Eurofighter M1.5 Supercruise?.
John Cook
Propulsion details regarding M1.5 supercruise, now someone definately
owes me a beer...
http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html
Sensor details on AMSAR and CAPTOR Resolution.
http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/sensors.html
cheers
John Cook
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.
Email Address :- Jwc...@ozemail.com.au
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk
Ken Duffey
news:enbb9u8cuo5so47ns...@4ax.com...
If it isn't designed and built in the USA - it can't supercruise !!
Didn't you know that ?
Ken
None
>
> Didn't you know that ?
Cute, in that disingenuous swipe kind of way, but of all the debates that
have raged around EF supercruise in this newsgroup, precious little if any
of it was to ever deny that the Eurofighter can, indeed, cruise mach+
without afterburners.
Denyav
Fitted with powerful enough engines even a Greyhound bus can "fly"
supersonic.Supercruise is a mainly marketing term.
Denyav
>owes me a beer...
>
So,Eurofighter too can "fly" supersonic w/o AB,but how far?.
Mycroft
by this definition artillery shells etc. have it! lol
Myc
John Cook
Are we reading the same newsgroup?, the debate ranged from' theres no
evidence that the typhoon can supercruise' to 'ah! but it can fly at
M1.4 without AB - but thats not supercruise......'
When statements were released that the Typhoon could fly at M1.1 with
the original test engines, people said 'I doubt it', or thats
transo-cruise (spiffing cruise) then when the Ej200 were being tested
and statemenst like 'it can super cruise well over M1. were released
people said ah thats only M1.2 and it can only do it for a few
seconds...."
Then Bill Sweetman said it can Supercruise at M1.3 and they said 'Bill
sweetman' he's a bit of a nutter (I'm paraphrasing here).
Then M1.4 was mentioned... now M1.5
Do a Google search on 'Eurofighter supercruise' and read up on full
supersonic airflow around an airframe (it fully proves that only the
F22 can supercruise;-)).
even if the Typhoon could fly faster without AB the i'm sure the
definitiuon of supercruise would be changed to 'an aircraft that can
fly at M1.5 or greater without AB whos name starts with an F and ends
in 22'
Now wheres my Beer that certain people owe me...
cheers
!.
L'acrobat
"Mycroft" <my.PO...@virgin.POOnet> wrote in message
news:a75hlb$29p$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> If whatever it is can fly supersonic without re-heat that is super-cruise,
> by this definition artillery shells etc. have it! lol
That rather reminds me of the old National Lampoon joke-
"Recently American scientists proved that kittens can survive underwater,
but not for very long..."
robert arndt
Not very far at all. The Typhoon has a typical range of 345 miles
which can be extended to 620 miles with aux. fuel tanks. Although its
claimed max.speed is roughly Mach 2.0-2.2, it has almost no
supercruise ability in any combat configuration. Every reference book
I have on the Typhoon mentions "limited" supercruise with absolutely
no definition of the word in terms of speed or time.
It is hoped that future engine upgrades will solve that problem, but
right now it is safe to say that the Typhoon has no significant
supercruise ability when compared with the F-22.
Rob
Simon Robbins
> i'm sure the
> definitiuon of supercruise would be changed to 'an aircraft that can
> fly at M1.5 or greater without AB whos name starts with an F and ends
> in 22'
There's an article in Aviation Week that airs concerns in the USAF that the
F-22's getting heavier every day and concerns about it's eventual
performance that it might not even be able to supercruise either..
Si
Paul J. Adam
arndt <teut...@aol.com> writes
>It is hoped that future engine upgrades will solve that problem, but
>right now it is safe to say that the Typhoon has no significant
>supercruise ability when compared with the F-22.
How far can an operational F-22 actually supercruise?
(Safe question - them as answer don't know, them as know can't answer :)
)
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
John Cook
> > So,Eurofighter too can "fly" supersonic w/o AB,but how far?.
>
> Not very far at all. The Typhoon has a typical range of 345 miles
> which can be extended to 620 miles with aux. fuel tanks. Although its
> claimed max.speed is roughly Mach 2.0-2.2, it has almost no
> supercruise ability in any combat configuration. Every reference book
> I have on the Typhoon mentions "limited" supercruise with absolutely
> no definition of the word in terms of speed or time.
Almost every reference you have must be outdated, the distance which
the Typhoon can fly in supercruise is classified information, however
you can work somethings out.
The EJ200's SFC is in the order of 23g/kN.s and Max dry thrust on
present engine is 60kN. (1.38kg of fuel each second for one engine,
2.76kg for both)
The internal fuel load of the DA Typhoon's is 4996 kg.
4996 kg divided by 2.76 and divided by 60 gives about 30 mins of
supercruise (usual caveat on engine endurance), this is the maximum
speed and the lowest endurance time wise.
Now if you knew at what thrust setting the Typhoon could _just_
supercruise at,
you could work out how long its supercruise performance is!, IIRC the
much lower powered RB199 engined Eurofighter could go supersonic on
one engine, you work it out ;-)
>
> It is hoped that future engine upgrades will solve that problem,
problem?. What type of Engine upgrade?. the 15% improved thrust or the
30% one, or do you have some other 'upgrade' in mind.
>but
> right now it is safe to say that the Typhoon has no significant
> supercruise ability when compared with the F-22.
Hmmmm. whats the F22 capability?, how fast for how long..... is it
M1.6 for 20 seconds or M1.1 for an hour?, go-on tell me ;-) I'd love
to compare them, really I would.
>
> Rob
None
> M1.6 for 20 seconds or M1.1 for an hour?, go-on tell me ;-) I'd love
> to compare them, really I would.
I just can't imagine how with all of our technology and money, America has
staked its claim on an F-22 which is clearly little better than what the
Europeans are already offering in many respects, and will be overtaken by
the likes of the even the Chinese a before the final Raptor enters service.
Just amazing.
(Or maybe I should pay less attention to newsgroups and Chinese military fan
sites on the net.)
Denyav
>F-22's getting heavier every day and concerns about it's eventual
>performance that it might not even be able to supercruise either..
Wow this should be another ground testing attempt.
Yes pre historic bird getting heavier day by day but it is weight should still
be within limits.
Main problem of f22 is its superior maneuverability criterias.
Let me explain :
Airplanes optimized for high speed cruises have also high L/D
ratios(Concorde,B58,SR71,XB70 etc),But planes optimized for high speed cruises
can not maneuver agressively like f15).
On other hand airplanes optimized for agressive maneuvers like f15 have to
realize high speed cruise with very unfavorably L/D ratios,in order of
2,5-3,because maneuverability means "wings"..
If you look at f22 it has trapeziodal wings,contrary to the assertions of f22
marketers,trapeziodal wings are not dictated by supercruise requirements,they
are a dictate of frontal stealth requirements,aerodynamically they are not
better than chopped deltas, l/d ratio of f22 at M1,5 is not better than f15,its
slightly inferior,only slightly but inferior.
That means f22 needs lots of thrust to cruise supersonic and thrust means fuel.
Counterbalancing low L/D with low sfc engines is right move but reducing fuel
fraction to subsonic levels not.
Problems of f22 were obvious even before the flying of first prototype,but air
force loves "weak"
DoD bosses and we had plenty of them during Clinton Adm.
Denyav
>present engine is 60kN. (1.38kg of fuel each second for one engine,
>2.76kg for both)
But they are SLS figures,for cruise at m1,5 at 50000 you will get different
values.
None
their new stuff right now, they've got us beat.
John Keeney
John Cook <jwc...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:cbc1c949.02031...@posting.google.com...
> present engine is 60kN. (1.38kg of fuel each second for one engine,
> 2.76kg for both)
> The internal fuel load of the DA Typhoon's is 4996 kg.
> 4996 kg divided by 2.76 and divided by 60 gives about 30 mins of
> supercruise (usual caveat on engine endurance), this is the maximum
> speed and the lowest endurance time wise.
Cool, you going to dead stick it in or shoot a straight
in approach busting Mach?
Dennis
>>There's an article in Aviation Week that airs concerns in the USAF that the
>>F-22's getting heavier every day and concerns about it's eventual
>>performance that it might not even be able to supercruise either..
>
>Wow this should be another ground testing attempt.
>Yes pre historic bird getting heavier day by day but it is weight should still
>be within limits.
>Main problem of f22 is its superior maneuverability criterias.
>Let me explain :
>Airplanes optimized for high speed cruises have also high L/D
>ratios(Concorde,B58,SR71,XB70 etc),But planes optimized for high speed cruises
>can not maneuver agressively like f15).
>On other hand airplanes optimized for agressive maneuvers like f15 have to
>realize high speed cruise with very unfavorably L/D ratios,in order of
>2,5-3,because maneuverability means "wings"..
And aircraft such as the B-58 , XB-70 and Concorde don't have wings? I
know your unfounded belief that somehow the wing loading on deltas
magically is effectively higher than for other wings, but you have
given no basis whatsoever. What is the F-15 wing if not a cropped
delta? So how come its wing loading isn't "magically" equivalent to
120lb/ft^2? You may say that deltas can't manouevre well. Well, go
tell that to Dassault (Rafale and Mirage 2000), SAAB (Draken, Viggen
and Gripen) and BAe (Eurofighter). Suggest you rethink your premise.
