Smallest Capable Multi-Role Fighter

[FirstOfFoot]

Mach 1.1...wow that a whole Mach 0.15-0.2 faster than the Mach 0.9-0.95 many many aircraft can/could do.

 

At 35,000 ft that's a wopping 100-133 mph (730 mph vs 597-630 mph).

 

To put that in perspective, a F-22 cruising at Mach 1.72 @ 50,000 ft is going 1135 mph (505-538 mph faster than a Mach 0.9-0.95 cruiser & 405 mph faster than the BAE Lightning & 339 mph faster than the Eurofighter Typhoon). Another way to look at is that the F-22 is flying at 1.8-1.9 times the speed of a subsonic cruiser & 1.56 times the speed of the BAE Lightning & 1.43 times faster than the Eurofighter Typhoon. AND doing so at 15,000 ft higher altitude.

 

Errr.... remember that "supercruise at Mach 1.1" is about 50% of the top speed for an EE Lightning. IIRC, the Lightning could manage at least Mach 2.2 flat out... Not bad for the 1950s. Remind me, that makes it.... ooooh..... about as fast as an F-22, but nearly fifty years older.

 

As for the we're bored, let's have a time-to-height race ("it could beat an F-15 to 30,000 feet"), apparently when they tried to race a Harrier, the Harrier won. They started up at the same time, the Harrier just didn't bother with the whole "taxi to the runway before taking off" thing, and the Harrier was at 10,000 feet before the Lightning was off the ground...

 

(Source: http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/li...g/history.html)

 

The other famous lightning story was that an RAF engineer was carrying out an engine test; the rules said it had to be carried out out of the hangar (obviously), so they towed it to the end of the runway. The ejector seat had been removed, and the engineer was sitting on a wooden crate. Unfortunately, the problem meant that the reheat jammed on, and rather than try and jump out of a rapidly accelerating Lightning (wheel brakes can only do so much) the engineer took off, and successfully landed, the aircraft using his single-engine prop pilot skills from his University days. Ouch. Got a flying medal too, if my memory of the story is correct.

 

On the radar front (given that I used to walk past an Airpass AI.23 every day), the Lightning had the first monopulse radar in squadron service, in the world.

[Getz]

No I hear what you are saying just fine.

 

If you understood me then you wouldn't keep repeating how amazing the F22 is. That isn't in question and nobody (certainly not me, at least) is denying it's capabilities.

 

However, when the F22 was unveiled the official publicity material bigged up it's Supercruise like it was a new thing - since then I'm absolutely sure I've seen programs where it is claimed as a unique abilty. However, it isn't.

 

That's the issue. Not who supercruises best, but the fact that the F22 has been presented - either by implication or just plain falsely - as the only supercruiser out there. This is not the fault of the USAF. It is not the fault of the US government. It is mainly the fault of the Discovery channel program makers...

Edited July 20, 2007 by Getz

[Guest pfcem]

Errr.... remember that "supercruise at Mach 1.1" is about 50% of the top speed for an EE Lightning. IIRC, the Lightning could manage at least Mach 2.2 flat out... Not bad for the 1950s. Remind me, that makes it.... ooooh..... about as fast as an F-22, but nearly fifty years older.

Who cares? The BAE lighting could do Mach 2.2 for what, 30 seconds {exaggerated to make the point more clear} before it was at bingo fuel & had to shut off the burners & head back to base. Note that Mach 2.2 @ 35,000 ft is ~24 miles per minute. Just how far do you think the BAE Lightning is/was going to get at full afterburner before it ran out of fuel (also not that it takes a significant amount of time just to reach Mach 2.2)?

 

 

 

As for the we're bored, let's have a time-to-height race ("it could beat an F-15 to 30,000 feet"), apparently when they tried to race a Harrier, the Harrier won. They started up at the same time, the Harrier just didn't bother with the whole "taxi to the runway before taking off" thing, and the Harrier was at 10,000 feet before the Lightning was off the ground...

And given that the F-22 has more dry thrust than an F-15 at full afterburner (& >60% more at full afterburner), how well do you think it climbs?

[Guest pfcem]

If you understood me then you wouldn't keep repeating how amazing the F22 is. That isn't in question and nobody (certainly not me, at least) is denying it's capabilities.

But it is a matter of people like you TRYING to claim that other aircraft have even similar capabilities...

