Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Choocha on March 14, 2006, 08:10:29 AM

Title: On the F-22
Post by: Choocha on March 14, 2006, 08:10:29 AM
Hello community of friends and foes,


I work in a office that sits on final approach to Tyndal, Afb here in sunny Florida.  Being in such a location I can look up and see all kinds of aircraft landing there.  I've seen B-1's, F-15's, F-16's, even Mig-29's and an occasional Osprey zipping around.

Tyndal is home to the first operational sqaud. of F-22's.  Now I see F-22's queuing up to land all of the time.  A funny thing about them, they sound different than any other airplane I've ever heard.  They making a very, very loud and strange howling noise that is very distinct.


I've read from declassified journals that the engine is one of the great leaps foward in technology.  I've also read that the thrust vectoring is not for dogfighting but for operating at very, very high altitudes.  I also read (I can site the journal if anybody wants) the following:

SUPER CRUISE NON-AFTER BURNER

60,000 ft - Mach 2
80,000 ft - Mach 1.5

That would give it a ceiling of 100,000 ft and probably a Mach 3 capability.  Wow, anybody know whats in that engine?  Is a hybrid ram jet type of engine like that of the SR-71?
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Nilsen on March 14, 2006, 08:20:14 AM
I kida doubt that mach 3 is possible with it but who knows
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Choocha on March 14, 2006, 08:25:51 AM
If it can cruise at Mach 2.0, then a sprint to Mach 3 and beyond is easly within reach.
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Nilsen on March 14, 2006, 08:26:54 AM
well then .. since you know :)
Title: On the F-22
Post by: z0rch on March 14, 2006, 08:37:32 AM
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-f119.htm
Title: On the F-22
Post by: RTR on March 14, 2006, 08:49:44 AM
The speed of sound at sea level (a standard day, sea level and 15 degrees celsius and 29.92" Hg) is about 740mph.

As you gain altitude and the air gets thinner this number drops. Also what drops is the engines ability to create thrust, because of the lower density of the air.

So, all things being considered, even with the ability to "super cruise" I don't think you are going to see mach 3 out of this aircraft at any altitude.

I'm not sure how you determined from 80,000ft and supercruising at mach 1.5 gives a ceiling of 100K and mach 3 using afterburner.

I think you may not understand what afterburning is, and what you get out of it vs what its limits are. It uses alot of oxygen  (air) which is a pretty rare commodity at 100,000 ft.  So unless you have some way of carrying the extra O2 to burn at that altitude (rocket type engines for example) you are going to be pretty limited in afterburning, if you could utilize it at all.

I will say that the F-22 is a pretty cool aircraft though.:)

cheers,
RTR
Title: On the F-22
Post by: john9001 on March 14, 2006, 09:33:53 AM
i thought the F22 did not have afterburn, thats what super cruse was for.
Title: On the F-22
Post by: RAIDER14 on March 14, 2006, 09:36:21 AM
In a dive from 80,000ft. it could probaly reach mach 3 , I wonder what the world looks like at mach 3:confused:
Title: On the F-22
Post by: RTR on March 14, 2006, 09:47:42 AM
LOL

Okay, I give up.

If we keep hammering on it, eventually we'll get the round peg to fit into the square hole.

RTR
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Choocha on March 14, 2006, 10:20:41 AM
RTR,

Your from Canada so I'm waiting for the F-22 still can't touch the Avero Arrow.  That's why the CIA, FBI, ATF, INS, Border Patrol, and New Jersey State police conspired to kill the program and keep Canada down.
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Dinger on March 14, 2006, 10:21:13 AM
Nah, supercruise is for being very fast. Afterburner is for going very very fast. Being able to achieve and maintain supersonic flight without A/B will allow it to go very fast without the inherent range penalties you get from highly inefficient A/Bs.

Oh yeah, another thing, where you're shooting across the deck faster than the speed of sound, the bad guys don't see you until you crack over them. And then, if they happen to have something heat-seeking pointing about, your signature will be much less without A/Bs. And at night, you won't be quite as visible.
All kinds of uses for supercruise that don't preclude attaching A/Bs (though I don't know if they have it).

Oh yeah, and these speeds are level flight speeds. In a dive at Mach 3, the world probably looks very small. Then very big. Then very dark.
Title: On the F-22
Post by: RTR on March 14, 2006, 10:41:21 AM
LOL Choocha.