>If you look at f22 it has trapeziodal wings,contrary to the assertions of f22
>marketers,trapeziodal wings are not dictated by supercruise requirements,they
>are a dictate of frontal stealth requirements,aerodynamically they are not
>better than chopped deltas, l/d ratio of f22 at M1,5 is not better than f15,its
>slightly inferior,only slightly but inferior.
Oh really? And I assume you have supporting evidence for this? Or is
it more pull it out of your arse stuff. You see, a major issue with
increased drag at supersonic speeds relates to trim drag.
Conventionally, you compensate for the movement of the centre of
pressure by aerodynamic compensation (stabilator/whatever), or moving
fuel around (Concorde and many of the larger aircraft that you relate,
thinking-erroneously-that their low drag is wing loading related). A
third method is simply to use thrust vectoring to direct thrust in a
direction that compensates for CL movement.
>That means f22 needs lots of thrust to cruise supersonic and thrust means fuel.
High thrust does mean fuel, but you have not supported your assertion
regarding the very high thrust requirement.
>Counterbalancing low L/D with low sfc engines is right move but reducing fuel
>fraction to subsonic levels not.
What are you talking about "to subsonic levels"? The F-22 has a very
good fuel fraction.
--
--
Dennis Jensen
Author of "The Flying Pigs"
http://www.ebooks-online.com/ebooks/search.asp
NOW ONLINE
Jörg Bihlmayr
Denyav schrieb:
Care to provide which numbers?
Jörg
--
Claudicat ingenium, delirat lingua, labat mens.
- Lukrez, De rerum natura, III, 453
Denyav
>know your unfounded belief that someho
Of course they all have wings but they can cover long distances
supersonically,in spite of their gas guzzling engines,becauze they realize
supersonic cruise with following L/D ratios:
Concorde:7,4,SR-71:6,6,B58:4,5 and XB-70:7,2
not with L/D ratios around 2,5-3.
>You may say that deltas can't manouevre well. Well, go
>tell that to Dassault (Rafale and Mirage 2000), SAAB (Draken, Viggen
>and Gripen) and BAe (Eurofighter). Suggest you rethink your premise.
They are canard-delta combinations optimized for maneuvering,original Mirage3-5
maneuverability could be a basis for comparison.(Draken and mirage 2000
maneuverability is up for debatte,I think F86 was a better dogfighter than
draken or mirage)
>. A
>third method is simply to use thrust vectoring to direct thrust in a
>direction that compensates for CL movement.
>
There is no trim drag in f22,2D vectoring takes care of trim(it loses thrust
for that purpose,but insignificant).
All high maneuverable aircraft have to realize high speed cruise with unoptimal
alpha and thats the reason for bad (low) L/D not trim drag.
>High thrust does mean fuel, but you have not supported your assertion
>regarding the very high thrust requirement.
>
It is pretty easy to figure out neccesary thrust after establishing cruise L/D
ratio.Weight and shape of plane is more or less same.(in spite of recent
increases)
>What are you talking about "to subsonic levels"? The F-22 has a very
>good fuel fraction.
>
I wouln/t call fuel fractions similar to f4 and f15 very good,at least for
aircraft supposed to cover long distances supersonically and conduct agrresive
up and away maneuvers as well as AB climbs and accelerations.
Engineering is a science of trade offs,and there is no free lunch,if you gain
somewhere you pay for this gain with losses in somewhere else.
Denyav
>
>Jörg
I dont know any specific numbers for EJ200 except SLS figures (I posted them
yesterday).But difference between SLS sfc and M1,5 at 50000ft sfc is for pure
turbojets is around 55%.(Turbofans are even worse).
John Cook
touche!!!, all you really need now is Concorde with a refueling hose ;-)
Dennis Jensen
news:20020320130116...@mb-fk.aol.com...
> >And aircraft such as the B-58 , XB-70 and Concorde don't have wings? I
> >know your unfounded belief that someho
>
> Of course they all have wings but they can cover long distances
> supersonically,in spite of their gas guzzling engines,becauze they realize
> supersonic cruise with following L/D ratios:
> Concorde:7,4,SR-71:6,6,B58:4,5 and XB-70:7,2
> not with L/D ratios around 2,5-3.
>
Now, do you have a cite for the F-22 having an L/D ratio of around 3? Didn't
think so. You make the point that it is large wings that give a poor
supersonic L/D ratio, and I have pointed out the obvious error. The fact is,
with just about all of the aircraft that you have mentioned here, fuel
transfer is used to negate trim drag. Just about all that you have mentioned
have similar wing loadings to the F-22, so it obviously isn't the wing
loading that is to blame. I suggest you look at trim drag issue.
> >You may say that deltas can't manouevre well. Well, go
> >tell that to Dassault (Rafale and Mirage 2000), SAAB (Draken, Viggen
> >and Gripen) and BAe (Eurofighter). Suggest you rethink your premise.
> They are canard-delta combinations optimized for maneuvering,original
Mirage3-5
> maneuverability could be a basis for comparison.(Draken and mirage 2000
> maneuverability is up for debatte,I think F86 was a better dogfighter than
> draken or mirage)
Draken, yes, Mirage 2000 no. The Mirage 2000 pretty much manouevres
similarly to an F-16 with a couple of caveats-lack of thrust:weight to
overcome drag at high G, and rapid bleed of energy in tight turns due to
delta configuration.
Now, exactly why does a canard suddenly mean that the aircraft under
consideration no longer has a delta wing, and therefore doesn't have your
perceived "benefits"? You are really clutching at straws here!
> >. A
> >third method is simply to use thrust vectoring to direct thrust in a
> >direction that compensates for CL movement.
> >
>
> There is no trim drag in f22,2D vectoring takes care of trim(it loses
thrust
> for that purpose,but insignificant).
Bingo, you finally GET IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> All high maneuverable aircraft have to realize high speed cruise with
unoptimal
> alpha and thats the reason for bad (low) L/D not trim drag.
>
So, here you go again. Now, why is it that highly manouevrable aircraft
cruise at "unoptimal alpha"? Remember, wing loading is not the issue, as
pointed out, those large aircraft that you have brought up have similar wing
loadings to the F-15 and F-22. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the
difference IS, in fact, trim drag?
> >High thrust does mean fuel, but you have not supported your assertion
> >regarding the very high thrust requirement.
> >
> It is pretty easy to figure out neccesary thrust after establishing cruise
L/D
> ratio.
Now, here we come to the crux of it. How do you know the L/D ratio of the
F-22? Clearly, you don't.
>Weight and shape of plane is more or less same.(in spite of recent
> increases)
>
More or less isn't the same as now, is it. The F-86 and MiG-15 were even
MORE similar, but there were significant performance differences, and one
was supersonic in a dive, and the other was only able to go supersonic in a
dive once per airframe:)
> >What are you talking about "to subsonic levels"? The F-22 has a very
> >good fuel fraction.
> >
> I wouln/t call fuel fractions similar to f4 and f15 very good,at least for
> aircraft supposed to cover long distances supersonically and conduct
agrresive
> up and away maneuvers as well as AB climbs and accelerations.
Hang on, who is talking about F-4 and F-15 here? You are building a
strawman, rather unsuccessfully! The issue is the F-22, which you maintain
does not have good supersonic cruise performance, and THAT has a good fuel
fraction.
> Engineering is a science of trade offs,and there is no free lunch,if you
gain
> somewhere you pay for this gain with losses in somewhere else.
Sure, here is a motherhood statement, but you have come nowhere near making
your case. You are simply exhibiting your biases.
Denyav
>with just about all of the aircraft that you have mentioned here, fuel
>transfer is used to negate trim drag. Just about all that you have mentioned
>have similar wing loadings to the F-22, so it
>loading that is to blame. I suggest you look at trim drag issue.
serve two purposes 1)Post stall domain maneuvering 2)To eliminate trim
drag.Apparently you have missed my post.
Concorde uses fuel trsansfer methot to control trim,military supersonic plnes
use different methots of trim drag reduction.Did you look at f14 or f15 engine
installations?Modern "relaxed" stability aircraft need only small trim
anyway.BTW in recent history only aircraft with significant trim drag was F111
and it was because of a special problem.
As I posted before trim drag makes up only a small portion of induced drag of
modern planes usually 1-3% but f22 needs to halve its drag to attain L/D ratios
around 5-6.
Design is for agility not for high speed.it can maneuver with L/D around 5 but
not cruise with that good number.
>o, here you go again. Now, why is it that highly manouevrable aircraft
>cruise at "unoptimal alpha"? Remember, wing loading is not the issue, as
>pointed out, those large aircraft that you have brought up have similar wing
>loadings to the F-15 and F-22. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the
>difference IS, in fact, trim drag?
>
They are identical too,even tough the latter have no trim drag(!).Without
stealth req.no designer would use a trapezoidal wing in a fighter.Maybe they
eliminated trim drag to counter balance trapeziodal wing?.
>Now, here we come to the crux of it. How do you know the L/D ratio of the
>F-22? Clearly, you don't.
