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

The F-22s two F110-PW-100 are rated at about 35,000 pounds of thrust each on most sites. This is probably underrate for the public. I came across a site that stated they are capable of 116k Newtons dry (about 26,700 pounds) and 173k Newtons (38,900 pounds) on afterburner. This may be closer to its true value.

From: home.iae.nl...

[edit on 21-2-2005 by beyondSciFi]

Originally posted by beyondSciFi
The F-22s two F110-PW-100 are rated at about 35,000 pounds of thrust each on most sites. This is probably underrate for the public. I came across a site that stated they are capable of 116k Newtons dry (about 26,700 pounds) and 173k Newtons (38,900 pounds) on afterburner. This may be closer to its true value.

From: home.iae.nl...

It is certain, that F-22 engines have at least 142kN dry thrust each . Don't know, why is there only 116kN on your source - BTW the source article itself is confused - on one places it states the output is 142dry/155AB kN(like most other sites) on another 116/173.

[edit on 21-2-2005 by longbow]

Where did it say it had 142k dry (i didnt read the whole thing)? That seems way too high. That about 32,000 pounds of thrust dry... thats more then the F-15s engine in full afterburner. I really doubt thats right.

Originally posted by beyondSciFi
Where did it say it had 142k dry (i didnt read the whole thing)? That seems way too high. That about 32,000 pounds of thrust dry... thats more then the F-15s engine in full afterburner. I really doubt thats right.

Well, I am not able to find the 142 figure now, but the max output (155kN) is just above performace table. But I know for sure, that it can make 142kN dry. It is stated on all sites I saw. I know it is much, but that's why it can supercruise... It has more thrust without afterburner than conventional engines with afterburner.

IF they really could now make an engine that could make over 30,000 pounds dry I would be impressed. I would like to see on what site they stated this... if you could find them again, because I highly doubt the F119-PW-100 engine can achive that.

Also I sure you dont need that much thrust to make the F-22 supercruise. iIthink 15,000 - 20,000 would be enough from each engine.

[edit on 21-2-2005 by beyondSciFi]

I think the Raptor can go near mach 2 while supercruising, but with after burners i think its around mach 2.5.

and I think the SR-71 regulary went around mach 5, I think its max speed was a little under mach 7...around mach 6.5 or so. I'm not sure why people dont think it could go that fast, it used a ramjet and used the same materials as the X-15 which went mach 6.8...so there is nothing stoping the Blackbird from going close to that speed.

Although I agree with you that the F-22 can go about mach 2 with supercruise but thats about it. The SR-71 is limited to about mach 3.6 under normal conditions for three main reasons. These being the CIT temperature of 427 degrees which is reached between mach 3.4-3.7 (under normal conditions). The shock wave created by the nose of the blackbird at mach 3.6-3.8 enters the engine causing it to unstart (under normal conditions). Third being the temperature of flying over mach 3.5 ,in most cases, is high enough on the blackbirds windshield that it causes integrity problems(under normal conditions). Please do not compare the SR-71 to the x-15, they are nowhere near the same. Lastly I would like to state that the SR-71 was DESIGNED to fly at around mach 3.2 which it did. Also the J58 turboramjet engine used on the Blackbird never went over mach 3.6 in known and declassified tests. Although I have heard of the SR-71 blackbird reaching higher speeds under SPECIAL conditions. These being when they were flying over the north pole where the air temperature is much lower and the air is denser, giving more thrust at the same altitude then normaly encountered. Also the cold temperature made the limiting factors on the Blackbird less significant to the point where I have heard it reach over mach 3.8.

Anyway I would like to stay on topic, so please everyone else after this post, contribute by continuing the conversation on the F-22 Raptor.

[edit on 21-2-2005 by beyondSciFi]

Althought,we have know the Max. supercruise speed of F-22 without afterburner, but I couldn't image that "Raptor" will have a much higher Max. speed with a couple of immovable air-intake and a large area of aerofoil.

Im pretty sure the F-22 has moveable air-intakes... and it top speed should be at least somewhat greater then its SC speed. After all its max dry thrust is around 23,000 pounds while its max AF is around 35-39,000 pounds.

Originally posted by longbow
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.

Ha ha my dear BeyondSciFi I Think you got the problom that another member in ours realise that F-22 was equip the air-intakes which have not variable geometry, because it is hard to make it stealth.

Ok its possible that I am wrong, although just saying so does not make it so. Please provide some kind of evidence, like a link that backs your statement. After all talk is cheap... especially on the Internet.

Also, I have been thinking about the cost of producing F-22s and I only came to two logical conclusions. These being A: it really does cost 160-200 million to produce a raptor and B: It does not really cost 160-200 million per plane, but of that money spent, some of it goes to fund other projects. After all B would be a good cover since the gov't loves telling everyone that this is the most advanced and costliest fighter aircraft ever build. But I dunno... I can't make up my mind, both seem reasonable.