I never said anything negative about the Raptor. (although I am sure there are points there).

Just kinda suspect that a little research into a subject you are obviously interested in bears a look.

As for the Arrow, it's been discussed ad-nauseum on the boards here. Not worth revisiting, and not relevant here.

btw, you are probably right about the New Jersey State Police!;)

cheers,
RTR
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Chairboy on March 14, 2006, 10:46:51 AM
Oblig: "You've never been lost until you've been lost at Mach 3."  - Paul F. Crickmore, test pilot.
Title: On the F-22
Post by: kevykev56 on March 14, 2006, 11:24:04 AM
The Raptor even in a dive at Mach 3...wow I wonder what the heat buildup on the wings would be. The SR-71 would heat up to over 900deg F and made from titanium.

I wonder how the composite wings would hold up on the F-22? Since your diving you will be at a lower alt than the 100k the SR-71 flew at meaning more air density and more heat.

If the F-22 is Mach 3 capable at any altitude it is a huge feat of engineering. Its already the greatest plane flying today, and im sure will be long into the future as well.



Coocha,

The Tyndall Raptors have done approaches outside my office here on Eglin AFB. You are correct sir, very distinct sound and very graceful flying aircraft.

I was lucky enough to see one flying above Mach 1 during a test on one of the ranges a few years back. A very fun experience.
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Choocha on March 14, 2006, 12:05:35 PM
Hey,

Your down the street from me.  Yes, then you have heard that sound.  Everybody in my office as picked up on it.  It is very distinctive.
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Furball on March 14, 2006, 02:23:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by RAIDER14
In a dive from 80,000ft. it could probaly reach mach 3 , I wonder what the world looks like at mach 3:confused:


wouldnt diving from 80,000 feet progressively raise the mach # required to go mach 3? the thicker air stop it from ever reaching that fast?
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Choocha on March 14, 2006, 02:42:26 PM
Look, the Mig-25 cannot even cruise close to Mach 2 and it can reach Mach 3 in very short "sprints"


Logic would dictate that an airplane crusing at Mach 2 could lite the Burners and make it to Mach 3 easy...
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Furball on March 14, 2006, 02:44:52 PM
depends...

when the U-2 is flying at 80,000 feet, isnt the difference between stalling and overspeed something like 5mph?
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Choocha on March 14, 2006, 02:50:14 PM
yes but the u2 is only flying at 400 mph.  you got a little more cusion when flying at 2,000 mph.


plus I'm not talking about 80k ...I'm saying Mach 3+ at its optimum altitude, which is probably closer to 40k.

Face it all Non-Americans.  The F-22 is the first operational fighter capable of flying at Mach 3+.
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Glasses on March 14, 2006, 02:53:53 PM
Think cruising at Mach 3 for the Raptor would be very bad for the RAM and for the carbon construction of it.
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Furball on March 14, 2006, 02:54:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Choocha
Face it all Non-Americans.  The F-22 is the first operational fighter capable of flying at Mach 3+.


(http://www.africaninspace.com/images/gallery/4439.jpg)
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Choocha on March 14, 2006, 02:57:21 PM
ok, Furball



without having destroyed its engines and only reaching mach 3 for like 5 seconds.
Title: On the F-22
Post by: john9001 on March 14, 2006, 02:59:15 PM
after the MIG does mach 3 , you have to replace the burned out engines.
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Furball on March 14, 2006, 02:59:53 PM
amended: -

Quote
Originally posted by Choocha
Face it all Non-Americans.  The F-22 is the first American operational fighter capable of flying at Mach 3+.


i very much doubt it could reach mach 3+.  but still..
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Choocha on March 14, 2006, 03:02:46 PM
you don't know that.  I have logic on my side.  According to a Test pilot "The difference in technology between the P-51 and the F-4 phantom is roughly equal to the difference between the F-15 and F-22."


Can you say Mach 4 maybe?
Title: On the F-22
Post by: RAIDER14 on March 14, 2006, 03:17:53 PM
the only the thing that can go mach 4 or higher is the U.S. space shuttle and those are getting decommisioned in a few years
Title: On the F-22
Post by: kevykev56 on March 14, 2006, 03:22:04 PM
Choocha,

Im not saying it isnt possible. I do however logically highly doubt it possible. The Mig-25 is able to sprint at Mach 3+ , it however is a special built plane. The engines are made to operate at altitudes with much thinner air. The F-22 was not designed to fly and intercept aircraft in excess of 60k.

