
somewhere else I get the impression that LM et al coined the phrase
supercruise as referring to M1.5+ since that figure provided a round point
which they believed they could achieve. I wonder if the requirement or
simulation data had suggested M1.2 as a likely upper limit if we'd now be
discussing that as 'supercruise' ...
|> That's perfectly true if you include the development costs, however if
|> you include the eurofighters development costs you should also include
|> the F22's development costs, you would get a price of £121m or $200m
|> per F22, so please keep the little details in mind when quoting
|> prices.
|>
|
|I'm not sure I follow your logic here John, as the F-22 is not an export
|fighter.
er Bill that's not what John was saying, he was suggesting you're comparing
apples and oranges. The figure you quoted for the Typhoon included R&D, thus
John added R&D to the F-22's price ... apples and apples ...
|In fact the entire production run of 339 aircraft is for the
|benefit of the USAF only. There may well be one or two close allies
|that may ask and be granted the purchase of F-22's, but that would be
|the exception.
Go tell that to LM who have apparently been pressing Congress to allow
discussions of potential exports to take place, indeed witness Australia
which had talks with Cohen IIRC a year or so ago. There is a difference
between 'allowing' sales and 'wanting' sales, LM _want_ sales, whether
Congress _allow_ them is wholly a different matter.
|important. The price-performance of Eurofighter is simply not
|competitive with the American export fighters. You must factor the
|development cost into the unit cost, if Eurofighter intends to sell them
|at a profit.
Profit? What's that ;) BTW Eurofighter have said on many occasions that the
break even point is 400 fighters above and beyond those already ordered by
the four nations. With Greece at anything up to 90 they're well on their way
...
|domestic planes plus and estimated 3,000 more export planes. The
|Eurofighter program has never had a proper eye towards cost given its
|relative value as an aircraft, which in large part is why they had to
|scale back to the Eurofighter 2000
Scale back? I think you'll find only the German's scaled back (and even
there they've now come back on-board practically everything bar the entire
DASS suite), only minor changes to the aircrafts weight were made AIUI which
have also now been reversed.
|after the Germans almost pulled out
|of the program.
The German's pulled out for one reason and one reason only ... Money. They
_admitted_ the performance of the Typhoon was superb, that was the problem,
too good and thus unnecessary for what they believed was the 'new world
order' ... funny how things change ...
|I say non-EU countries because Eurofighter can possibly sell within
|Europe even if it is perhaps a white elephant, under the aegis of
|"Pan-European security".
Export is export ...
|Then there are the myriad trade barriers large
|and small of the EU that favor a European design when sold within
|Europe, but that have no advantage to international sales.
You mean like how Britain, Germany, Spain, Norway, Sweden ... all brought
AMRAAM over a follow-on Active Aspide, Active Sky Flash or (God forbid ;)
advanced MICA ... ? Or how most smaller Euro airforces operate the F-16,
F-4, etc.?
EB Jet
anti-F-22,it has the potential to be one of the great ones.It's only my opinion
that I'm putting forth,because I've seen it happen time and time again.I've
seen some of your other posts and you seem to be pretty intelligent,and I'm
certainly not going for a flame war here,but I'm pretty confident that my
suspicions will be borne out.Trust me,the thing is gonna get more than a few
pounds heavier before it reaches squadron service.
Kerryn Offord
"Paul S. Owen" wrote:
>
> Bill Norcott wrote in message <851683$3n2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
<SNIP>
> |but especially to non-EU countries as only these can be
> |called "export sales" in any sense of the word.
>
> Ah, let's redefine "export sales" just like "supercruise" eh Bill? ;)
>
An export is surely a sale to a country not involved in the
maufacture/production of an item. So any country not responsible for the
production/development (as a whole or part, i.e., the way 3 nations UK,
FRG, & Italy developed/built Tornado) of the EF constitutes an export
sale. Even if sale is to an EU country.
So, what countries were involved in production/development of EF?
What countries have ordered the EF?
Any countries in the second list, not mentioned in the first list
constitute export orders, although a case may be made that the first
list should be limited to production.
Ad Astra
heard
> it was supersonic w/o AB (in level flight I assume) - am I wrong?
Nope, your definition is correct: "sustained cruise without afterburn
augmentation." (or words to that effect)
The Mach 1.5 figure stems from the theory (for lack of a better word) that
an aircraft is not truly supersonic until mach 1.4+, ergo does not qualify
for "supercruise" (that word is getting old already! LOL) until it can
maintain M1.5 in unaugmented cruise.
Ad Astra
> augmentation." (or words to that effect)
Oops: forgot a word: "sustained *supersonic* cruise..."
John Cook
wrote:
>In article <i9787s8vrmheb1rtq...@4ax.com>,
> John Cook <Jwc...@fishinternet.com.au> wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 04:38:29 GMT, Bill Norcott <wnor...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>The US Air Force defined the performance requirement at Mach 1.5+ w/o
>afterburner. Click on the following USAF News link:
>
>http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/n19990721_991378.htm
>
>The difference here is that the USAF set the measure of success in
>advance (several years ago, in fact), and the F-22 achieved it. That is
>different than testing the Eurofighter, finding out it can do Mach 1.1,
>and calling Mach 1.1 "supercruise" after the fact. I don't recall
>Eurofighter presenting any concrete definition of supercruise.
Please note the caveat at the beginning:-
"In the context of the F-22 Raptor, supercruise is defined as the
ability to cruise at speeds of one and a half times the speed of sound
or greater without the use of afterburner for extended periods in
combat configuration."
In the context of the Eurofighter supercruise is defined as M1.2 and
above, well that sure cleared things up.
I cannot believe you would argue the point just so I won't get a beer.
<snipped an awful lot of convoluted drivel to explain how a non
exported fighter is actually free>
>> Greece is very interested!!!, why non EU countries may I ask.....
>>
>
>I say non-EU countries because Eurofighter can possibly sell within
>Europe even if it is perhaps a white elephant, under the aegis of
>"Pan-European security". Then there are the myriad trade barriers large
>and small of the EU that favor a European design when sold within
>Europe, but that have no advantage to international sales.
And the US doesn't suffer from this in the slightest, The US is of
course famous for buying their systems even when a better system is
available (broach, ASRAAM to name a couple).
>> >also quite interested in F-16 Block 60; neither are the Norwegians
>> >known for squandering their defence dollars. Eurofighter apparently
>> >thought they had Norway in the bag, but that was not the case.
>>
>> I would be surprised if Norway went the F16 route, not impossible, but
>> surprising to me at least.
>>
>
>Stranger things have happened, John. Respectfully, it remains to be
>seen which way it will turn out.