 

Sorry, no matter how hard you try, you are not going to convince those of us who know better that being able to do Mach 1.1 @ 35,000 ft is even close to being able to do Mach 1.72+ @ 50,000+ ft (or that being able to do Mach 1.1 is a significant advantage over Mach 0.9-0.95). The speed difference at mach 1.72 is 2.5-3 times GREATER than Mach 1.1 than Mach 1.1 is greater than Mach 0.9-0.95!

 

 

 

However, when the F22 was unveiled the official publicity material bigged up it's Supercruise like it was a new thing - sinces then I'm absolutely sure I've seen programs where it is claimed as a unique abilty. However, it isn't.

One more time for those who seem to have a problem comprehending...

 

F-22 supercruise = Mach 1.5++ @ 50,000+ ft. NOT Mach 1.0+ @ 35,000 ft.

 

No other fighter in the world can do Mach 1.5++ @ 50,000+ ft without afterburners so it is VERY MUCH a unique abilty!

 

 

 

That's the issue. Not who supercruises best, but the fact that the F22 has been presented - either by implication or just plain falsely - as the only supercruiser out there. This is not the fault of the USAF. It is not the fault of the US government. It is mainly the fault of the Discovery channel program makers...

The Discovery Channel has nothing to do with it. Your inability to understand that when the US talks about the F-22 & supercruising, they do NOT mean >Mach 1.0 but >>Mach 1.5 does.

[DB]

You spin me right round, baby

Right round like a record, baby

Right round round round

 

Yawn.

 

Time to go and beat myself with a stick for a bit of light relief.

 

David

[swerve]

You spin me right round, baby

Right round like a record, baby

Right round round round

 

Yawn.

 

Time to go and beat myself with a stick for a bit of light relief.

 

David

 

Was there some post which I'm better off for not having seen?

[TDHM]

Was there some post which I'm better off for not having seen?

 

I think that you do need to occassionally see certain posts. It reinforces why you ignored somebody in the first place.

[Getz]

Blah, blah, blah...

 

Look pal, I'm not the one who came here with the confrontational attitude - I was just trying to shed a little light on why, rightly or wrongly, some people feel the way they do.

 

However, you're completely talking at cross purposes to me, not addressing the point I'm trying to make and instead are making these furious posts about some strawman you've built up in you mind with has very little to do with the observation I made in the first place. Bluntly I just can't be arsed to listen to you repeating yourself over and over like a stuck record whilst completely failing to get what I'm actually talking about. I've tried to explain to you that you've misunderstood me twice now, but you just assert that you understand fine - which clearly you don't - and I can't see any evidence of you actually listening to me. You've just made up your mind that I'm making some kind of attack on your oh-so-precious wank off fantasy F22 and keep on banging on reeling off performance statistis that are completely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

 

So tell you what, I quit. You win the thread. If I thought there was any chance of some productive discussion I'd persist, but I'll just let you get on with waving your flag and feel free to make some smart arsed comment back at me - but don't expect me to pay any attention to it because I'm outta here.

Edited July 20, 2007 by Getz

[DB]

I think that you do need to occassionally see certain posts. It reinforces why you ignored somebody in the first place.

Yss, a kind of aversion therapy - like kicking yourself in the testicles once in a while to remind yourself why you don't do it more often.

 

It was clear where this one was going when the usual suspect leapt onto the contentious bandwagon. We're now deeply into the "who gets bored first phase", and we probably know the answer to that one.

 

On a more serious note, whilst the F119 engine in the F-22 appears to be a superb low bypass turbofan, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly magic about it, no voodoo that allows it to do what it does - just a lot of carefully matched incremental advances that move the engine into a significantly higher class than its contemporaries. Assuming that the F-22 has fixed inlet geometry, and assuming no magic, I'd be surprised if the speculative top speeds being presented here are any more accurate than the tales of 50 knot supercarriers.

 

David

[Guest pfcem]

Look pal, I'm not the one who came here with the confrontational attitude - I was just trying to shed a little light on why, rightly or wrongly, some people feel the way they do.

I'm not being confrontational. I am simply TRYING to inform you of the facts.