My problem with the raptor and Mach 3+ is the air density. The amount of force required to push through the higher speeds at 40k would be substantial... Math maniacs chime in here...

The wings if I remember correctly are designed purely of composite materials.  Will they be able to withstand the extreme temperatures or will they burn into ash. I dont have the answers, just logical doubt that it can operate at those speeds.
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Choocha on March 14, 2006, 03:33:00 PM
The F-22 was not designed to fly and intercept aircraft in excess of 60k.



how do you know that?  there are many secrets with this airplane.  info. has been dribbling out of Tyndal and other AFB's that seem to indicate the opposite.



for example, a test pilot remarked, "because of the altitude and speed capability, the F-22 can drop munitions at vary long distances from target.  Much longer than any platform in the world."

he's refering to jdam's  ...and if you drop'em from 80k at mach 2 or higher, then you can make them reach much further.

also, another test pilot remarked that, "Many people think the thrust vectoring gives the F-22 better manuvering capability and therefore can dogfight better.  However, in fact the thrust vectoring is used to maintain control authority at very high altitudes."
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Choocha on March 14, 2006, 03:34:49 PM
My guess:


Mach 4 @ 100k= Dead Eurofighter
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Replicant on March 14, 2006, 04:13:32 PM
I guess the F22 can shoot anything down with its photo torpedoes and warp drive :aok

:rolleyes:
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Heater on March 14, 2006, 04:33:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Choocha
yes but the u2 is only flying at 400 mph.  you got a little more cusion when flying at 2,000 mph.


plus I'm not talking about 80k ...I'm saying Mach 3+ at its optimum altitude, which is probably closer to 40k.

Face it all Non-Americans.  The F-22 is the first operational fighter capable of flying at Mach 3+.


Choocha,

Where are you getting your facts?
Title: On the F-22
Post by: kevykev56 on March 14, 2006, 04:55:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Choocha
The F-22 was not designed to fly and intercept aircraft in excess of 60k.

how do you know that?  there are many secrets with this airplane.  info. has been dribbling out of Tyndal and other AFB's that seem to indicate the opposite.

for example, a test pilot remarked, "because of the altitude and speed capability, the F-22 can drop munitions at vary long distances from target.  Much longer than any platform in the world."

he's refering to jdam's  ...and if you drop'em from 80k at mach 2 or higher, then you can make them reach much further.

also, another test pilot remarked that, "Many people think the thrust vectoring gives the F-22 better manuvering capability and therefore can dogfight better.  However, in fact the thrust vectoring is used to maintain control authority at very high altitudes."




How do I know that it wasnt designed to intercept aircraft at 60K +?  Tell me what aircraft it would be intercepting at that alt?

Your only speculating that the 80k release of a Jdam is possible. Before you get into that do you know the USAF policy on flying above 55k? Do you know why the policy is established? Think U-2...    and another note....what is the rated drop speed for the Jdam?

The vectoring is used to increase the maneuvaribility at high AOA's. As far as Altitude performance of the vector thrust well I dont know and will just take your word for it.



I still agree that the thing sounds cool tho :D
Title: On the F-22
Post by: RTR on March 14, 2006, 04:56:05 PM
Actually the specs published for the Raptor put it's top speed at mach 1.8

Choocha, you're reaching a bit here bud.

The mach 3+ interceptor role went the way of the DODO a decade or so ago.

Facts are facts.

RTR
Title: On the F-22
Post by: midnight Target on March 14, 2006, 05:19:49 PM
If this thread gets much longer the dang things gonna go mach 5.
Title: On the F-22
Post by: RTR on March 14, 2006, 05:30:26 PM
Ihay illway ytray isthay inay igpay atinlay. Aybemay itway illway etgay oughthray ownay.

Ethay aptoray ecspay aysay achmay 1.8ay.

Ihay agreeay ithway MTay.

eerschay

RTRay
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Choocha on March 14, 2006, 05:49:50 PM
I read a journal that remarked that "the F-22, with its stealth, speed and high altitude capability- is the only platform consistiently able to defeat 4th generation SAM's."


Look, its no secret that the USAF wants a very high altitude cap. for bombing purposes.  The F-22 will fill that role.