Yup gotta agree with you there, Major Evensen the pilot who is
evaluating the F16 and Eurofighter for Norway has commented he likes
the F16 side stick and its less draggy than the older model, while he
describes flying the Eurofighter as the Highlite of his career.
cheers
>Bill
John Cook
Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
Eurofighter website:-
John Cook
<sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>"Paul J. Adam" <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> In article <BS7d4.1292$26.1...@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com>, Ad
>> Astra <ada...@home.com> writes
>> >The definition I'm familiar with is, very simply, "supersonic cruise without
>> >afterburn augmentation."
>>
>> Confusingly, Mach 1.0 is not necessarily supersonic - truly supersonic
>> flight, as I understand it, is when the airflow around the aircraft is
>> wholly supersonic with no pockets of transonic airflow, which is
>> somewhere above 1.0 . I'm sure the aero types can post a better
>> definition - I'm a clankie :)
>
>One more time--it's aerodynamics and definitions. It's subsonic
>flight if all the flow is subsonic, transonic flight if some of the
>flow is subsonic and some is supersonic, and supersonic flight if all
>the flow is supersonic.
>
>While the Mach number at which some flow can be supersonic has been
>documented is as low as 0.5 Mach, the usual number for the beginning
>of transonic flow is 0.8. Similarly, some aircraft aren't completely
>supersonic until Mach 2 or even higher, but the usual number for the
>end of transonic flight is 1.4.
>
>To supercruise, which is to cruise supersonically without afterburner,
>it's necessary that the plane be flying supersonically and that means
>that it must be at a Mach number where all the flow is supersonic,
>meaning at or above Mach 1.4.
Hi Mary
While I agree with the above, there are big grey areas where the
actual speed of the aircraft and the moment where all the flow becomes
supersonic , this depends on aircraft type and a million other
details.
The supercruise definition was created by LM who shortened Supersonic
cruise to super cruise. this became confused with the US airforces ATF
requirement for a fighter to be able to supersoniclly cruise at
M1.5, the later LM web site now contains the following:-
"In the context of the F-22 Raptor, supercruise is defined as the
ability to cruise at speeds of one and a half times the speed of sound
or greater without the use of afterburner for extended periods in
combat configuration."
Note the context caveat...
this definition has changed over the last year or two.....
it was :-
The old LM F22 pages:-
"The F119-PW-100 is a new, higher thrust-to-weight engine that is
designed for efficient supersonic operation without afterburner
(called supercruise), and with increased durability over current
engines. "
Now in the real world,your supercruise definition doesn't work,
imagine that fighter 'A' fly's at M1.3 and "supercruises" while
fighter 'B' fly's at M1.4 and does not due to some pocket of transonis
air, that refuses to go away until M1,5, therefor the actual tactical
advantage is not with the 'Supercruiser'.
If you read my original post you will see that the definition used in
this group tends to agree with my definition. and heres a few posts
and quotes re supercruise from (for the most part)
reliable sources.
Carlo Kopp 20/06/98:-
"At a punt the EJ200 / EF probably can supercruise in
the 1.0-1.2 Mach regime, but I have yet to see any statements or
compelling evidence that it can operate in the higher speed 1.2-1.5
Mach envelope."
GAO report 1998 to congressional committee:-
"Supercruise means the aircraft can sustain supersonic or mach speed
without useing afterburner."
As you can see the common usage is "M1+ without AB".
>
>Of course, if it's proven that all the flow is supersonic at 1.3 for
>the Eurofighter, then it is indeed supercruising at 1.3. However, I
>don't believe any such proof exists. In its absence, then, the 1.4
>that's accepted as the boundary means that it's not supercruising at
>1.3.
>
>Mind you, going Mach 1.3 without afterburner is no small achievement
>and it's not my intention to belittle the accomplishment. It's just
>that it's not supercruising. I like the term "spiffingcruise", so
>let's define that as meaning high transonic cruise without
>afterburner. Do you think it'll catch on?
I sincerly hope so :-), I also liked splendidcruise for transonic
aircraft.
>It's sort of like saying that a plane going Mach 4.5 is hypersonic,
>when everyone knows that hypersonic flight starts at Mach 5. That's
>because the air doesn't change into different species until you go
>that fast. Again, just a definition.
Is that all the air around the plane going M5 or just most of
it....:-)
Cheers
Bill Norcott
John Cook <Jwc...@fishinternet.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 22:50:01 GMT, Bill Norcott <wnor...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <i9787s8vrmheb1rtq...@4ax.com>,
> > John Cook <Jwc...@fishinternet.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 04:38:29 GMT, Bill Norcott
<wnor...@my-deja.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
>
> >
> >The US Air Force defined the performance requirement at Mach 1.5+ w/o
> >afterburner. Click on the following USAF News link:
> >
> >http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/n19990721_991378.htm
> >
> >The difference here is that the USAF set the measure of success in
> >advance (several years ago, in fact), and the F-22 achieved it. That
is
> >different than testing the Eurofighter, finding out it can do Mach
1.1,
> >and calling Mach 1.1 "supercruise" after the fact. I don't recall
> >Eurofighter presenting any concrete definition of supercruise.
>
>
> "In the context of the F-22 Raptor, supercruise is defined as the
> ability to cruise at speeds of one and a half times the speed of sound
> or greater without the use of afterburner for extended periods in
> combat configuration."
>
> above, well that sure cleared things up.
>
> I cannot believe you would argue the point just so I won't get a beer.
Well, since Eurofighter achieves 80% of supercruise you're entitled to
4/5 of a beer. Cheers.
> >> Greece is very interested!!!, why non EU countries may I ask.....
> >>
> >
> >I say non-EU countries because Eurofighter can possibly sell within
> >Europe even if it is perhaps a white elephant, under the aegis of
> >"Pan-European security". Then there are the myriad trade barriers
large
> >and small of the EU that favor a European design when sold within
> >Europe, but that have no advantage to international sales.
>
> And the US doesn't suffer from this in the slightest, The US is of
> course famous for buying their systems even when a better system is
> available (broach, ASRAAM to name a couple).
>
Point taken, US does prefer American gear and Europe naturally prefers
European gear. Which is why I said the true test of Eurofighter is
whether is can sell outside Europe. But first it will need to lock up
the European market, and it has a ways to go there.
> >> >also quite interested in F-16 Block 60; neither are the Norwegians
> >> >known for squandering their defence dollars. Eurofighter
apparently
> >> >thought they had Norway in the bag, but that was not the case.
> >>
> >> I would be surprised if Norway went the F16 route, not impossible,
but
> >> surprising to me at least.
> >>
> >
> >Stranger things have happened, John. Respectfully, it remains to be
> >seen which way it will turn out.
>
> Yup gotta agree with you there, Major Evensen the pilot who is
> evaluating the F16 and Eurofighter for Norway has commented he likes
> the F16 side stick and its less draggy than the older model, while he
> describes flying the Eurofighter as the Highlite of his career.