>
Beg to differ but I think otherwise
.>More or less isn't the same as now, is it. The F-86 and MiG-15 were even
>MORE similar, but there were significant
We are discussing about f22 and f22 I guess.
>Hang on, who is talking about F-4 and F-15 here? You are building a
>strawman, rather unsuccessfully! The issue is the F-22, which you maintain
>does not have good supersonic cruise performance, and THAT has a good fuel
>fraction.
f22 and f15 fuel fractions are identical.
>Sure, here is a motherhood statement, but you have come nowhere near making
>your case. You are simply exhibiting your biases.
No ,,for example,I think sfc of f22 engines are better than "some" estimates
but still f22 will not be able meet all performance goals.
robert arndt
Aircraft 2001/2002 provides any specific info on the subject for
either the Typhoon or Raptor.
Most updated references simply say that the Typhoon can supercruise
for a "short" time while the Raptor is designed for "long periods" of
supercruise. This makes sense since the Raptor has a maximum range 3
times that of the Typhoon.
Rob
Denyav
>times that of the Typhoon.
Sure f22 can go much farther than Eurofighter,but 3x of a short distance does
not mean that f22 is going to meet its range goals.The "advertised" range of
f111 was 200miles at m1,2 at low level but actually realised was 30 miles
(!).f22 is not first example.
John Cook
What figures are you talking about?, I haven't seen any convincing
documentation on the F22's combat radius, the figures that have been
bandied about range from 800-1200 miles....
With what combat load was not specified, whats your source(s)?.
BTW Most updated references are still a couple of years old...
cheers
> Rob
Dennis Jensen
> >The fact is,
> >with just about all of the aircraft that you have mentioned here, fuel
> >transfer is used to negate trim drag. Just about all that you have
mentioned
> >have similar wing loadings to the F-22, so it
> >bviously isn't the wing
> >loading that is to blame. I suggest you look at trim drag issue.
>
> In the thread "f22 a waste of money???" I said that the use of 2D nozless
could
> serve two purposes 1)Post stall domain maneuvering 2)To eliminate trim
> drag.Apparently you have missed my post.
Didn't see that.
> Concorde uses fuel trsansfer methot to control trim,military supersonic
plnes
> use different methots of trim drag reduction.
The larger ones DO use fuel transfer.
>Did you look at f14 or f15 engine
> installations?Modern "relaxed" stability aircraft need only small trim
> anyway.BTW in recent history only aircraft with significant trim drag was
F111
> and it was because of a special problem.
> As I posted before trim drag makes up only a small portion of induced drag
of
> modern planes usually 1-3% but f22 needs to halve its drag to attain L/D
ratios
> around 5-6.
Hang on, that 1-3% trim drag would be what is required at subsonic speeds.
We are talking supersonic here.
Now, in terms of unstable or semi-stable aircraft, you will noter that the
aircraft with L/D ratios that you quote in the 3 range are all stable (F-15,
F-4 and the like).
> Design is for agility not for high speed.it can maneuver with L/D around 5
but
> not cruise with that good number.
>
Que? Come again. What factors (apart from your wing loading theory, which I
believe I have effectively put to bed) are going to result in a good L/D
when manouevring, but not in level flight (and don't come the wing loading
one again).
> >o, here you go again. Now, why is it that highly manouevrable aircraft
> >cruise at "unoptimal alpha"? Remember, wing loading is not the issue, as
> >pointed out, those large aircraft that you have brought up have similar
wing
> >loadings to the F-15 and F-22. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the
> >difference IS, in fact, trim drag?
> >
> They are identical too,even tough the latter have no trim drag(!).Without
> stealth req.no designer would use a trapezoidal wing in a fighter.Maybe
they
> eliminated trim drag to counter balance trapeziodal wing?.
>
I really have to ask you to reference your quote that the L/D ratios are
identical. Because you guess it is is not a reference. I put it to you that
the L/D ratio that you quote can be put into the "bullshit" category without
a valid reference.
> >Now, here we come to the crux of it. How do you know the L/D ratio of the
> >F-22? Clearly, you don't.
> >
> Beg to differ but I think otherwise
>
You THINK otherwise. You really, really do not know.
> .>More or less isn't the same as now, is it. The F-86 and MiG-15 were even
> >MORE similar, but there were significant
> We are discussing about f22 and f22 I guess.
>
> >Hang on, who is talking about F-4 and F-15 here? You are building a
> >strawman, rather unsuccessfully! The issue is the F-22, which you
maintain
> >does not have good supersonic cruise performance, and THAT has a good
fuel
> >fraction.
>
> f22 and f15 fuel fractions are identical.
>
Oh, come again. Another load of crap.The F-22 has around double the internal
fuel capacity of the F-15.
--
Dennis Jensen
Author of "The Flying Pigs"
http://www.ebooks-online.com/ebooks/search.asp
NOW ONLINE
Dennis Jensen
Another bunch of crap. Is it your contention that the F-111, with a very
decent internal fuel load, can only go full burner for 2 minutes? Whoops,
better go tell those RAAF guys flying at airshows that they are flying on
negative fuel!
You can surely do better than this, Denyav.
Guy Alcala
> "Denyav" <den...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020321134129...@mb-fr.aol.com...
> > >This makes sense since the Raptor has a maximum range 3
> > >times that of the Typhoon.
> >
> > Sure f22 can go much farther than Eurofighter,but 3x of a short distance
> does
> > not mean that f22 is going to meet its range goals.The "advertised" range
> of
> > f111 was 200miles at m1,2 at low level but actually realised was 30 miles
> > (!).f22 is not first example.
>
> Another bunch of crap. Is it your contention that the F-111, with a very
> decent internal fuel load, can only go full burner for 2 minutes? Whoops,
> better go tell those RAAF guys flying at airshows that they are flying on
> negative fuel!
>
> You can surely do better than this, Denyav.
Don't know for sure what he's referring too, but IIRR the F-111 design spec
mission called for an 800 nm radius (internal nuke) with the last 200nm inbound
to the target at M1.2 on the deck, and owing to massive amounts of excess base
drag it fell well short of that. Possibly it was as little as 30nm as Denyav
claims, but I forget the figure, if I've ever even seen it. Tony Thornborough's
F-111 books may give it.
Guy
Dennis Jensen
news:3C9AB498...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net...
Guy, I am well aware of the fact that it fell short, but the fact is that 30
miles at Mach 1.2 on the deck means that the aircraft only has enough fuel
for full burner for 2 minutes. Clealy, this is nonsense, and it is known
that the F-111 can better Mach 1.2 on the deck, so it may well require less
than full burner. As I related, I have been to airshows where the F-111
would be using full burner for more than 2.0 minutes total time, and this
includes a dump'n'burn, which uses a lot more fuel again.
Snort
know is, I monitor the Raptor tests here in Southern CA, and supercruise is
a reality. This comes not only from their a/a tests, but from F-15 and F-16
guys who've been testing with them. Anybody with the right radio, and the
right freqs can hear them.
Snort
"John Cook" <jwc...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:cbc1c949.02032...@posting.google.com...
Denyav
>decent internal fuel load, can only go full burner for 2 minutes? Whoops,
>better go tell those RAAF guys flying at airshows that they are flying on
>negative fuel!
>
>You can surely do better than this, Denyav
Thats true sir,a major design flaw and you lose everything.Thats life.
D. Scott Ferrin
wrote:
Hey believe it or not there was an idea for a *supersonic* tanker
based on a stretched Hustler.
Denyav
>aircraft with L/D ratios that you quote in the 3 range are all stable (F-15,
>F-4 and the like).
>
F4,F14 and F15 are stable aircraft but all of them except f4 take care of trim
drug by engine positioning,in other words their engines positioned so that
engine thrust reduces or eliminates up trim requirement during cruise,a nice
trick.So even these "old" designs use engine thrust to reduce trim drag not
only f22
.>I really have to ask you to reference your quote that the L/D ratios are
>identical. Because you guess it is is not a reference. I put it to you that
>the L/D ratio that you quote can be put into the "bullshit" category without
>a valid reference.
A litle more BS for you,the best M1,5 L/D of this design is around 5 with alpha
around again 5 during combat maneuvers, but supercruise with L/D 2,5-3 and
alpha below 2,5.You cannot realize best L/D in the region where you need it
most.Thats the cost of very agressive maneuvering requirements.Similar story
for f15.On other hand designs optimized for high speed all realize high L/D
ratios during high speed cruise.
>You THINK otherwise. You really, really do not know.
>
I dont think so,to say at least.
>Oh, come again. Another load of crap.The F-22 has around double the internal
>fuel capacity of the F-15.
No,even f117 fuel fraction is much higher than f22.And low FF is cuurently main
problem of f22.
Denyav
>mission called for an 800 nm radius (internal nuke) with the last 200nm
>inbound
>to the target at M1.2 on the deck, and owing to massive amounts of excess
>base
>drag it fell well short of that. Possibly it was as little as 30nm as Denyav
Original requirement was M0,9 not 1,2 air force later increased it to M1,2.An
independent NASA study conducted and found out that M1,2 requirement was not
realistic and recommended dropping of M1,2 requirement,neverthless air force
sticked to M1,2 and aicraft demonstrated 30 miles range capability at low level
m1,2 flight in 1969.
