F-22 Raptor flys at over mach 1.7 without afterburner!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
“Today I flew the Raptor at speeds exceeding (Mach 1.7) without afterburners,” General Jumper said. “To be able to go that fast without afterburners means that nobody can get you in their sights or get a lock-on. The aircraft’s impressive stealth capability, combined with its super cruise (capability), will give any adversary a very hard time.”

www.f-22raptor.com... (at the bottom)

The government officially said that the f-22 can only go mach 1.4 without afterburner and mach 1.8 with them. We all knew the government was lying, now we have proof. I wonder what its true performance parameters are. Just think about it, the F-22 has more thrust then the SR-71 and is less then half its weight. I would not be surprised if the F-22 could do mach 2 at full supercruise and mach 3 on maximum afterburner...

[edit on 20-2-2005 by beyondSciFi]




posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
duh, its called super crusing. and its the reason the USAF will stay on top of the food chian when it comes to the worlds air forces.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
lol The sr-71 still the highest flying fastest aircraft around..... yum yum



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
duh, its called super crusing. and its the reason the USAF will stay on top of the food chian when it comes to the worlds air forces.


No crap, know its call supercrusing... im just say that the govn't listed its top supercruise speed at mach 1.4, but this article said it went over mach 1.7.

[edit on 20-2-2005 by beyondSciFi]



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
beyondSciFi:


The government officially said that the f-22 can only go mach 1.4 without afterburner and mach 1.8 with them. We all knew the government was lying, now we have proof.

Dude, you can call it what you want, but it's not considered a "true" outright, malicious "lie".
ALL governments do this and its called 'deception' or not revealing the utmost limits of a military product or hardware. Standard miltary practice of not revealing the full potential of any type hardware to the general publics discerning 'eyes,' being those public discerning eyes may be those of a future or potential adversary.

And to think that many think they actually know how fast an U.S. aircraft carrier can go, eh?





seekerof

[edit on 20-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
And to think that many think they actually know how fast an U.S. aircraft carrier can go, eh?

[edit on 20-2-2005 by Seekerof]


About 40-45 kts last I heard.

I know that the gov't lies at about EVERYTHING. I just made this post to make these obvious to people who didnt know this, by giving an example...



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
beyondSciFi:


About 40-45 kts last I heard.


See what I mean?


I was fortunate enough to have gone on the first initial (preliminary) sea trials for the George Washington. Because there are multitudes of civilain contractors and such on board at the time, the Navy had placed a "speed" board (ie: which converts to M.P.H.) in the bridge for those of us that were fortunate enough to be invited there. The initial sea trail I was invited on was to be off the Bahamas. The 'boat' was empty (ie: no aircraft, no munitions, no nothing). While on the bridge, when the 'boat' reached 55 m.p.h, the board went blank. The Captain then announced that this was because/for security reasons and not something that the military has deemed the civilain military contractors had need to know. Incidently, I witnessed the GW running the "crazy 8" course, and despite the seas having 6 foot waves, the carrier made the turns at 3/4 speed. I watched, in awe, as the carrier turned so hard and enough that the waves were actually hitting the starboard extreme extensions and port side extreme extensions. Again, this was with the 'boat' being considered "empty."






seekerof

[edit on 20-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Wow, over 55mph (46.7 kts) im impressed... anyway can we stick to the topic please?

[edit on 20-2-2005 by beyondSciFi]



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I'd bet Mach 2 supercruise for the F-22 as well.

I heard a much higher figure than 55 for a nuclear powered aircraft carrier as well, but dismissed it as fantasy, now I'm not so sure.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I bet we wont know the real numbers for quite some time. They always give us fudged numbers on things like speed and ceiling. Heck the SR-71 has been retired for years and I still cannot find exact numbers on its max ceiling I find stuff like 100,000+ft
Wells it up from the 85,000ft number they feed us for all those years.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
BTW Navy guys have also told me the Aircraft carrier Top speed was also Fudged



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   
There is no way that the Raptor can sustain Mach 3 cruise as the SR-71 can. A few planes can come close in terms of Dash speed but thats for short bursts, and the Mig-25 burns out its huge Tumansky turbines when pushed that fast.

To heat soak at such high Mach numbers without the benifits of a high temp resistant material (remember that the Raptor useas mostly conventional materials) would court disaster.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Goverment never said that F-22 has 1.4 Mach supercruise. In fact they said it is able to reach 1.58. Maybe that general flew on aircraft with low load? (no bombs/misiles).
Or they made more powerfull engines and took out the afterburner.

And to the topic F-22 flying over Mach 2. It is possible, but unlikely. Not because of sensitive materials and IR signature, but also because of aerodynamics. F-22 has wide internal bomb-bay that means more drag. Also the air intakes have not variable geometry (it is hard to make it stealth). So maybe 2.2 mach maximum. The engines are very powerfull, but the aerodynamics allows it not.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
F-22 has wide internal bomb-bay that means more drag. Also the air intakes have not variable geometry (it is hard to make it stealth). So maybe 2.2 mach maximum. The engines are very powerfull, but the aerodynamics allows it not.


I would think a internal weapon bay would be much better for drag then external weapons. I heard the Foxbat could never be armed when trying to hit its higher speeds as the Drag would likely rip the wings off.

Wouldnt any drag increase in making it bigger for internal weapon bays be negated by the lack of external weapon drag?



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
BTW Navy guys have also told me the Aircraft carrier Top speed was also Fudged


The CVN Enterprise with its 8 reactors is so overpowered that the hull cannot witstand the pounding that the theoretical top speed would dish out.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Thats interesting I think we need some Carbon Nanotube Hulls in future Carriers
Then we can let those babies loose.

If the Cost of Carbon Nanotubes is not astronomical I bet we will be seeing just about everything made out of it.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX


I would think a internal weapon bay would be much better for drag then external weapons. I heard the Foxbat could never be armed when trying to hit its higher speeds as the Drag would likely rip the wings off.

Wouldnt any drag increase in making it bigger for internal weapon bays be negated by the lack of external weapon drag?


Yes its' better. but clean configuration F-15 is faster than F-22. All the top speeds of aircrafts are in clean configuration. The combat speed when you need to carry misilles, internal bomb bay is better , of course. F-22 could be very fast also with internal weapon bay (the engines have HUGE power - more than those used on B1 bomber), but there are still those air intakes (and the RAM materials).



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   
We are getting a bit off topic, but I was watching a show that talked about a british proposal in WWII to make an aircraft carrier out of a water sawdust slurry that would have been big enought to launch B-17's from and if kept in cold climates would never melt



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I dont think we know the SR-71's top speed I've heard over mach 7 dont know if thats true or not if so thats UBER fast



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
We are getting a bit off topic, but I was watching a show that talked about a british proposal in WWII to make an aircraft carrier out of a water sawdust slurry that would have been big enought to launch B-17's from and if kept in cold climates would never melt


Yup the Ice ships I think the material was called ''Pykrete" Its was as strong as concrete and melted much slower then Ice. The ships were going to be Massive like man made Islands.

I believe Church Hill even gave the project a Go but about the same time normal Carriers were starting to get produced in the numbers they needed.

I heard the story of the guy that invented the stuff presenting it to the UK big wigs. He had a piece of Pykrete and Ice to a meeting pulled out his handgun shot the Ice which shattered to pieces then he shoot the Pykrete and it took the bullet without breaking.

It impressed them quite a bit. I think someone at the meeting was even hurt by the ice shattering


[edit on 20-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join