>
> cheers
>
> >Bill
>
> John Cook
>
They are letting ONE MAN flight test the two fighters?!? So who's going
to bribe the old boffin first?
Drewe Manton
Great Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain
regards
Drewe
Rama Lama Yip Diddley Aye
Temple of the Green Grass
"The stupidity of the action is directly proportional to the number of people
watching you"
Preserve wild life. . . pickle a Mon-key!
Paul S. Owen
Kerryn Offord wrote in message <3875522C...@its.canterbury.ac.nz>...
|
|"Paul S. Owen" wrote:
|>
|> Bill Norcott wrote in message <851683$3n2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
|<SNIP>
|> |but especially to non-EU countries as only these can be
|> |called "export sales" in any sense of the word.
|>
|> Ah, let's redefine "export sales" just like "supercruise" eh Bill? ;)
|>
|
|An export is surely a sale to a country not involved in the
|maufacture/production of an item.
Yep, it is indeed ... hence my statement and the ;) which basically refers
to the multitude of definitions of supercruise being bandied about ...
|So, what countries were involved in production/development of EF?
UK, Germany, Italy and Spain
|What countries have ordered the EF?
UK, Germany, Italy, Spain and Greece are in final negotiations, Norway and
several others are possibles.
davidgj...@my-deja.com
> ------
> Therefore it is said that victorious warriors win first and then go
to war,
> while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
>
> - Sun Tzu - "The Art of War"
>
>
Harry Andreas
<ada...@home.com> wrote:
> The Mach 1.5 figure stems from the theory (for lack of a better word) that
> an aircraft is not truly supersonic until mach 1.4+, ergo does not qualify
> for "supercruise" (that word is getting old already! LOL) until it can
> maintain M1.5 in unaugmented cruise.
I wonder what Yeager thinks of this definition of supersonic.
I guess that's one of the dubious benefits of science, definitions change
over time.
--
Harry Andreas
the engineering raconteur
replace baloney with computer to reply
Ad Astra
>
> I guess that's one of the dubious benefits of science, definitions change
> over time.
I was thinking the *exact* same thing this morning. Are we going to have to
change the date that supersonic flight was first achieved? heh heh heh
Cheers!
Gary
D. Scott Ferrin
<pa...@callisto.clara.> wrote:
>
>D. Scott Ferrin wrote in message <3873b521...@news.xmission.com>...
>|
>
>Yowsers, and here I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in these
>arguments anymore given my website ;)
>
>|>Apart from the articule being about 2 years old,
>|
>|Which means nothing.
>
>Oh come on be sensible, you're seriously telling me that 'time' makes no
>difference?! Two years ago DA1 and DA2 the primary "flight trials" aircraft
>were fitted with RB.199's delivering something like 33% less dry thrust with
>a core not rated nor designed for sustained supersonic flight and a TWR
>substantially lower than the EJ's! Given that articles around that time
>_were_ discussing those particularly equipped DA's I think it's not unsafe
>to assume that discussions concerning the accidental maintanence of M1+
>involved those engines.
First of all the aritcle he's referring to is only about one year old
and they had LOTS of information on the test vehicles flying with the
EJ200s. It is never stated that they were referring to the RB199
outfitted aircraft and since they discussed, at length, the aircraft
with the newer engines it seemed to me they were talking about the
aircraft with the newer engines. Maybe he has another piece of the
puzzle; I don't know.
>
>|he is talking about a
>|>set of tests which quite surprised the pilots, they were not trying to
>|>demonstrate spiffingcruise!!!, it just happened,
>|
>|So what are you saying? That if it had been "planned" they would have
>|been able to go faster?
>
>No, he's saying that given the engines used they were amazed that the
>aircraft managed what it did. Since then and more so since fitting the
>EJ200's supercruise has become much more of a core interest according to all
>the sources I've read, from Hugh Harkin's book through BAe, MBB and ITP
>literature (as given on my site).
I think it will be interesting when (if) they get the EJ200 (EJ220?)
up to 26k like they mentioned.
>
>|he also doesn't
>|>mention which engines were used, the old tornado engines fitted to
>|>earlier on to the DA's or the evaluation EJ200, the production EJ200
>|>are yet again a little different.
>|
>|Just for comparison the F-22 hit Mach 1.5 at 60% *military* power.
>
>?? Why do you feel it necessary to mention the F-22? We all _know_ the F-22
>is capable of sustained supersonic flight, people here and at LM are
>_forever_ going on about it.
I guess because he *seemed* to take Sweetman's comment and try to make
it sound like the Typhoon was almost in the same performance category
as the F-22 which it really isn't though I'd say it's definitely a
solid #2.
>|As for Bill Sweetman, though I consider him to be knowledgable I have
>|seen some stuff he's written that was WAY out there.
>
>Indeed, which is why this comment should be taken with a pinch of salt ...
>I'm trying to find out more details as I write this ...
>
>|He also states
>|the F-22 is "almost as fast WITH afterburner as without" which makes
>|it sound like it's slower in afterburner.
>
>No he's using common sense which suggests the low BPR and fixed inlets
>result in a greater amount of total achievable thrust being deliverable
>without afterburn and thus afterburn resulting in a lower increase in
>achievable output compared to other powerplants.
I think you misread me. He wasn't saying that the F-22 is almost as
fast in dry thrust as in burner but the other way around which doesn't
make any sense. I agree with the former because the F-22 is
supposedly limited in it's top speed (I still have doubts there but
it would sound like some conspiracy theory or wishful thinking so I'll
leave it alone) so it stands to reason that if it can almost reach
it's speed limit without burners that it wouldn't go a lot faster with
burners. In fact Paul Metz was quoted as saying that burner use will
be used primarily for acceleration and maintaining speed while
manuevering hard. What Sweetman actually said was that the F-22 is
almost as fast while using afterburners as it is without using them
thus implying that the F-22 is actually SLOWER in afterburner.
>|I doubt he meant it that way but I have noticed some authors flinging
>|around the term "supercruise" just to describe flying above Mach 1 and
>|ignoring the afterburner/no afterburner destinction.
>
>I've never come accross that personally ...
>
>|When I first
>|read the article you refer to it raised an eyebrow because you could
>|bet if the Eurofighter could actually sustain 1.3 in dry thrust and
>|armed the manufacturers would be shouting it for all to hear.
>
>hhmmmm, not necessarily ... don't forget how coy Britain in particular is
>about performance of its systems. Those who _need_ to know the performance
>will know it.
>
>|So far
>|I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else so for now I'm interpreting
>|it as a goof on the part of Bill Sweetman.
>
>Look on my site, certainly ITP literature is _forever_ discussing the
>'supersonic cruise regime of M1.2 without reheat at altitude' ... as for
>M1.3 I too remain a little sceptical, guess we'll have to wait and see ..