Peter Stickney
From the F-111A Standard Aircraft Characteristics chart, dated
Feb. 71, based on Flight testing:
Lo-Lo-Hi mission, internal fuel + 2 600 gal tanks, 2000# Special
Weapon and 2 AIM-9B
Radius 800 NM,
Cruise out at 455 kts 706 miles at SL. Tanks dropped when empty.
Dash 70 NM at 800 kts @ SL (The difference is space/time used to accelerate)
Cruise in 703 NM at 432 kts at 36,000'.
So, with 2 tanks, we've got 140 NM sustaining Mach 1.2 on the deck,
reaching out a total of 800 NM. The tanks, btw, account for 20% total
fuel, so without tanks, let's say we've got a 570+ NM cruise out, a 55
NM dash, and a bit better acceleration for being 8,000# lighter
througout the flight, so you're looking at roughly a 650 NM radius.
Not quite as optimistic as the initial specs, but damned good none the
less.
There are some people who, if they told me the sky was blue, I'd
demand independant verification.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
robert arndt
and gives the info accordingly:
The F-22 Raptor configured for the air-to-air role has a maximum speed
of Mach 1.7 at 30,000 ft and supercruise at Mach 1.58 (as demonstrated
by the YF-22A). Maximum range is 3500 miles.
The Typhoon in German configuration (2 Taurus, 2 IRIS-T, 2 ALARM, 4
BVR missiles, and 3 drop tanks totalling 3500 litres) has a maximum
speed of Mach 2.0 and limited* supercruise of Mach 1.4. Maximum range
with all 3 drop tanks is 1100 miles.
*While most current reference materials state that the F-22 is quite
capable of supercruise for long periods, there is absolutely no solid
evidence that the Typhoon can do the same. Whatever the supercruise
ability is for the Typhoon- it is severly restricted.
Rob
Guy Alcala
Ah ha, I was hoping you might have something hidden away in your stash, sir;-) BTW,
are you sure that's 70nm in _and_ out from the target at M1.2? Lo-Lo-Hi usually
implies a military power climb to enroute cruise altitude almost immediately after the
attack, while doing an on the deck dash both ways before climbing out would imply
Lo-Lo-Lo-Hi.
Guy Alcala
Assuming that he was claiming that its total range was only 30nm in burner I
certainly agree, but it isn't clear to me that he was.
> As I related, I have been to airshows where the F-111
> would be using full burner for more than 2.0 minutes total time, and this
> includes a dump'n'burn, which uses a lot more fuel again.
As I'd hoped my previous post made clear (but apparently it didn't), I was
referring to 30nm (or 70 or 140nm, as Pete's data shows) out of 1600nm total,
which would obviously translate to considerably more than 30nm (or 70-140nm)
purely in burner. See Pete's post. 70nm @ M1.2 (800 knots) works out to 5.25
minutes in burner, plus all the rest of the mission; 140nm would be 10.5
minutes. I would figure the a/c has enough internal fuel for somewhere between
10-30 minutes in full burner, depending on the altitude, speed and the specific
model engine.
Guy
John Cook
> The latest updated book I have on the Raptor and Typhoon is from 2001
> and gives the info accordingly:
>
> The F-22 Raptor configured for the air-to-air role has a maximum speed
> of Mach 1.7 at 30,000 ft and supercruise at Mach 1.58 (as demonstrated
> by the YF-22A). Maximum range is 3500 miles.
This would be with the four (2000 litre?) droptanks I presume... and
this is ferry range configuration....
> The Typhoon in German configuration (2 Taurus, 2 IRIS-T, 2 ALARM, 4
> BVR missiles, and 3 drop tanks totalling 3500 litres)
Yup a bit out of date... The Eads site now mentions 2000 litre
droptanks are an option, so the total fuel load could be 2x2000 litres
and one 1000 litre centre line... I surprised the Conformal tanks for
the typhoon were not mentioned where another 2 tonnes of fuel can be
carried!!!
> has a maximum
> speed of Mach 2.0 and limited* supercruise of Mach 1.4. Maximum range
> with all 3 drop tanks is 1100 miles.
The typhoon in ferry range configuration (two droptanks)the range is
2000nm!!
This is without conformal tanks...
>
>
> *While most current reference materials state that the F-22 is quite
> capable of supercruise for long periods, there is absolutely no solid
> evidence that the Typhoon can do the same.
Apart from numerous statements from BAE Systems, EADs..... If it can
supercruise at M1.5, then the duration at <M1.5 has to be
proportionaly longer.
I suppose it depends on _your_ definition of a long time, Taking a
leaf from the Korean system of evaluation, you simply work out the max
amout of time a F22 can supercruise, Then The Typhoons duration and
put the figure in between the two!! Voila!! the F22 can
supercruise for a 'long time', and the Typhoon Can't!!!
Great logic, What is a long time?, 10 mins, 20 mins, 30 mins?.
You can be sure the Typhoon beats every other fighter in the world
apart from the F22, including the JSF.
>Whatever the supercruise
> ability is for the Typhoon- it is severly restricted.
Hmmmm. less Supercruise than the F-22, and more than every other
fighter in the world, both now or in production.
Now that doesn't sound like 'severely restricted' does it...
Cheers
>
> Rob
Peter Stickney
And supersonic refuelling using probe and drogue systems were flight
tested using a hosereel setup in the linear bay of an A-5 Vigilante.
Peter Stickney
Guy Alcala <g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> writes:
> Peter Stickney wrote:
>> So, with 2 tanks, we've got 140 NM sustaining Mach 1.2 on the deck,
>> reaching out a total of 800 NM. The tanks, btw, account for 20% total
>> fuel, so without tanks, let's say we've got a 570+ NM cruise out, a 55
>> NM dash, and a bit better acceleration for being 8,000# lighter
>> througout the flight, so you're looking at roughly a 650 NM radius.
>>
>> Not quite as optimistic as the initial specs, but damned good none the
>> less.
>>
>> There are some people who, if they told me the sky was blue, I'd
>> demand independant verification.
>
> Ah ha, I was hoping you might have something hidden away in your stash, sir;-) BTW,
> are you sure that's 70nm in _and_ out from the target at M1.2? Lo-Lo-Hi usually
> implies a military power climb to enroute cruise altitude almost immediately after the
> attack, while doing an on the deck dash both ways before climbing out would imply
> Lo-Lo-Lo-Hi.
I thought so too. However, the Cruise section of the table lists the
cruise conditions (Alt/Distance/Speed) as I've noted, and the 800 Knot
Dash is given as 70 NM. Now, it's going from 440 kts on the deck to
800 kts in 25 miles (or 2/12 minutes), and on the way out, it's going
from 800 KT/SL > 432 KT/34,000' in 93 miles. Now, some space is going
to be used to climb, but that seems a bit much. It should only take
about 2 minutes to reach that altitude, normally, for instance. So,
the evidence suggests that it would be coming off the target with a
full head of steam.
It's interesting to note that both the F-105D and F-4C SAC Charts show
100 and 50 mile dashes at Mach 0.9 for a similar mission, with a total
mission radius of about 650 NM for the -105 and 410 NM for the
Phantom. These performance numbers are targets that are hard to meet
now, let alone in 1960 when the specifications were first proposed.
Denyav
>certainly agree, but it isn't clear to me that he was.
Certainly 200 miles refers to low level dash part of original f111 mission
profile.It was able to cover only 30 miles of said segment.
Tony Whitaker
news:RkWl8.36243$Es6.1...@news2.west.cox.net:
> More proof that the F22 is a joke. Everyone should just stop
> development on their new stuff right now, they've got us beat.
I think this is the point many people miss in these anti-Raptor threads.
The United States has taken a swing at a new fighter, and it's come up with
the F-22. The British came up with the Typhoon. The French came up with the
Rafale. The Russians came up with the SU-33 (or whatever number it's up to
now). And everyone's arguing about who's effort resulted in the best
fighter.
But, even if the American efforts with the F-22 prove to fall short, it
would be lunacy to cancel the Raptor - because it represents America's best
effort. Sometimes you try your best, and you come up with a P-39. Sometimes
you come up with a P-40. Sometimes you come up with a P-51. You take your
best shot, learn from your mistakes, and try to do better next time.
Dennis Jensen
> >Now, in terms of unstable or semi-stable aircraft, you will noter that
the
> >aircraft with L/D ratios that you quote in the 3 range are all stable
(F-15,
> >F-4 and the like).
> >
>
> F4,F14 and F15 are stable aircraft but all of them except f4 take care of
trim
> drug by engine positioning,in other words their engines positioned so that
> engine thrust reduces or eliminates up trim requirement during cruise,a
nice
> trick.So even these "old" designs use engine thrust to reduce trim drag
not
> only f22
>
Care to reference this? Like all of your other ramblings, you make a lot of
fairly outlandish claims with nobackup. If engine thrust eliminated trim
drag at supersonic speeds (which it doesn't), then you would have trim drag
issues subsonic.