Imagine, radar sig. of a f-117, speed of a sr-71, comming at you at 80k- it will be better that the la-7.
Title: On the F-22
Post by: deSelys on March 14, 2006, 05:50:17 PM
LOL MT :lol :aok
Title: On the F-22
Post by: LePaul on March 14, 2006, 05:50:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
If this thread gets much longer the dang things gonna go mach 5.


I'll up you a Mach and bet 6

I love armchair engineers  LOL
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Skuzzy on March 14, 2006, 05:55:09 PM
Speed of the SR-71??

Los Angeles To Washington D.C. (World Record): Distance: 2,299.67 statute miles...Time: 1 hr 04 min 19.89 secs.

I doubt the F-22 will break that record.  The top speed of the SR-71 is still classified, by the way.

EDIT:  By the way, on November 20, 1965 an A-12 Blackbird exceeded Mach 3.2 and a sustained altitude of 90,000 feet.  That is the fastest publicly recorded speed of a Blackbird.
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Choocha on March 14, 2006, 07:51:32 PM
btw,


I no armchair engineer...I'm the real thing.
Title: On the F-22
Post by: midnight Target on March 14, 2006, 07:53:14 PM
Dude! You're an armchair?
Title: On the F-22
Post by: Debonair on March 14, 2006, 07:56:54 PM
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Title: On the F-22
Post by: RTR on March 14, 2006, 08:08:12 PM
Like a lazyboy type?
Man I love those things!
You got cupholders too?

LOL

RTR
Title: Re: On the F-22
Post by: Holden McGroin on March 14, 2006, 08:38:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Choocha
Wow, anybody know whats in that engine?  Is a hybrid ram jet type of engine like that of the SR-71?


(http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f22/images/f22engine.jpeg)



Twin Spool Counter Rotating Axial Flow Augmented Turbofan
Low-Aspect Ratio. Three-Stage Fan, Six-Stage Compressor, Annular Combustor, Axial Flow/Counter Rotating Turbine; One-Stage, High-Pressure Turbine; One-Stage, Low-Pressure Turbine and a Two-dimensional Vectoring Convergent/Divergent Nozzle 35,000# thrust w/o afterburner... more with
Title: On the F-22
Post by: RTR on March 14, 2006, 11:59:23 PM
Choocha, just out of curiosity, what kind of engineer are you?

Nothing to do with the thread here, but up here we have a debate going on in the engineering world about aircraft maintenance engineers.

Apparently, here, the engineering world is up in arms over the title.  Go figure.

cheers,
RTR
Title: On the F-22
Post by: RAIDER14 on March 15, 2006, 12:08:33 AM
the XB-70 could fly at mach 3 but it never saw war time
Title: On the F-22
Post by: SuperDud on March 15, 2006, 01:35:55 AM
I was in the CIA for awhile where I flew F16s. Unfortunatley I was stung by a scorpion and had to take a leave of absence. I have now recovered from that.... and a brain tumor, and I'm now piloting the F22. I can say with 100% accuracy that the F22 can go mach4.


    Sincerly yours,
          V
Title: On the F-22
Post by: RTR on March 15, 2006, 01:51:08 AM
You know what?
Cut the guy some slack.

It's pretty rare to go on the internet and run into people who have at least a smidgeon about something you are  interested in.

Instead of brow beating and treating the individual like an outsider, why not welcome him into the fold?

We ALL started out  new.

For Choocha:  You are in a quagmire of 100's of years experience here really.

You need ti listen and / or educate. This is probably the most hard core aviation site you are ever going to see.

And. welcome to the fold!

Cheers,
RTR
Title: On the F-22
Post by: eagl on March 15, 2006, 03:08:29 AM
There's no way the F-22 can go mach 3, and 100,000 ft is likewise unrealistic except possibly as part of a test program such as the ultra-high altitude F-104 tests.

The antennas on an F-15E start melting off at around mach 2...  I wouldn't want to be the guy trying to tell my commander why I melted the anti-radar coating off of an F-22.

I'm not an armchair fighter pilot...  I'm the real thing.
Title: On the F-22
Post by: SuperDud on March 15, 2006, 03:19:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by eagl
I'm not an armchair fighter pilot...  I'm the real thing.



PWN!!!
Title: On the F-22
Post by: B@tfinkV on March 15, 2006, 03:41:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Dinger


Oh yeah, and these speeds are level flight speeds. In a dive at Mach 3, the world probably looks very small. Then very big. Then very dark.



:lol


:aok