>
>___________
>Paul S. Owen : To reply add co.uk to address
>CPSE, Imperial College, London, UK
>http://www.pso-online.businesswebworks.com/
>
While we're talking about it it seems to me that if the Eurofighter
could supercruise with the RB199s the Tornado ADV might be able to
also. With it's wings swept back it would seem to have less drag than
Eurofighter. Yes? No?
D. Scott Ferrin
So far the only thing I've heard mentioned is that the tail area needs
to be beefed up but I seem to recall that it was only going to add ten
or twenty pounds. Yes I know that's a lot when talking about
airplanes but if it's an isolated or worst case it's not all that
significant. Also take into account that when the F-22 hit Mach 1.5
they were not even in full military power but using just a portion of
it and the aircraft wanted to go FASTER. Of course I don't recall
them saying how much fuel they were carrying or if they had any
training rounds on board. Obviously there's a big difference between
having six thousand pounds of gas and no training rounds, and
twenty-five thousand pounds of gas and eight missiles.
Paul S. Owen
|On Thu, 6 Jan 2000 14:52:40 -0000, "Paul S. Owen"
|<pa...@callisto.clara.> wrote:
|
|First of all the aritcle he's referring to is only about one year old
hhmm, much of the data referred to by Jon Lake in WAPJ is AFAIK around about
two years old (early to mid 1998). It seems to me the article was 'merely'
filled out with more up to date info in places from previous articles he's
written. Hugh Harkin's book is also 'getting' on somewhat and even BAe
literature and others still sometimes refer to RB.199 equipped DA1 and
DA2's, in fact their 1999 Photo-CD still had plenty of pictures of non-EJ200
equipped DA1 and DA2!
|and they had LOTS of information on the test vehicles flying with the
|EJ200s.
Don't forget that the primary flight trials aircraft are DA1 and DA2, DA3
was the first to gain EJ200's but its role was initially engine integration
tests, not expanding the envelope (in fact its role has _never_ involved
envelope expansion). It was DA1 that first hit M1.9 and DA2 that managed M2
and neither had EJ200's at that time, indeed not till quite recently ...
|It is never stated that they were referring to the RB199
|outfitted aircraft and since they discussed, at length, the aircraft
|with the newer engines it seemed to me they were talking about the
|aircraft with the newer engines. Maybe he has another piece of the
|puzzle; I don't know.
Well DA1 and DA2 were only outfitted with EJ's in the summer of 98.
Following that, DA1 was under going ground trials while DA2 was mainly
concerning itself with flutter trials so I doubt that an awful lot of
'supersonic cruise' trials had been carried out in the time frame of many of
the 'current' articles (very willing to be proven wrong mind and I will also
endeavour to check with my sources and update the website accordingly at
some stage).
|>No, he's saying that given the engines used they were amazed that the
|>aircraft managed what it did. Since then and more so since fitting the
|>EJ200's supercruise has become much more of a core interest according to
all
|>the sources I've read, from Hugh Harkin's book through BAe, MBB and ITP
|>literature (as given on my site).
|
|I think it will be interesting when (if) they get the EJ200 (EJ220?)
|up to 26k like they mentioned.
Well the EJ's can already throw out around 15% more dry thrust in war
setting ... the Stage-1 increase is already well planned for with
significantly more beyond that, so it will indeed be interesting.
|>|He also states
|>|the F-22 is "almost as fast WITH afterburner as without" which makes
|>|it sound like it's slower in afterburner.
|>
|>No he's using common sense which suggests the low BPR and fixed inlets
|>result in a greater amount of total achievable thrust being deliverable
|>without afterburn and thus afterburn resulting in a lower increase in
|>achievable output compared to other powerplants.
|
|I think you misread me.
Yes it would appear so ... however I'm _sure_ he meant that the achievable
max velocity with afterburn isn't significantly greater than that achievable
in a maximum military setting.
|burners. In fact Paul Metz was quoted as saying that burner use will
|be used primarily for acceleration and maintaining speed while
|manuevering hard.
Same as has been said for the the EF, makes sense.
|While we're talking about it it seems to me that if the Eurofighter
|could supercruise with the RB199s the Tornado ADV might be able to
|also. With it's wings swept back it would seem to have less drag than
|Eurofighter. Yes? No?
Well a clean F.3 weighs (IIRC) some 3000 kg more than the Typhoon with a
significantly more 'unclean' surface finish (AFAIK).
Ad Astra
While I respect your opinion, mine differs somewhat.
The quote is Tzu's summarization of his chapter on tactics. He writes of
putting yourself beyond the possibility of defeat, and then accomplishing
said defeat when an opportunity presents itself. Amother quote from the same
paragraph:
"Hence the skillful fighter puts himself in a position that makes defeat
impossible and does not miss the moment for defeating the enemy."
- Sun Tzu, "The Art of War" (Part 4: Tactics) -
The quote (which you mention) from my own copy reads as follows:
"Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after
the victory has been one, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights
and afterward looks for victory."
- Sun Tzu, "The Art of War" (Part 4: Tactics) -
I think, rather, Sun Tzu was speaking on the value of preparation. I relate
this to my job, that of a tactician, in that about 80% of my mission is
preparation, and 20% execution.
I hardly think, however, he was averse to waging war. I don't know the man,
though <grin>, so I can only assume. Kinda makes debating the point moot,
methinks.
Drewe Manton
Ferrin) wrote:
>While we're talking about it it seems to me that if the Eurofighter
>could supercruise with the RB199s the Tornado ADV might be able to
>also. With it's wings swept back it would seem to have less drag than
>Eurofighter. Yes? No?
I would guess twenty years of airframe technology between the two
would mean the Typhoon is considerably more efficient. . . probably
more to do with the "little things" than overall look. Now a Tornado
F-3 with EJ-200. . . <G>
Regards
Drewe
Rama Lama Yip Diddley Aye
Temple of the Green Grass
Deputy TPC barkeep and bottle washer
EB Jet
supercruise requirement for the ATF program?Of course it did. Obviously this
was with a prototype engine as well,since the changes made to the F-119 are
numerous and well documented. The FSD F-22 has surpassed 1.5M several times.Now
the GE F-120 powered YF-23,there's a "supercruiser"............
D. Scott Ferrin
Went something like 1.64 or 1.68 IIRC. I know that was the combo I
was hoping would win.
EB Jet
ft." What a hot rod........
EB Jet
hanging crap under it.I wonder how fast it'll go on the deck with 4 external
JDAMS?
D. Scott Ferrin
Or better yet four 600 gallon tanks.
Urban Fredriksson
Ad Astra <ada...@home.com> wrote:
>> Are you aware that your tagline is an anti-war slogan?
>While I respect your opinion, mine differs somewhat.