> .>I really have to ask you to reference your quote that the L/D ratios are
> >identical. Because you guess it is is not a reference. I put it to you
that
> >the L/D ratio that you quote can be put into the "bullshit" category
without
> >a valid reference.
>
> A litle more BS for you,the best M1,5 L/D of this design is around 5 with
alpha
> around again 5 during combat maneuvers, but supercruise with L/D 2,5-3 and
> alpha below 2,5.You cannot realize best L/D in the region where you need
it
> most.Thats the cost of very agressive maneuvering requirements.Similar
story
> for f15.On other hand designs optimized for high speed all realize high
L/D
> ratios during high speed cruise.
>
Reference? Didn't think so! You appear to love spouting with no reference. I
contend that either you are putting out classified numbers on the internet
(and I doubt that you have access to same), or you are simply making it up
as you go along. You STILL haven't come up with a physical reason why you
cannot achieve an L/D ratio of 5 for the F-22. You attempted the "big wing"
bullshit, which I think we agree has been firmly put to be. So, what magical
issues are there in this "manouevring requirement" that preclude L/D of 5?
> >You THINK otherwise. You really, really do not know.
> >
> I dont think so,to say at least.
> >Oh, come again. Another load of crap.The F-22 has around double the
internal
> >fuel capacity of the F-15.
>
> No,even f117 fuel fraction is much higher than f22.And low FF is cuurently
main
> problem of f22.
Come on, put out the internal fuel load for the F-22! Got a number? Or are
you sucking wind yet again (which you are).
Dennis Jensen
Denyav, as I have said, I have SEEN F-111C's operating at airshows, using
full burners for a total combined time of more than 2 minutes, and doing a
dump'n'burn during the routine (which means venting a whole lot of fuel
overboard and igniting with burners). Now, you had these great numbers for
augmented specific thrust. Do tell! The TF-30 would be around 2.0 in full
augmentation, right? About 20 000lb per engine, combined total of 40 000lb,
and a total consumption in full burner of 80 000lb per hour. 1/30'th of this
is around 3000lb in 2 minutes. Given acceleration and takeoff to Mach 1.2,
we'll be generous to your argument and say another 2000lb. Now, what is the
internal fuel load of the F-111 again? Does 5043 gallons ring a bell? Now,
assuming an SG of 0.8, this gives over 16 000lb of fuel. Seems rather more
than 5000, doesn't it (and this is being optimistic FOR your side of the
argument. Hmm, that leaves and extra 11 000lb of fuel. Take off 2000 lb, for
a landing somewhere, and you have 9000lb left. Seems to me, that is another
6 minutes, giving 8 minutes total, or around 120miles on the deck at Mach
1.2. Might want to revise your reading list!
Guy Alcala
> "Denyav" <den...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020322102756...@mb-mo.aol.com...
> > >Another bunch of crap. Is it your contention that the F-111, with a very
> > >decent internal fuel load, can only go full burner for 2 minutes? Whoops,
> > >better go tell those RAAF guys flying at airshows that they are flying on
> > >negative fuel!
> > >
> > >You can surely do better than this, Denyav
> >
> > Thats true sir,a major design flaw and you lose everything.Thats life.
>
> Denyav, as I have said, I have SEEN F-111C's operating at airshows, using
> full burners for a total combined time of more than 2 minutes, and doing a
> dump'n'burn during the routine (which means venting a whole lot of fuel
> overboard and igniting with burners). Now, you had these great numbers for
> augmented specific thrust. Do tell! The TF-30 would be around 2.0 in full
> augmentation, right? About 20 000lb per engine, combined total of 40 000lb,
> and a total consumption in full burner of 80 000lb per hour. 1/30'th of this
> is around 3000lb in 2 minutes. Given acceleration and takeoff to Mach 1.2,
> we'll be generous to your argument and say another 2000lb. Now, what is the
> internal fuel load of the F-111 again? Does 5043 gallons ring a bell? Now,
> assuming an SG of 0.8, this gives over 16 000lb of fuel.
<snip>
Somewhere your math went awry, and you way understated the fuel load. The F-111
carries well over 30,000 lb.of fuel internally, depending on the exact model and
the type of fuel (6.5 lb./USG for JP-4, more for others).
Guy
Dennis Jensen
Whoops, there you go! The follies of the Imperial system. I have worked in
metric for too long, and am forgetting the basics of Imperial measurements.
Doh! I thought I recalled the F-111 carrying in excess of 30 000lb. My units
should really be in kg-conversion issues between systems. Still, makes my
argument even stronger:)
Denyav
>metric for too long, and am forgetting the basics of Imperial measurements.
>Doh! I thought I recalled the F-111 carrying in excess of 30 000lb. My units
>should really be in kg-conversion issues between systems. Still, makes my
>argument even stronger:)
>--
problems.if you want to understand that I strongly recommend to look at f111
and f14 planviews and pay attention to the wing pivot points of both aircraft.
Apparently Iron Works designers have learned a lot from the mistakes of GD
folks.
Hint:Whole story is about trim drag.
Denyav
>fairly outlandish claims with nobackup. If engine thrust eliminated trim
>drag at supersonic speeds (which it doesn't), then you would have trim drag
>issues subsonic.
You can look at any f15 or 14,how their engines are installed? How did you miss
it?
In order to counter balance pitching moment you have to put the up elevator and
thats what causes your trim drag.F22 counter balances that moment with nozzle
setting others by engine positioning for optimal setting so that cosine
component of thrust eliminates or reduces the up elevator requirement.
.>Reference? Didn't think so! You appear to love spouting with no reference. I
>contend that either you are putting out classified numbers on the internet
>(and I doubt that you have access to same), or you are simply making it up.
I dont need to use somebody elses numbers,everbody who is at least a little bit
familiar with those issues could only find similar numbers.
F22 cannot achive L/D ratio of 5 during supersonic cruise because it has to
realize supercruise with low,very low angle of attack thanks to maneouver
requirements which means "wings".And,unlikely f15,f22 wings are not
aerodynamically best form,they are best compromisses
>You attempted the "big wing"
>bullshit, which I think we agree has been firmly put to be. So, what magical
>issues are there in this "manouevring requirement" that preclude L/D of 5?
Really?f22 has almost 50% bigger wings than f15 but it cannot manouver 50%
better than f22.
similar,sizes,weights and maneuverability but lots of more wings,food for
tought.
>Come on, put out the internal fuel load for the F-22! Got a number? Or are
>you sucking wind yet again (which you are).
How many times should I repeat? identical to f15,in so called subsonic region.
Dennis Jensen
> >Care to reference this? Like all of your other ramblings, you make a lot
of
> >fairly outlandish claims with nobackup. If engine thrust eliminated trim
> >drag at supersonic speeds (which it doesn't), then you would have trim
drag
> >issues subsonic.
>
> You can look at any f15 or 14,how their engines are installed? How did you
miss
> it?
> In order to counter balance pitching moment you have to put the up
elevator and
> thats what causes your trim drag.F22 counter balances that moment with
nozzle
> setting others by engine positioning for optimal setting so that cosine
> component of thrust eliminates or reduces the up elevator requirement.
>
You are not getting the point here. If you have designed the engine position
to reduce supersonic trim drag, you will increase your subsonic trim drag
(you cannot get around the CG movement without weight transfer). So, are you
telling me that the designers of the F-14 and F-15 have sacrificed range in
the single regime that is used most (subsonic) for a benefit in the
supersonic regime, and area that is not used much? Excuse my incredulity.
> .>Reference? Didn't think so! You appear to love spouting with no
reference. I
> >contend that either you are putting out classified numbers on the
internet
> >(and I doubt that you have access to same), or you are simply making it
up.
> I dont need to use somebody elses numbers,everbody who is at least a
little bit
> familiar with those issues could only find similar numbers.
According to you! IOW, you are sucking the numbers out of the air, and
really have no justification for it. Thank you for confirming it-you have no
references to support you, only your biases.
> F22 cannot achive L/D ratio of 5 during supersonic cruise because it has
to
> realize supercruise with low,very low angle of attack thanks to maneouver
> requirements which means "wings".
And as I have staed, Concorde, B-70, B-58 and the like also have "wings", so
how do explain their improved L/D ratios. Denyav, I suppose you have no
references to support you here either.
>And,unlikely f15,f22 wings are not
> aerodynamically best form,they are best compromisses
>
Sure they are slightly more compromised, but it is more than compensated for
for the lack of trim drag requirement.
>
> >You attempted the "big wing"
> >bullshit, which I think we agree has been firmly put to be. So, what
magical
> >issues are there in this "manouevring requirement" that preclude L/D of
5?
>
> Really?f22 has almost 50% bigger wings than f15 but it cannot manouver 50%
> better than f22.
> similar,sizes,weights and maneuverability but lots of more wings,food for
> tought.
First, F-22 IS heavier than F-15. Now, what about these "similar"
manouevrability claims. Once again, any references to back you up, or is it
simply your bias yet again?
> >Come on, put out the internal fuel load for the F-22! Got a number? Or
are
> >you sucking wind yet again (which you are).
> How many times should I repeat? identical to f15,in so called subsonic
region.
