F22, F23 top speeds
Harold Henriksen
superlaminar flow but does anyone know how fast these planes can go
using afterburners?
Albion H. Bowers
Nothing to do with laminar flow, and the two aircraft in question are the
YF-22 and YF-23. Specifically, it is called supercruise. The YF-22 was
maxed out at Mach 1.58 in full military power. It is reported in the press
that the YF-23 was marginally faster, but the actual number remains
proprietary and/or classified, so it cannot be discussed here.
Note that Gruman took a stock F-14+ (or D, I can't recall now) removed the
long range optics from under the nose, went supersonic in AB and then
selected mil power. The F-14 stabilized out at Mach 1.08, impressive.
--
Al Bowers DOD #900 Alfa Ducati Hobie Kottke 'blad Iaido
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Dryden Flight Research Facility
Lead Aero F-18 HARV Chief Engineer SR-71 work: bow...@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov
"Take up an attitude with the sun behind you..." -Miyamoto Musashi
David Bonorden
> long range optics from under the nose, went supersonic in AB and then
> selected mil power. The F-14 stabilized out at Mach 1.08, impressive.
>
> --
> Al Bowers DOD #900 Alfa Ducati Hobie Kottke 'blad Iaido
>
that F-15 and F-16 can exceed Mach in cruise using mil power with the
latest engines installed (PW-229?). I never could keep the names
straight between the ongoing engine upgrades for the GE & Pratt engines
for the current fighters and the new engine development for the YF-22/23.
-Dave Bonorden
hong liang
>I know the F22 and 23 can fly supersonic without afterburners using
>superlaminar flow but does anyone know how fast these planes can go
>using afterburners?
he wouldn't tell me anything about it. I guess it is still a secret.
Mike Campbell
>
>
> In a previous article, vik...@bnr.ca (Harold Henriksen) says:
>
> >I know the F22 and 23 can fly supersonic without afterburners using
> >superlaminar flow but does anyone know how fast these planes can go
> >using afterburners?
>
> Nothing to do with laminar flow, and the two aircraft in question are the
> YF-22 and YF-23. Specifically, it is called supercruise. The YF-22 was
> maxed out at Mach 1.58 in full military power. It is reported in the press
> that the YF-23 was marginally faster, but the actual number remains
> proprietary and/or classified, so it cannot be discussed here.
>
> Note that Gruman took a stock F-14+ (or D, I can't recall now) removed the
> long range optics from under the nose, went supersonic in AB and then
> selected mil power. The F-14 stabilized out at Mach 1.08, impressive.
To answer the question - they don't have afterburnerssfitted, so it's
an academic "what-if" question.
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mi...@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz
Albion H. Bowers
In a previous article, mi...@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) says:
>In article <22k5km$d...@news.ysu.edu> ak...@yfn.ysu.edu writes:
> > In a previous article, vik...@bnr.ca (Harold Henriksen) says:
> > >I know the F22 and 23 can fly supersonic without afterburners using
> > >superlaminar flow but does anyone know how fast these planes can go
> > >using afterburners?
> > Nothing to do with laminar flow, and the two aircraft in question are the
> > YF-22 and YF-23. Specifically, it is called supercruise. The YF-22 was
> > maxed out at Mach 1.58 in full military power. It is reported in the press
> > that the YF-23 was marginally faster, but the actual number remains
> > proprietary and/or classified, so it cannot be discussed here.
>To answer the question - they don't have afterburnerssfitted, so it's
>an academic "what-if" question.
Sorry, I misread the question. They _DO_ have AB and both aircraft were
limited to a top end of Mach 2.35. This was due to temp and structural
limits on the canopies. Final design of the canopy of the _F-22_ is not
complete (remember, the planes that have flown are YF prototypes), so the
final number may well differ. In fact, I anticipate that it will be moved
up to Mach 2.5, same as the F-15...
Dick Smith
>performance of the YF-22 and YF23 aircraft. He mentions supercruise
>(without afterburners) and then wonders about the speed with them.
mi...@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) writes:
>To answer the question - they don't have afterburnerssfitted, so it's
>an academic "what-if" question.
You're confused. Both *do* (or rather, either did or will, since
neither plane exactly exists at the moment) have afterburners.
I was at an Association of Old Crows meeting (just before the decision
between the two aircraft) where the YF-23 test pilots gave a talk.
While a number of details were discussed (no, I wasn't taking notes!),
I do remember that the top speed of the plane was shown on the briefing
charts as "very fast".
--
Dick Smith di...@smith.chi.il.us
Jacquelin Aldridge
>>In article <22k5km$d...@news.ysu.edu> ak...@yfn.ysu.edu writes about the
>>performance of the YF-22 and YF23 aircraft. He mentions supercruise
>>(without afterburners) and then wonders about the speed with them.
I Can't possibly be even close to right on this so I won't try!
>mi...@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) writes:
>>To answer the question - they don't have afterburnerssfitted, so it's
>>an academic "what-if" question.
As for this...This person is wrong They were built with AFTERBURNERS
That includes the Versions of both with the G.E. Engines AND the Prat &
Whittney engines.
>You're confused. Both *do* (or rather, either did or will, since
>neither plane exactly exists at the moment) have afterburners.
Wrong,They both exist in total there were four built, The two YF-23s
have been mothballed and placed in the compound were my FATHER works.
As for the YF-22 with the G.E. engines I don't know what its fate was.
Then there is the F-22 (The Design Purchased by the AirForce.) with the
Pratt & Whittney engines.This ship had an unfortunate accident at Edwards
where it was continuing testing & evaluation. Some problem came up and
before the pilot knew what had happened the aircraft was on the dry lakebed
flat on its belly ,and on fire.Fortunatly they were able to save most of
the airplane, then fix and reconstruct what was still in need of repair.
Now that that is done with I'm not to sure exactly what they are doing with
it at this time, but they are probably still testing and evaluating it!!!
John Carver
>To answer the question - they don't have afterburnerssfitted, so it's
>an academic "what-if" question.
Sorry, this is incorrect. They both have afterburners with both sets
of fitted engines. (There were 4 total combinations: 2 planes, 2
engines - all possible combinations have afterburners).
The _non_afterburning speed of the F-22 is reported to be around Mach
1.5 or a little bit faster according to an aviation journal I read. If
true that is very fast. I didn't see an altitude attached to that
speed - it makes a big difference, of course. I assume it was
something like 30000 or 40000 feet, but unlike many posters here, I
don't know, so I won't state it as fact.
The afterburning speed is probably something where everyone who knows
is not talking and everyone who is talking doesn't know. I did read
one report in which an F-22 under full burner in level flight
"accelerated away from" a chase-plane which was an F-15 which had
topped out at a bit over Mach 2.2. I will guess the F-22 has an
afterburning speed of around Mach 2.3 to 2.5 at 40 Kft, but it is
simply that, a guess. (I have also read that the F-15 has a
"dash speed" of around Mach 2.5, but that this isn't very good for
the aircraft and can't be maintained - dunno if this is true).
John
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Ben Giddings
In a previous article, aldr...@netcom.com (Jacquelin Aldridge) says:
>Wrong,They both exist in total there were four built, The two YF-23s
>have been mothballed and placed in the compound were my FATHER works.
Hey dad, can I borrow the...
|:-)
--