>I hardly think, however, he was averse to waging war.
To me it's quite obvious he was, at least compared to
others at the time.
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@canit.se Military aviation: weekly news, Swedish
military aviation and aircraft, the rec.aviation.military FAQ
http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/
Latest updates: Map showing airbase locations, aircraft name pronounciation
Vladimir Malukh
Alex Stoll wrote:
>
> > It still capable to carry an use all of R-77 and R-73
> > missiles. Regarding to dogfight - well, how many
> > "pure figthers" can perform in way Su-32 did on MAKS'99? :)
> I read the only A-A armament the Su-32/34 can carry is two R-73s on the
> outer pylons. Where does it carry R-77s? Can it carry more than two
> R-77s/73s?
Yes, it can, according to the "Aviapanorama" magazine.
At the momet there are three standard versions of pure AA
payload, one is eigt R-27 and R-27E, second includes eight R-77,
an last is combination of 6 R-73 and two electrionics
containers on wing outre pilons.
> > Also very possible that Su-32 will
> > have just AL-41 (not 41F), which will keep weight, still
> > produce supercruise ability.
>
> What's the difference between the -41 and the -41F? I've never heard of just
> a -41 before.
Al-41 has no afterburner at all, this allows to make it lighter.
Still at this time it's only "rumors" :)
--
Vladimir Malukh Novosibirsk, Russia
-----------------------------------------
Vladimir Malukh
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>
> Confusingly, Mach 1.0 is not necessarily supersonic - truly supersonic
> flight, as I understand it, is when the airflow around the aircraft is
> wholly supersonic with no pockets of transonic airflow, which is
> somewhere above 1.0 .
In that case even MiG-25 is not supersonic - it has
few "pockets" wuth certainly transonic flow. Not sure
about SR-71. :)
Also 1.5M is not the level when we can be 100% sure of
complete supersonic flow too.
So, to me, the correct definition of supercruise
shall be "sustained cruise at speed above M1.0".
All the rest - just specualtion (use/not use a/b,
1.4 or 1.5M and so on). Did for example X-15
supercruise? Almost 80% of flight time it
flew with highly supersonic speed, wasn't it? :):)
Vladimir Malukh
Mary Shafer wrote:
>
>
> To supercruise, which is to cruise supersonically without afterburner,
> it's necessary that the plane be flying supersonically and that means
> that it must be at a Mach number where all the flow is supersonic,
> meaning at or above Mach 1.4.
Mary, this is very depending to particular airframe configuration.
I 100% sure, that even on Mach 2 MiG-25 (and 31 too) has
"transonic pockets" (not too many though). So what - it
isn't supersonic flight?
> Again, just a definition.
Yes, agree, BTW introduced by military guys :), who have
very little to do with aerodynamics.
D. Scott Ferrin
wrote:
SuperCRUSING implies maintaining supersonic speed for more than a
couple minutes. The Blackbird was certainly a "supercruiser" however
not in the sense that supercruising means today because it used
afterburner to maintain it's speed. So though there are aircraft that
could maintain supersonic speed for extended times in burner (
Blackbird, Mig-25, Mig-31, XB-70 etc.) they are not considered
"supercruisers". As far as what speed is considered "supercruising" I
think a lot of the discussion we've been hearing is crap. Nobody
cares if the air over part of the airframe is transonic.
"Supercruise" was probably coined by a marketing agency anyway.
Personally I think the way it should be defined is: 1. What speed is
Mach 1 at altitude? 2. Was the airframe traveling through the air
faster than this? Whether or not some of the air over the airframe is
being dragged along, thus making it flow at only transonic speed,
doesn't mean shit as far as how much distance the airframe covers. Do
you hear them say "The nose of the F-22 supercruised today. The rest
of the airframe didn't." Why not? Did the rest of the airframe stay
home?
Damien Burke
wrote:
>I 100% sure, that even on Mach 2 MiG-25 (and 31 too) has
>"transonic pockets" (not too many though). So what - it
>isn't supersonic flight?
A simple question then, as I am somewhat confused.
If an aircraft arrives at a point before a noise initiated from where it
is right now, it is travelling faster than sound and therefore
supersonic, is it not? So how can these 'pockets' have any effect on the
definition of mach 1 being the speed of sound???
--
Damien Burke (add 'k' to end of address if replying)
British military aircraft site: http://www.totavia.com/jetman/
Alex Stoll
supercruise, if everyone agrees it's stupid (well, maybe not stupid, but
still pointless IMO) to use Mach 1.5 for supercruise... who thinks it makes
sense? Reply if you do, and please tell my why... I mean, supercruise stands
for supersonic cruise, which means cruising above Mach 1 (unless the
definition of supersonic has changed too?) w/o AB.
--
Alex Stoll
N2...@hotmail.com
http://AlexStoll.cjb.net
http://www.robotgroup.org/lubbock/futureframe.htm
AIM - N22YF
Alex Stoll
> apache, cheaper than a Rafale, or F15F, and within a hairs breath of a
I didn't know hairs could breath... <g>
> Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy.
I know, just felt like pointing that out...
Alex Stoll
> and it's not my intention to belittle the accomplishment. It's just
> that it's not supercruising. I like the term "spiffingcruise", so
> let's define that as meaning high transonic cruise without
> afterburner. Do you think it'll catch on?
Maybe its definition can be above Mach 1 IAS without AB.
--
buf...@thisaddress.com
and closer to magic bullet territory. There is rumor, they want to
close three more bases to pay for the 2-300 F-22's they say they need.
I'm retired AF and even I think it's silly.
Kerryn Offord
Damien Burke wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> A simple question then, as I am somewhat confused.
>
> If an aircraft arrives at a point before a noise initiated from where it
> is right now, it is travelling faster than sound and therefore
> supersonic, is it not? So how can these 'pockets' have any effect on the
> definition of mach 1 being the speed of sound???
> --
The following statement has no facts to support it, based on my
interpretation of the thread:
An aircraft with a true(?) airspeed of Mach 1 is supersonic.
But, small areas of airflow over the airframe may be travelling at less
than Mach 1 causing vortices etc. that contribute drag, increasing fuel
consumption. Making supersonic speeds expensive (fuel wise) to maintain.
At supercruise, all airflow is supersonic, reducing drag from vortices.
Making supersonic cruise viable.
Any qualified corrections welcomed.
Kerryn Offord
"D. Scott Ferrin" wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> SuperCRUSING implies maintaining supersonic speed for more than a
> couple minutes. The Blackbird was certainly a "supercruiser" however
> not in the sense that supercruising means today because it used
> afterburner to maintain it's speed. So though there are aircraft that
> could maintain supersonic speed for extended times in burner (
> Blackbird, Mig-25, Mig-31, XB-70 etc.) they are not considered
> "supercruisers". As far as what speed is considered "supercruising" I
> think a lot of the discussion we've been hearing is crap.