WTF? You really do not know what you are talking about, do you. Fuel
fraction is fuel fraction. It is the internal weight of the fuel divided by
the operating weight. This ratio will NOT magically change when supersonic.
The F-22 has approximately twice the internal fuel of the F-15, but is less
than twice the weight, hence the larger fuel fraction.
This keeps getting better!
Dennis Jensen
Denyav, what you are not getting is that the engines cannot possibly consume
more fuel than when they are at full burner, right? Now, given 2.0lb/lb/hr
in full burner, and given 40 000lb thrust and 30 000lb internal fuel, you
would expect to run at full burner for 3/8= 0.375h, or 22.5 minutes. Getting
me so far? Now, lets assume 2 minutes to get to Mach 1.2 from high subsonic.
That will leave around 20 minutes on the deck in full burner at Mach 1.2
(400m/s). This is about 291nm. In short, you are a long way from justifying
your position of 30nm at Mach 1.2.
Denyav
>telling me that the designers of the F-14 and F-15 have sacrificed range in
>the single regime that is used most (subsonic) for a benefit in the
>supersonic regime, and area that is not used much? Excuse my incredulity.
As you posted previously in subsonic region trim drag is not a major drag
contributor
.>According to you! IOW, you are sucking the numbers out of the air, and
>really have no justification for it. Thank you for confirming it-you have no
>references to support you, only your biases.
>
I can throw numbers of wing geometry too.
\>And as I have staed, Concorde, B-70, B-58 and the like also have "wings", so
>how do explain their improved L/D ratios. Denyav, I suppose you have no
>references to support you here either.
>
f104 had wings too,but I dont think that it could maneuver like f15 or 22.Wing
loading of f22 is 30% better than Eurofighter which is a very manouverable
plane.
>First, F-22 IS heavier than F-15. Now, what about these "similar"
>manouevrability claims. Once again, any references to back you up, or is it
>simply your bias yet again?
Not much,if the weight grow remains within limits.
Maneverability is identical,f22 is only slightly better,they did and could not
design f22 to pull 25g maneuvers with the pilot inside.
>he operating weight. This ratio will NOT magically change when supersonic.
>The F-22 has approximately twice the internal fuel of the F-15, but is less
>than twice the weight, hence the larger fuel fraction.
This is a historical term.fuel fractions of sr71,mig31,xb70 etc are called
supersonic and fuel fractions of f4,15 etc are called supersonic.
In historical perspective fuel fractions 30% or less called subsonic 40% or
more supersonic.
f22 fuel fraction is almost identical with f15.
Jörg Bihlmayr
Tony Whitaker wrote:
> "None" <no...@none.net> wrote in
> news:RkWl8.36243$Es6.1...@news2.west.cox.net:
>
>
>>More proof that the F22 is a joke. Everyone should just stop
>>development on their new stuff right now, they've got us beat.
>>
>
>
> I think this is the point many people miss in these anti-Raptor threads.
> The United States has taken a swing at a new fighter, and it's come up with
> the F-22. The British came up with the Typhoon.
?
Tamas Feher
>Sometimes you try your best, and come up with a P-39. Sometime
>you come up with a P-40. Sometimes you come up with a P-51.
Let me mention, that the P-39 AiraCobra (P-63 KingCobra) was the best aircraft
of the bunch, because soviet aces Pokriskin and Kodzedub, the top-scoring
fighter pilots of the allied forces (app. 60 kills) made their victories in
these fighters.
The Mustang is second and the P-40 doesn't deserve a mention.
Sincerely: Tamas Feher.
Devi Deveraux
those aircraft. The manufacturers blatantly lie about performance
figures to sell the aircraft to the military. Then, the military
exaggerates the performance of the aircraft to sell it to the
government.
The only person that really would know the performance of any aircraft
is a veteran pilot of that aircraft. And since we are taking about the
Raptor and Typhoon... it won't be until after 2006 that we will get
any meaningful info.
DV-D
Paul J. Adam
Deveraux <killgi...@aol.com> writes
>The only person that really would know the performance of any aircraft
>is a veteran pilot of that aircraft.
Though there's comparison data around if you know folks at Warton, if
only from their watching DA5 leave its Tonka chase standing...
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Dennis Jensen
> > So, are you
> >telling me that the designers of the F-14 and F-15 have sacrificed range
in
> >the single regime that is used most (subsonic) for a benefit in the
> >supersonic regime, and area that is not used much? Excuse my incredulity.
>
> As you posted previously in subsonic region trim drag is not a major drag
> contributor
>
It is NOT a major drag contributor BECAUSE the aircraft is designed for very
little trim at subsonic speed. If you design the aircraft for trim
neutrality at supersonic speed, you WILL have trim drag issues subsonic. Get
it now?
> .>According to you! IOW, you are sucking the numbers out of the air, and
> >really have no justification for it. Thank you for confirming it-you have
no
> >references to support you, only your biases.
> >
> I can throw numbers of wing geometry too.
>
As I said, no references supporting your position.
> \>And as I have staed, Concorde, B-70, B-58 and the like also have
"wings", so
> >how do explain their improved L/D ratios. Denyav, I suppose you have no
> >references to support you here either.
> >
> f104 had wings too,but I dont think that it could maneuver like f15 or
22.Wing
> loading of f22 is 30% better than Eurofighter which is a very manouverable
> plane.
You made the point about wing loading. I pointed out that Concorde and XB-70
have similar wing loadings to the F-15, so what is your point?
> >First, F-22 IS heavier than F-15. Now, what about these "similar"
> >manouevrability claims. Once again, any references to back you up, or is
it
> >simply your bias yet again?
> Not much,if the weight grow remains within limits.
> Maneverability is identical,f22 is only slightly better,they did and could
not
> design f22 to pull 25g maneuvers with the pilot inside.
>
No, the issue is what speeds can the 9G be sustained. What is the envelope.
The envelope with the F-22 is greater, that is the point.
> >he operating weight. This ratio will NOT magically change when
supersonic.
> >The F-22 has approximately twice the internal fuel of the F-15, but is
less
> >than twice the weight, hence the larger fuel fraction.
>
> This is a historical term.fuel fractions of sr71,mig31,xb70 etc are called
> supersonic and fuel fractions of f4,15 etc are called supersonic.
What?
> In historical perspective fuel fractions 30% or less called subsonic 40%
or
> more supersonic.
> f22 fuel fraction is almost identical with f15.
No, it isn't Denyav. Once again, you are pulling this stuff out of your
arse. Suggest that you look at the fuel fraction of the F-15 and F-22. Now,
how about a reference to this "historical" perspective. Bet you don't have
one for that either!
Ken Garlington
news:a7e3sd$cto$1...@fang.dsto.defence.gov.au...
> You can surely do better than this, Denyav.
No, he really can't. Sad, isn't it?
Boy, this supercruise troll really has legs, doesn't it? Right up there with
the "we never landed on the moon..."
Ken Garlington
news:91Hm8.117$Eb5....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> An interesting thread discussion of textbook and reference sources. All I
> know is, I monitor the Raptor tests here in Southern CA, and supercruise
is
> a reality.
Now you've done it. You've become part of "the worldwide conspiracy" -- the
one that the denyav troll assigns you to when he doesn't have an answer to
your arguments.
Denyav
>more fuel than when they are at full burner, right? Now, given 2.0lb/lb/hr
>in full burner, and given 40 000lb thrust and 30 000lb internal fuel, you
>would expect to run at full burner for 3/8= 0.375h, or 22.5 minutes. Getting
>me so far? Now, lets assume 2 minutes to get
F111 lolohi mission profile was
spec:800 miles m0,9 at altitude and 210 miles dash at SL at m1,2.
AF estimate was:800/119 miles.
In 1969 f111 demonstrated 30 miles SL dash radius.
TF 30 SLS spc values are
0,7 w/o AB and 2,57 w AB and D/L ratio of f111 at SL at M1,2 (with 110 degress
sweep) is 2,2.
Denyav
>little trim at subsonic speed. If you design the aircraft for trim
>neutrality at supersonic speed, you WILL have trim drag issues subsonic. Get
>it now?
True but you solve trim drag problem where it hurts the most.If you look at
the almost all modern fighter designs you will notice a gentle curve in their
after bodies.F4 tried to solve trim drag problem more differently.So all modern
designs f14,15 and 18 have no or reduced trim drag at supersonic speeds,so trim
drag reduction by using 2D nozzles
is not very significant at supersonic speeds
.>You made the point about wing loading. I pointed out that Concorde and XB-70
>have similar wing loadings to the F-15, so what is your point?
>
Totally different wing geometries.Do you want to say that concorde or b70 could
maneuver as agressively as f15 or 22?
>No, the issue is what speeds can the 9G be sustained. What is the envelope.
>The envelope with the F-22 is greater, that is the point.
Thats good now you are on right track,f22 is just another Boyd
fighter,designed for knife fights and corner speeds that are sustained,and for
this purpose you need a high T/W ratio and high L/D ratio during combat
manouvers,but if you design for high L/D ratios during maneuvers then you
should live with low L/D ratios during high speed cruise.