[edit on 26-2-2005 by beyondSciFi]

Please do some research into jet engine operation above mach. Certainly, even at supercruise, the F-22s inlets are varying geometry, whether you, or your radar can see it or not. This being done INTERNALLY, as is done in many other aircraft. The engine simply does not take force-fed ram air and cruise easily at those speeds.

There hasn't been any info released about the geometry and design of the F-22 air inlet system to my knowledge, so how is it generally accepted around here that the intakes are not variable? Do some research on jet inlet ops, and invariably you'll come to the conclusion, that yes, there must be a mechanism inside the aircraft's inlet that allows breakdown of extremely high speed air...Or, just keep believing that the engineers are/were too dumb to design an internal system, whatever helps you all sleep at night

INLETS

The inlet has no variable geometry devices; inlet stability characteristics
and variable bypass provide stable airflow over
the entire flight envelope with no throttle or maneuver
restrictions. The inlet edges are designed to reduce
signature and align with the wing leading edges.


source: www.f22fighter.com...



[edit on 27-2-2005 by Countermeasures]

Hummm thats interesting... although it does not have variable geometry inlets, it does have an all purpose fixed ramp external compression inlet to slow the air down so it could be used in the engine. Very nice find Countermeasures.

[edit on 27-2-2005 by beyondSciFi]

It would be interesting to see some more info.

Originally posted by longbow
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.

Accutually the F-22 produces some of least amount of drag for fighter aircraft.

Edit. Wrong thread

[edit on 27-2-2005 by American Mad Man]

If the "official line" is that the F-22's engines produce 35,000 lbs of thrust I thnk we can safely assume it is quite a bit higher. One trend which the US gov has always followed is understating the capablilities of every new aircraft. The simple fact is the US never tells anyone what an aircraft's true capabilties are untill after its been upgraded to better capabilities. Even so many years after the sr-71 was retired we still don't know what its performance maximums were.

Also, the fastest any jet engine can ever get up to is ABOUT Mach 3.5 After that, even state-of-the-art turbine materials start to break down. Also, the pilot themself kind of fades out. Also, a pilot can only go horizontally soooo fast before they actually will pass out and then die even.

Only accerleration really does anything to you, remeber the planet is already going way faster and we feel nothing so the pilot will be fine. On the other hand if they tried to go 0-mach 1 even in 60s you'd kill the guy for sure.

I think the Raptor can go near mach 2 while supercruising, but with after burners i think its around mach 2.5.

and I think the SR-71 regulary went around mach 5, I think its max speed was a little under mach 7...around mach 6.5 or so.

Read the rest of the thread, it was stated pretty clearly that speeds much above mach 3.5 become dangerous because of the heat involved. While they may classify the true capabilities of their aircraft, the physics behind it are public there comes a point where no known material could withstand the heat. Now certainly there are probably some classified materials that could be used for such but even that would only produce marginally faster results.

Originally posted by 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.

I know I'm nitpicking here, but to say the gov't is lying because the initial performance figures were under-rated is a little bit of a stretch.
The DoD almost always under-rates the performance figures of it's aircraft, especially the non-export versions.
I also do not recall any "official" statement from the USAF saying that the F-22 could "only" supercruise at 1.4M and no more.
I am quite sure any offical statement would have had the typical vagueness we have come to know from "official" DoD types.

On a side note....
ATS can at times provide an entertaining study into people and personality types... I find it interesting that when a statement comes out about performance saying that the F-22 can supercruise at or around 1.4 Mach - you invariably end up with 3 kinds of ATS'ers:

1. The Naysayer - the "anything the US does is outclassed by whatever ________ can do!" (Fill in the blank with your country of choice)
This type of ATS'er will say that any published US performance figure must be the absolute maximum under the best circumstances and even that is probably a lie just to try to intimidate any potential opposition or sell more product.

2. The Realist - this individual realizes that it is standard DoD operating procedure to only estimate performance figures (especially on new systems) and that the DoD generally keeps these estimates around 5 to 15% below the actual performance potential of the system in question.

3. The Conspiracist and The Red, White & Blue Patriot - these two character types will take published performance figures and double or triple them or make even more outlandish claims. (for differing reasons, however)
Case in point; a claim that the SR-71 can do Mach 7 or that the B-2 can fly to the moon and back on it's electrogravitic drives.

I guess I tended to rant a little bit here but getting back to the original point, I really don't think anyone actually "lied" concerning the performance figures of the Raptor, they only gave the typical vague "low-ball" estimate.

[edit on 28-2-2005 by intelgurl]