A thought. When it is said that F-22 supercruises at Mach 1.5 could it
be that this is the highest supersonic speed (mach number) the F-22
can maintain without AB? Rather than a definition of what supercruise
is?
If we accept this, then there is no problem with aircraft supercruising
at any point from Mach 1. It becomes a case of how fast can you cruise
just like Sports car vs Sports car (say Jaguar XKR vs Ferrari).
D. Scott Ferrin
<ka...@its.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>
>"D. Scott Ferrin" wrote:
>>
><SNIP>
>> SuperCRUSING implies maintaining supersonic speed for more than a
>> couple minutes. The Blackbird was certainly a "supercruiser" however
>> not in the sense that supercruising means today because it used
>> afterburner to maintain it's speed. So though there are aircraft that
>> could maintain supersonic speed for extended times in burner (
>> Blackbird, Mig-25, Mig-31, XB-70 etc.) they are not considered
>> "supercruisers". As far as what speed is considered "supercruising" I
>> think a lot of the discussion we've been hearing is crap.
>
>A thought. When it is said that F-22 supercruises at Mach 1.5 could it
> be that this is the highest supersonic speed (mach number) the F-22
>can maintain without AB? Rather than a definition of what supercruise
>is?
It's not. When the F-22 hit Mach 1.5 it wasn't even in full military
power and in fact wanted to go faster.
EB Jet
Paul S. Owen
|
|SuperCRUSING implies maintaining supersonic speed for more than a
|couple minutes.
Addendum, "maintaining supersonic velocities without recourse to afterburn
to maintain said velocity" ... ? (as pretty much said in the next part ...)
|"supercruisers". As far as what speed is considered "supercruising" I
|think a lot of the discussion we've been hearing is crap. Nobody
|cares if the air over part of the airframe is transonic.
Well that's not strictly true, it _is_ important. However it's also going to
be variable from aircraft to aircraft, let alone type to type I suspect.
Since most current aircraft (AFAIK) cruise at a max of around M0.9 any
'next' generation aircraft (be it the Typhoon, F-22, Gripen, Rafale) capable
of sustaining in excess of M1.0 with a realistic combat load already has a
tactical advantage. If it's in excess of M1.1 they've a >20% advantage ...
that is, in my mind the thing to remember and the most important aspect of
all of this. Whether they manage M1.2, M1.3 or even M1.8 indicates
improvements in that advantage but it doesn't detract from the underlying
fact that they are doing something most current aircraft cannot.
Vladimir Malukh
Damien Burke wrote:
>
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2000 17:38:10 +0600, Vladimir Malukh <b...@propro.ru>
> wrote:
>
> >I 100% sure, that even on Mach 2 MiG-25 (and 31 too) has
> >"transonic pockets" (not too many though). So what - it
> >isn't supersonic flight?
>
> A simple question then, as I am somewhat confused.
>
> If an aircraft arrives at a point before a noise initiated from where it
> is right now, it is travelling faster than sound and therefore
> supersonic, is it not? So how can these 'pockets' have any effect on the
> definition of mach 1 being the speed of sound???
The point is that speed of the sound is very depending
of the gas (air in our particular case) temperature
and dencity. When people say that a/c flies with Mach 1,
it means that its speed is equal to speed of the sound in
undisturbed air on that altitude and teperature. Though on
some local parts of the a/c airflow is performed
with dofferent speed and ( especially in case of high
subsonic, transonis and supresonic speeds of flight)
and dencity. So on some areas airflow can be actually
subsonic. And, in opposite way, when a/c flies
high subsoinc, on local areas can be already
supersonic airflow. All this is the reason why
transient condition (from subsonic to supersonic)
is so unstable - airflow picture is very complex.
Vladimir Malukh
>
> SuperCRUSING implies maintaining supersonic speed for more than a
> not in the sense that supercruising means today because it used
> afterburner to maintain it's speed.
Regarding to SR-71 it hard to say, since engine perfoms
more like ramjet rather than regular afterburner.
> So though there are aircraft that
> could maintain supersonic speed for extended times in burner (
> Blackbird, Mig-25, Mig-31, XB-70 etc.) they are not considered
> "supercruisers". As far as what speed is considered "supercruising" I
> think a lot of the discussion we've been hearing is crap. Nobody
> cares if the air over part of the airframe is transonic.
> "Supercruise" was probably coined by a marketing agency anyway.
Owned by LM perhaps :)
> Personally I think the way it should be defined is: 1. What speed is
> Mach 1 at altitude? 2. Was the airframe traveling through the air
> faster than this?
Quite agree - I think this definition is most accurate from
point of view of 100 years of aerodynamics science.
D. Scott Ferrin
<pa...@callisto.clara.> wrote:
>D. Scott Ferrin wrote in message <387aa80...@news.xmission.com>...
>|
>|SuperCRUSING implies maintaining supersonic speed for more than a
>|couple minutes.
>
>Addendum, "maintaining supersonic velocities without recourse to afterburn
>to maintain said velocity" ... ? (as pretty much said in the next part ...)
>
>|"supercruisers". As far as what speed is considered "supercruising" I
>|think a lot of the discussion we've been hearing is crap. Nobody
>|cares if the air over part of the airframe is transonic.
>
>Well that's not strictly true, it _is_ important. However it's also going to
>be variable from aircraft to aircraft, let alone type to type I suspect.
If airplane A and airplane B both cover the same amount of distance in
the same time what difference does it make if one of them has some
transonic flow in a few areas? You could argue that it isn't as
aerodynamically efficient but then that isn't what we're discussing.
We're discussing speed not efficiency that's why I think a lot of this
discussion is crap.
D. Scott Ferrin
wrote:
>"D. Scott Ferrin" wrote:
>>
>> SuperCRUSING implies maintaining supersonic speed for more than a
>> couple minutes. The Blackbird was certainly a "supercruiser" however
>> not in the sense that supercruising means today because it used
>> afterburner to maintain it's speed.
>
>Regarding to SR-71 it hard to say, since engine perfoms
>more like ramjet rather than regular afterburner.
>
Speaking of this I often wondered what the hell a "dual combustion
ramjet" was and then it occured to me that it's probably an
afterburning ramjet. In the case of the SR-71 though a lot of the air
is piped around the combustion section and fed into the afterburner
there is still airflow through the combusiton area and turbine section
so it would be more accurately referred to as a turbo ramjet. I think
this could be argued several ways though because some would say a
turbo ramjet is an engine which converts completely to ramjet mode.
Okay the then maybe the J58s are "turbocharged ramjets" or maybe
"supercharged turbojets". Who knows? Who cares? In any case the
Blackbird still cruised at supersonic speeds albeit with afterburners.