 

 

 

However, you're completely talking at cross purposes to me, not addressing the point I'm trying to make and instead are making these furious posts about some strawman you've built up in you mind with has very little to do with the observation I made in the first place. Bluntly I just can't be arsed to listen to you repeating yourself over and over like a stuck record whilst completely failing to get what I'm actually talking about. I've tried to explain to you that you've misunderstood me twice now, but you just assert that you understand fine - which clearly you don't - and I can't see any evidence of you actually listening to me. You've just made up your mind that I'm making some kind of attack on your oh-so-precious wank off fantasy F22 and keep on banging on reeling off performance statistis that are completely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

No, I am specifically addressing your point & how it is false.

 

And no you are not attacking the F-22, you are TRYING to make everything else that can "supercruise" at Mach 1-1.25 appear better than it is by TRYING to claim that since the US makes a big deal of the F-22's supercruise capability that their ability to "supercruise" is somehow a big deal as well.

 

One last try...think of it as Mach 1.02-1.25 @ 35,000 ft without afterburners as supercruising BUT think of the F-22's Mach 1.72+ @ 50,000+ft as super supercruising (or what ever wording you want to use, just realize that the F-22's supercruise capability is by far & away in a different leage to that of any previous fighter).

 

 

 

So tell you what, I quit. You win the thread. If I thought there was any chance of some productive discussion I'd persist, but I'll just let you get on with waving your flag and feel free to make some smart arsed comment back at me - but don't expect me to pay any attention to it because I'm outta here.

Bye.

[Guest pfcem]

On a more serious note, whilst the F119 engine in the F-22 appears to be a superb low bypass turbofan, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly magic about it, no voodoo that allows it to do what it does - just a lot of carefully matched incremental advances that move the engine into a significantly higher class than its contemporaries.

No magic, just an engine that while being only slightly larger, produces more dry thust than the F100-PW-220 of the F-15C & F-16C does at full afterburner and designed to operate Mach 1.5+ @ 50,000+ ft.

 

 

 

Assuming that the F-22 has fixed inlet geometry, and assuming no magic, I'd be surprised if the speculative top speeds being presented here are any more accurate than the tales of 50 knot supercarriers.

Well the USAF says Mach 1.72 at military power (no afterburner) with a never-exceed speed of Mach 2.42 (actually capable of accellerating well past this but Mach 2.42 is an operational limit to prevent the plane from literally tearing itself apart).

[Arthur Hubers]

Well the USAF says Mach 1.72 at military power (no afterburner) with a never-exceed speed of Mach 2.42 (actually capable of accellerating well past this but Mach 2.42 is an operational limit to prevent the plane from literally tearing itself apart).

Source please?

[DB]

The USAF official fact sheet on the F-22A describes the maximum speed as "Mach 2 class.", which IIRC is what they've been saying about retty much every a/c that could get up there since about 1960.

 

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=199

 

I recall that the F-15A was touted as having a very high maximum Mach number, something like the Mach 2.4 figure given above, but it *does* have variable inlets and doesn't ever get anywhere near that speed.

 

Note also that the USAF fact sheet now defines supercruise as cruising at > Mach 1.5 without using afterburners. Note that it quite clearly doesn't mention anything about diving, going from subsonic to supersonic without using afterburners, and continues to repeat the canard that other current aircraft cannot cruise supersonically without using afterburner.

 

Anyway, I believe I've already defined the Eurofighter's capability as "spiffingcruise", which by definition cannot be attained by the F-22A, so let's just move on, shall we?

 

David

[swerve]

...

Note also that the USAF fact sheet now defines supercruise as cruising at > Mach 1.5 without using afterburners. Note that it quite clearly doesn't mention anything about diving, going from subsonic to supersonic without using afterburners, and continues to repeat the canard that other current aircraft cannot cruise supersonically without using afterburner.

...

David

 

The USAF & Lockheed Martin have a fixed, but undeclared, policy. Supercruise will be officially defined as whatever an F-22 can do that nothing else (well, now that Concorde has been retired) has demonstrated so publicly that they can't ignore it. Whenever something else rubs their noses in its ability to supercruise as defined by the USAF/Lockmart, the definition will be changed, until such time as that would render F-22 incapable of supercruising according to their definition. At which point they will stop mentioning it.

 

They've changed the definition at least twice already.

[Guest pfcem]

Source please?

While the true max supercruise & top speed for the F-22 are classified, if you simply check the statements from USAF, Lockheed Martin & various F-22 pilots (including Lt. Col. Michael "Dozer" Shower & F-22 chief test pilot Paul Metz) over the past say 1-2 years you will find Mach 1.72 & Mach 2.42 respectively pretting coinsistantly...