If f22 had existed 30 years ago,that would be great,but in 21st century,in the
age of global awareness,grids,DEWs,HPMs etc.an expensive aircraft capable of
knife fights and even sports a gun belongs to jurassic park.
>No, it isn't Denyav. Once again, you are pulling this stuff out of your
>arse. Suggest that you look at the fuel fraction of the F-15 and F-22. Now,
>how about a reference to this "historical" perspective. Bet you don't have
>one for that either!
Both identical.
Dennis Jensen
> >It is NOT a major drag contributor BECAUSE the aircraft is designed for
very
> >little trim at subsonic speed. If you design the aircraft for trim
> >neutrality at supersonic speed, you WILL have trim drag issues subsonic.
Get
> >it now?
>
> True but you solve trim drag problem where it hurts the most.If you look
at
> the almost all modern fighter designs you will notice a gentle curve in
their
> after bodies.F4 tried to solve trim drag problem more differently.So all
modern
> designs f14,15 and 18 have no or reduced trim drag at supersonic speeds,so
trim
> drag reduction by using 2D nozzles
> is not very significant at supersonic speeds
>
If it is not significant, why bother with thrust vectoring as a way to
reduce trim drag? You got any references for your contention about the lack
of supersonic trim drag (and hence added subsonic trim drag) with these
aircraft?
Simply have a look where most of the flying is done! You are going to burn
range at subsonic speeds (where most cruise takes place) for a supersonic
trim drag reduction. I don't think this is going to happen.
> .>You made the point about wing loading. I pointed out that Concorde and
XB-70
> >have similar wing loadings to the F-15, so what is your point?
> >
> Totally different wing geometries.Do you want to say that concorde or b70
could
> maneuver as agressively as f15 or 22?
>
What about a Mirage 2000? Let's get a little bit real here. Is the Concorde
STRESSED for anywhere near 9G? Clearly not, but if it was, it would be able
to pull an instantaneous 9G, but could not sustain due to a lack of thrust.
There really is no magic in terms of manouevrability, low wing loading,
aircraft stressed for high-G's, and high thrust:weight. MiG-25 has a
planform that really is not too dissimilar to the F-15, but has really
crappy manouevrability. It is a matter of priorities.
> >No, the issue is what speeds can the 9G be sustained. What is the
envelope.
> >The envelope with the F-22 is greater, that is the point.
> Thats good now you are on right track,f22 is just another Boyd
> fighter,designed for knife fights and corner speeds that are sustained,and
for
> this purpose you need a high T/W ratio and high L/D ratio during combat
> manouvers,but if you design for high L/D ratios during maneuvers then you
> should live with low L/D ratios during high speed cruise.
And where do you get this idea from? Do you have ANY sources that give the
F-22 a L/D ratio of 5 during manouevring and 2.5-3 for cruise? Didn't think
so!
> If f22 had existed 30 years ago,that would be great,but in 21st century,in
the
> age of global awareness,grids,DEWs,HPMs etc.an expensive aircraft capable
of
> knife fights and even sports a gun belongs to jurassic park.
>
Well, I really suggest you have a look at history. Have a look at the F-4,
no gun, it was all going to be missiles. Have a look at the Duncan Sandy's
British Defence White Paper of 1957, manned aircraft were obsolete. Are you
really silly enough to believe that you may not end up in a merge? What are
you going to do then? According to your views, we better just go back tto
the Missileer concept of the 1950's.
> >No, it isn't Denyav. Once again, you are pulling this stuff out of your
> >arse. Suggest that you look at the fuel fraction of the F-15 and F-22.
Now,
> >how about a reference to this "historical" perspective. Bet you don't
have
> >one for that either!
>
> Both identical.
And you still have not provided a reference:) You really are full of crap,
who simply continues stating the same thing, regardless of whether you have
facts or not. You are not Venik in another guise, are you?
Denyav
>reduce trim drag? You got any references for your contention about the lack
>of supersonic trim drag (and hence added subsonic trim drag) with these
>aircraft?
With 2D nozzles you can maneuver in post stall domain and reduce or eliminate
trim drag.
You might also want to ask why bother with leading edge cooling,it would make
perfect sense aganist 70s IR sensors but aganist current technology IR sensors
it is a waste.
>What about a Mirage 2000? Let's get a little bit real here. Is the Concorde
>STRESSED for anywhere near 9G? Clearly not, but if it was, it would be able
>to pull an instantaneous 9G, but could not sustain due to a lack of thrust.
Even if you'd stressed Concorde structrally for 29g energy maneuvers and triple
its thrust, concorde would not maneuver like f15.
>MiG-25 has a
>planform that really is not too dissimilar to the F-15, but has really
>crappy manouevrability. It is a matter of priorities.
Yes,its a matter of priorities MIG is designed achieve best L/D during cruising
while f15 designed to achive the same during energy maneuvers.
>Have a look at the F-4,
>no gun, it was all going to be missiles. Have a look at the Duncan Sandy's
>British Defence White Paper of 1957, manned aircraft were obsolete. Are you
>really silly enough to believe that you may not end up in a merge? What are
>you going to do then? According to your views, we better just go back tto
>the Missileer concept of the 1950's.
>
Actually The Missileer concept was way ahead of its time,it would be ideal
airborne platform for Global Awareness period
>And you still have not provided a reference:) You really are full of crap,
>who simply continues stating the same thing, regardless of whether you have
>facts or not. You are not Venik in another guise, are you?
No.
Dennis Jensen
> >If it is not significant, why bother with thrust vectoring as a way to
> >reduce trim drag? You got any references for your contention about the
lack
> >of supersonic trim drag (and hence added subsonic trim drag) with these
> >aircraft?
>
> With 2D nozzles you can maneuver in post stall domain and reduce or
eliminate
> trim drag.
> You might also want to ask why bother with leading edge cooling,it would
make
> perfect sense aganist 70s IR sensors but aganist current technology IR
sensors
> it is a waste.
It certainly is not a waste. Denyav, you really need to get away from the
idea of all or nothing. Stealth is about reduced observables, and if you
reduce the contrast between you and the background (which leading edge
cooling will do) you will reduce the IR contrast, and hence reduce the
detection range.
I ask again, you got any references to support your claim that subsonic trim
drag in the teens was increased to reduce supersonic trim drag. None of my
references suggests anything of the sort.
> >What about a Mirage 2000? Let's get a little bit real here. Is the
Concorde
>
> >STRESSED for anywhere near 9G? Clearly not, but if it was, it would be
able
> >to pull an instantaneous 9G, but could not sustain due to a lack of
thrust.
> Even if you'd stressed Concorde structrally for 29g energy maneuvers and
triple
> its thrust, concorde would not maneuver like f15.
>
And what do you base this on? Hell, you do realise that an F-15 is
comparable in size and weight to a WW2 bomber? In WW2, you would have been
arguing that nothing as big as a B-17 could manouevre like a Mustang. The
WW2 Mustang was similar in size and weight to WW1 bombers, and so it goes.
There really is nothing fundamental that precludes ultra manouevrable huge
aircraft, apart from the square-cube law. However, you get a Concorde
stressed for 9G and still have the thrust:weight equivalent to an F-15, and
it will manouevre similarly.
> >MiG-25 has a
> >planform that really is not too dissimilar to the F-15, but has really
> >crappy manouevrability. It is a matter of priorities.
> Yes,its a matter of priorities MIG is designed achieve best L/D during
cruising
> while f15 designed to achive the same during energy maneuvers.
>
Bullshit, it has nothing to do with that at all. The reason that the MiG-25
does not manouevre well is that weight was reduced by stressing for far
lower G-levels, which allowed a greater internal carriage of fuel. Once
again, got a reference for your claims about the L/D ratios of these
aircraft in cruise and manouevre fighting? You realise, of course, that for
all your posturing, you have not provided a shred of supporting evidence?
> >Have a look at the F-4,
> >no gun, it was all going to be missiles. Have a look at the Duncan
Sandy's
> >British Defence White Paper of 1957, manned aircraft were obsolete. Are
you
> >really silly enough to believe that you may not end up in a merge? What
are
> >you going to do then? According to your views, we better just go back tto
> >the Missileer concept of the 1950's.
> >
>
> Actually The Missileer concept was way ahead of its time,it would be ideal
> airborne platform for Global Awareness period
>
And a 747 armed with multiple AMRAAMs would be even better, given your
beliefs, right?
> >And you still have not provided a reference:) You really are full of
crap,
> >who simply continues stating the same thing, regardless of whether you
have
> >facts or not. You are not Venik in another guise, are you?
> No.
>
And you STILL have not provided ANY evidence to support you.
Credibility=nil!
John Cook
Hey its not a troll it was a genuine attempt to get a beer!!!, you
probally know the history of this thread...
All I want is the 'it can only spiffingcruise" mob to buy me a beer,
BTW it can be a virtual beer...
Cheers
>
Yeff
John Cook<Jwc...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
rec.aviation.military:
> Hey its not a troll it was a genuine attempt to get a beer!!!, you
> probally know the history of this thread...
He's not talking about you or the Eurofighter.