Vladimir Malukh
"D. Scott Ferrin" wrote:
> >Regarding to SR-71 it hard to say, since engine perfoms
> >more like ramjet rather than regular afterburner.
> >
>
> Speaking of this I often wondered what the hell a "dual combustion
> ramjet" was and then it occured to me that it's probably an
> afterburning ramjet. In the case of the SR-71 though a lot of the air
> is piped around the combustion section and fed into the afterburner
> there is still airflow through the combusiton area and turbine section
> so it would be more accurately referred to as a turbo ramjet.
My guess (guess only -I have no facts in hands) that
SRs turbines are on on cruise just to keep them
ready. As far as I remeber their contribution into
the thrust is around 10% or even less. So, logically
it's hard to name AFTERburners it just common term.
> I think
> this could be argued several ways though because some would say a
> turbo ramjet is an engine which converts completely to ramjet mode.
> Okay the then maybe the J58s are "turbocharged ramjets" or maybe
> "supercharged turbojets". Who knows? Who cares? In any case the
> Blackbird still cruised at supersonic speeds albeit with afterburners.
Being boring I'd say "it can not supercruise without them" :)
Anyway - the whole talsk is evry depending to
agreed defenitions and therefore I wouldn't
aven call my statement as "argument" pro or contra.
So lets agree :)
Mike Tighe
wrote:
>So, uh... maybe we can "officially" change the newsgroup's definition of
>supercruise, if everyone agrees it's stupid (well, maybe not stupid, but
>still pointless IMO) to use Mach 1.5 for supercruise... who thinks it makes
>sense? Reply if you do, and please tell my why... I mean, supercruise stands
>for supersonic cruise, which means cruising above Mach 1 (unless the
>definition of supersonic has changed too?) w/o AB.
I absolutely promise you that the first time I read the term
'supercruise' (unfortunately, so long ago that I couldn't track down
and cite a source) it was implicit that it meant achieving and
maintaining supersonic speed in level flight without the use of
afterburners.
Now, if I was a cynic, I would say that as soon as anyone in the
megajet marketing division realised that that feat was actually done
quite some time ago (as discussed here many times over the years), you
have to set about tieing it to some gee-whizz round figure that your
aircraft can do and someone else's can't.
It may be that in popular use it *does* now mean cruising at Mach 1.5,
even if (for argument's sake and using the currently popular
definition) you had to use a booster rocket to get through the
transonic range <g>. But nowadays, just about every time I hear
'supercruise', a pedantic corner of my psyche automatically goes
'Grrrrr!'....
--
Mike Tighe
Speaking from the bottom left
hand corner of the big picture.
H.E.C
> 'supercruise' (unfortunately, so long ago that I couldn't track down
> and cite a source) it was implicit that it meant achieving and
> maintaining supersonic speed in level flight without the use of
> afterburners.
Me, too. that's what I thought.
><Snip>
> It may be that in popular use it *does* now mean cruising at Mach 1.5,
> even if (for argument's sake and using the currently popular
> definition) you had to use a booster rocket to get through the
> transonic range <g>. But nowadays, just about every time I hear
> 'supercruise', a pedantic corner of my psyche automatically goes
> 'Grrrrr!'....
I wonder what definition NASA has given Supercruise? Any NASA folks? Mary?
Herbal
------
When in doubt, Charlie out.
Paul S. Owen
|
|If airplane A and airplane B both cover the same amount of distance in
|the same time what difference does it make if one of them has some
|transonic flow in a few areas? You could argue that it isn't as
|aerodynamically efficient but then that isn't what we're discussing.
|We're discussing speed not efficiency that's why I think a lot of this
|discussion is crap.
I think you misunderstand me slightly ... from an engineering/aerodynamic
point of view the difference between fully developed supersonic flow and
transonic flow _is_ an important boundary since it coincides (if my fluid
dynamics is recalled correctly?!) with a reduction in drag.
However I've been saying on this group for _two years+_ that it's the
_tactical_ advantage that I personally see as important and that I believed
(as I've said at least once more in this thread) M1.5 was chosen simply
because it was thought achievable and met an LM/Pentagon target (go look
through some of my 'discussions' with Carlo et al). Thus the term
'supercruising' to me, by simple and most realistic definition implies
cruising at supersonic velocities be it M1.01 or M2.0.
D. Scott Ferrin
\
Mary's already given her opinion in the other thread.
D. Scott Ferrin
<pa...@callisto.clara.> wrote:
>D. Scott Ferrin wrote in message <387a66b8...@news.xmission.com>...
>|
>|If airplane A and airplane B both cover the same amount of distance in
>|the same time what difference does it make if one of them has some
>|transonic flow in a few areas? You could argue that it isn't as
>|aerodynamically efficient but then that isn't what we're discussing.
>|We're discussing speed not efficiency that's why I think a lot of this
>|discussion is crap.
>
>I think you misunderstand me slightly ... from an engineering/aerodynamic
>point of view the difference between fully developed supersonic flow and
>transonic flow _is_ an important boundary since it coincides (if my fluid
>dynamics is recalled correctly?!) with a reduction in drag.
Which is what I said: "You could argue that it isn't as
aerodynamically efficient but then that isn't what we're discussing."
>
>However I've been saying on this group for _two years+_ that it's the
>_tactical_ advantage that I personally see as important and that I believed
>(as I've said at least once more in this thread) M1.5 was chosen simply
>because it was thought achievable and met an LM/Pentagon target (go look
>through some of my 'discussions' with Carlo et al). Thus the term
>'supercruising' to me, by simple and most realistic definition implies
>cruising at supersonic velocities be it M1.01 or M2.0.
The air force guy in charge of the program said flat out the reason
they chose 1.5 is that it's a nice round number and nobody else can do
it.
Mary Shafer
> D. Scott Ferrin wrote in message <387a66b8...@news.xmission.com>...
> |
> |If airplane A and airplane B both cover the same amount of distance in
> |the same time what difference does it make if one of them has some
> |transonic flow in a few areas? You could argue that it isn't as
> |aerodynamically efficient but then that isn't what we're discussing.
> |We're discussing speed not efficiency that's why I think a lot of this
> |discussion is crap.
> I think you misunderstand me slightly ... from an
> engineering/aerodynamic point of view the difference between fully
> developed supersonic flow and transonic flow _is_ an important
> boundary since it coincides (if my fluid dynamics is recalled
> correctly?!) with a reduction in drag.
Exactly--the "sound barrier" was the drag rise that started when
transonic flow began and stopped when it ended. You can see a nice
little hump in the drag (as well as a lot of other parameters)
beginning somewhere around 0.8-0.9 and ending somewhere around 1.1-1.3
that shows why supercruise works. The whole point of supercruise (as
commonly demonstrated by Concorde) is that once the plane gets through
the transonic region into supersonic flight the drag goes down, often
to not much more than what it was when flying high subsonic. That
means that the afterburner isn't needed to maintain that airspeed.
And that means that the aircraft has a greater range at supersonic
speeds. No one wants to cruise in the transonic region because the
elevated drag is burning more fuel, incidentally. Rather, cruise is
more economical ourside the transonic region and range is increased.
That's also why the definition doesn't depend on whether afterburner
is required to get through the transonic region, so long as it isn't
required in the supersonic region. The definition doesn't depend on
the absence of take-off afterburner, either, as that doesn't say
anything about supersonic capability.
All supercruise means is that drag drops enough from transonic to
supersonic that afterburner isn't required to cruise supersonic.
People keep mentioning the SR-71 when discussing this topic, but doing
so is a snare and a delusion. The SR-71 engine is not a conventional
turbojet with afterburner, but a combined turbojet and ramjet. The
SR-71 does, indeed, cruise with fuel being burned behind the engine,
but it's not really in afterburner because the air that it's using to
burn that fuel mostly doesn't come through the engine. The difference
may appear minor, but it's really major enough that we'll all be
better off if we ignore that airplane in this discussion.
--
Mary Shafer http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
Lead Handling Qualities Engineer, SR-71/LASRE
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
For non-aerospace mail, use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com please
H.E.C
> One more time--it's aerodynamics and definitions. It's subsonic
> flight if all the flow is subsonic, transonic flight if some of the
> flow is subsonic and some is supersonic, and supersonic flight if all
> the flow is supersonic.
Mary, I'm trying to follow you here. All airflow must be supersonic.
Does this mean all airflow over all parts of the aircraft (ie. nose
to tail) or does it mean supersonic flow from leading to trailing
edge of control surfaces?
>
> While the Mach number at which some flow can be supersonic has been
> documented is as low as 0.5 Mach, the usual number for the beginning
> of transonic flow is 0.8. Similarly, some aircraft aren't completely
> supersonic until Mach 2 or even higher, but the usual number for the
> end of transonic flight is 1.4.
does the higher supersonic number for a given aircraft have to do
with wing cord, wing sweep, or just overall length of the aircraft?
Does the length of the SR-71 have anything to do with its ability
to reach such high speeds?
> To supercruise, which is to cruise supersonically without afterburner,
> it's necessary that the plane be flying supersonically and that means
> that it must be at a Mach number where all the flow is supersonic,
> meaning at or above Mach 1.4.
So is Mach 1.4 the "industry standard" for supercruise in absence of
better data?
> Of course, if it's proven that all the flow is supersonic at 1.3 for
> the Eurofighter, then it is indeed supercruising at 1.3. However, I
> don't believe any such proof exists. In its absence, then, the 1.4
> that's accepted as the boundary means that it's not supercruising at
> 1.3.
Does the curve for energy required to maintain these transonic speeds
decrease above a certain point (ie. mach stem behind aerodynamic center)
or some other such point on the wing or aircraft?
Sorry for all the questions, but it seems to me that you're the
aero expert here.
Herbal
Mike Tighe
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:34:16 +0000, Mike Tighe <mik...@dircon.co.uk>
rashly wrote a message that included the following as part of an
opinionated rant:
>I absolutely promise you that the first time I read the term
>'supercruise' (unfortunately, so long ago that I couldn't track down
>and cite a source) it was implicit that it meant achieving and
>maintaining supersonic speed in level flight without the use of
>afterburners.
I had a humbling experience today - I should know better than to wake
up in a ratty mood and then post in a hurry before rushing out...
I just looked up a tatty old 1980 copy of 'Jane's Aerospace
Dictionary' which way predates my earliest recollection of the term,
and the definition of 'supercruise' at *that* time doesn't actually
specify the lack of afterburner in the achievement of supersonic
speed....
Of course, having admitted my gaffe, I have to say that I *am*
confident that at some stage it did pass through *my* favourite
definition on its way to the currently accepted M1.5 or whatever you
all want to say it is. 20 years ago there was no arbitrary Mach
number qualifier set on 'supersonic' either.
While I am moaning and feeling that I need to justify myself, looking
elsewhere in the dictionary, it also seems that 20 years ago,
'transonic' covered M0.8 to M1.2, rather than the higher numbers I
have seen bandied about here recently. Oh, well, it seems that
everything really *is* bigger and better in the US aerospace
industry...!
That etymology, and the changes in the meanings of words as popular
usage grabs them, is just as wayward in a scientific/engineering arena
like aerospace as it is in the outside world, is a bit of a surprise.
I don't know whether I am comforted, though!
Regards, as ever, to all here
Mary Shafer
> While I am moaning and feeling that I need to justify myself, looking
> elsewhere in the dictionary, it also seems that 20 years ago,
> 'transonic' covered M0.8 to M1.2, rather than the higher numbers I
> have seen bandied about here recently. Oh, well, it seems that
> everything really *is* bigger and better in the US aerospace
> industry...!
I had always used 0.8 to 1.2 until informed by a British aerospace
researcher that it was at least 1.3 and maybe more. Don't blame the
US industry.
> That etymology, and the changes in the meanings of words as popular
> usage grabs them, is just as wayward in a scientific/engineering arena
> like aerospace as it is in the outside world, is a bit of a surprise.
> I don't know whether I am comforted, though!
Some of the disagreement is, I think, like the use of the term
"depression" in psychiatry and in common speech. "I'm depressed"
means "I'm sad" in common speech and "I've got a serotonin reuptake
imbalance in my brain" in psychiatric speech. So people who think
they're talking common speech say "Cheer up, and count your blessings"
and the people who think they're talking psychiatric speech say "Try
this serotonin reuptake changing drug", but the drug doesn't help the
person who is a little sad and the advice doesn't help the person with
the imbalance. Obviously, the professionals need a new term for
depression, because there's so much confusion and people talking past
each other. Supposedly, the difference between lay and professional
understanding of "manic depressive" is why the shrinks changed the
name to "bipolar disorder".
I, being a professional, care greatly about subsonic versus transonic
versus supersonic flow, whereas someone who just wonders if the
airplane's going to make a boom doesn't care at all. But on this
particular subject, everyone in the "will it make a boom" group needs
to understand the "what's the flow like" group to make sense of the
issue. They don't have to believe it, or agree with it, but they do
have to understand why it matters.
Alex Stoll
> But, small areas of airflow over the airframe may be travelling at less
> than Mach 1 causing vortices etc. that contribute drag, increasing fuel
> consumption. Making supersonic speeds expensive (fuel wise) to maintain.
It makes a little more sense now...
But you have to be going over Mach 1 to be going supersonic. Mach 1 is just
sonic or something. Could you say you were going "sonic?" Maybe only if all
the air around the aircraft was going exactly Mach 1?