-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com
Denyav
>aircraft, apart from the square-cube law. However, you get a Concorde
>stressed for 9G and still have the thrust:weight equivalent to an F-15, and
>it will manouevre similarly.
Some "maneuverability" references for you:
1)"Tranformation of flight mechanical design requirements for modern fighters
into aerodynamic characteristics" by Peter Mangold
2)"Aircraft control requirements and achiveable dynamics prediction" by Joseph
Boland,David Riley and K.Citurs (AIAA paper)
3)"A review of high AoA requirements for combat aircraft" by Mckey and Walker.
4)"Tail configuration for highly maneuverable combat aircraft" by
fellers,Bowman and Follers.
5)"An evalation of relative merits of wing-canard,wing-tail and tailless
arrangements for advanced fighter applications" by Hoffshwelle,Hufmann,Nicholas
and Covell.
6)"Flight control and configuration design considerations for highly
maneuverable aircraft" by
Kehrer
.>And a 747 armed with multiple AMRAAMs would be even better, given your
>beliefs, right?
Actually I would think a 747 as a UCAV/MAV carrier or mothership.
>And you STILL have not provided ANY evidence to support you.
>Credibility=nil!
>--
I respect your opinions though I disagree
.>idea of all or nothing. Stealth is about reduced observables, and if you
>reduce the contrast between you and the background (which leading edge
>cooling will do) you will reduce the IR contrast, and hence reduce the
>detection range.
But problem is that the current state of art IR sensors could detect cooled
leading edge at longer distances than a 80s sensor could detect an uncooled
leading edge..period.
Dennis Jensen
> >here really is nothing fundamental that precludes ultra manouevrable huge
> >aircraft, apart from the square-cube law. However, you get a Concorde
> >stressed for 9G and still have the thrust:weight equivalent to an F-15,
and
> >it will manouevre similarly.
>
> Some "maneuverability" references for you:
> 1)"Tranformation of flight mechanical design requirements for modern
fighters
> into aerodynamic characteristics" by Peter Mangold
> 2)"Aircraft control requirements and achiveable dynamics prediction" by
Joseph
> Boland,David Riley and K.Citurs (AIAA paper)
> 3)"A review of high AoA requirements for combat aircraft" by Mckey and
Walker.
> 4)"Tail configuration for highly maneuverable combat aircraft" by
> fellers,Bowman and Follers.
> 5)"An evalation of relative merits of wing-canard,wing-tail and tailless
> arrangements for advanced fighter applications" by
Hoffshwelle,Hufmann,Nicholas
> and Covell.
> 6)"Flight control and configuration design considerations for highly
> maneuverable aircraft" by
> Kehrer
>
And I can quote references as well, such as "Mechanics of Flight", by A.C.
Kermode etc etc. What you have not done, apart from quoting a reference
(which in itself means nothing, as the contents may completely refute your
argument) is quote portions that relate to your argument.
For example, I could state that strategic bombing alone won WW2, and then
simply quote "Strategic Bombing Survey". The fact that the contents refutes
my point is what is important really, but it is not clear from a simple
title.
> .>And a 747 armed with multiple AMRAAMs would be even better, given your
> >beliefs, right?
> Actually I would think a 747 as a UCAV/MAV carrier or mothership.
>
> >And you STILL have not provided ANY evidence to support you.
> >Credibility=nil!
> >--
>
> I respect your opinions though I disagree
>
> .>idea of all or nothing. Stealth is about reduced observables, and if you
> >reduce the contrast between you and the background (which leading edge
> >cooling will do) you will reduce the IR contrast, and hence reduce the
> >detection range.
> But problem is that the current state of art IR sensors could detect
cooled
> leading edge at longer distances than a 80s sensor could detect an
uncooled
> leading edge..period.
>
Perhaps, Denyav, but current IR sensors can detect an uncooled leading edge
further than a cooled one, and that is what is important. You want a
relative detection range advantage, and things such as leading edge cooling
are providing it.
John Halliwell
<jen...@ozzienet.net> writes
>However, you get a Concorde
>stressed for 9G and still have the thrust:weight equivalent to an F-15, and
>it will manouevre similarly.
I haven't got any references to hand so may be way off the mark, but it
wouldn't surprise me to find Concorde is no slouch in the trust:weight
depoartment. No idea on the G rating (remember she is stressed much more
than ordinary airliners) and is designed to spend her life at M2 and
60,000.
Much of Concorde's performance is actually limited by the need to
provide a comfortable ride for the passengers. Turns are limited to
something like 1.2G and when accelerating transonic, the burners are lit
in pairs to prevent the 'kick in the back' feeling. Speed is limited to
M2.04 to prolong service life (much longer than any M2 fighter). One BA
pilot mentioned that Concorde has enormous amounts of excess power
available.
Several years ago at the end of a Farnborough show, the big SU's left
for Russia. They went off with very loud and fast take-off, first one
then the other (almost seemed like some kind of competition who could do
the most dramatic exit). A BA Concorde was right behind (I think
unladen), the pilot seemed like he wanted to prove a point. He easily
outdid them on the noise and vibration, the aircraft shot down the
runway and climbed away at a silly angle. The three take-offs followed
similar profiles and from a very rough guess, suggest to me that the
thrust:weight wasn't that far off. Incidentally when the photos came
out, Concorde's number four burner wasn't lit either.
I guess there's a selected few who know just how manoeuvrable Concorde
actually is :)
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Dennis Jensen
"John Halliwell" <jo...@photopia.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yXns9KA+...@photopia.demon.co.uk...
> In article <a7p22b$8ah$1...@fang.dsto.defence.gov.au>, Dennis Jensen
> <jen...@ozzienet.net> writes
> >However, you get a Concorde
> >stressed for 9G and still have the thrust:weight equivalent to an F-15,
and
> >it will manouevre similarly.
>
> I haven't got any references to hand so may be way off the mark, but it
> wouldn't surprise me to find Concorde is no slouch in the trust:weight
> depoartment. No idea on the G rating (remember she is stressed much more
> than ordinary airliners) and is designed to spend her life at M2 and
> 60,000.
>
John, afraid she is a relative slouch in thrust:weight. The Concorde is
173500lb empty and 408000lb MTOW. It has 38 000lb of thrust in full burner.
This gives a T:W of 0.87 empty, and 0.37. For comparison, 747-400, 0.6 and
0.3. Boeing 777 has 0.62 and 0.3.
For military comparison, we'll take Block 50 F-16C. The numbers there are:
1.59 and 0.7. So, the Concorde, although better than the other conventional
airliners, falls quite a way short of the military versions.
--
Dennis Jensen
Author of "The Flying Pigs"
http://www.ebooks-online.com/ebooks/search.asp
NOW ONLINE
Kristan Roberge
Ken Duffey wrote:
> "John Cook" <Jwc...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:enbb9u8cuo5so47ns...@4ax.com...
> > Eurofighter updates:-
> >
> > Propulsion details regarding M1.5 supercruise, now someone definately
> > owes me a beer...
> >
> If it isn't designed and built in the USA - it can't supercruise !!
>
> Didn't you know that ?
I thought it had to be a product of lochmart to supercuise...
last i check, F5Es were capable of well over 700 kts in dry thrust, and at
altitude, that's just beyond mach 1... how far beyond 1.0 do you have to be
to qualify as 'supercruise' ?
Kristan Roberge
John Cook wrote:Do a Google search on 'Eurofighter supercruise' and read up on
full
> supersonic airflow around an airframe (it fully proves that only the
> F22 can supercruise;-)).
> even if the Typhoon could fly faster without AB the i'm sure the
> definitiuon of supercruise would be changed to 'an aircraft that can
> fly at M1.5 or greater without AB whos name starts with an F and ends
> in 22'
Happen to know the specific fuel consumption on the EJ200 at 100% dry thrust?
Kristan Roberge
robert arndt wrote:
> > So,Eurofighter too can "fly" supersonic w/o AB,but how far?.
>
> Not very far at all. The Typhoon has a typical range of 345 miles
> which can be extended to 620 miles with aux. fuel tanks. Although its
> claimed max.speed is roughly Mach 2.0-2.2, it has almost no
> supercruise ability in any combat configuration. Every reference book
> I have on the Typhoon mentions "limited" supercruise with absolutely
> no definition of the word in terms of speed or time.
what's the internal fuel capacity and sfc for the typhoon and f-22? That
would determine the extent of range in supercruise. Simple math will
tell you how far it can go if the speed is known at max dry thrust and
sfc.
Also I think the 'range' of 345 miles is actually the combat radius from
base.
Drewe Manton
"Kristan Roberge" <krob...@ca.inter.net> wrote in message
news:3CABF2D6...@ca.inter.net...
how far beyond 1.0 do you have to be
> to qualify as 'supercruise' ?
>
Just a little bit faster than anything but the F-22 can go. Just as soon
as anything meets the new benchmark someone moves it so that once again only
the F-22 qualifies!
--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
in a citizen of the world
than the pride that divides
when a colourful rag is unfurled"
Paul Austin
23 g/KN-s. See
http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html
--
"An important difference between a military operation and a surgical
operation is that the patient is not tied down. But it's a common fault of
generalship to assume that he is".
Paul F Austin
pau...@digital.net