Raptors Fatal Flaw

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   
You all have to realize that any problems that any one of the members of this forum has come up with has already been thought about by some designer. They have been designing this aircraft for over 20 years. I am pretty such they have caught everything.




posted on May, 17 2005 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Will anyone answer the questions i posted.

BTW : I have read somewhere that the PAK-FA's weapons bay will have sliding doors(unlike the raptor's downwardly opening ones).

The PAK-FA (prototype in late 2006)

img223.exs.cx...


img143.exs.cx...



Edit: oversized images/photos again. Changed to links

[edit on 17-5-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk
This got me thinking, I have heard much about the the Raptor and its assocated supercruise ability, my point is, will there be an offensive limitation on the Raptor while in Supercruise mode? AKA is the Raptor helpless while still in super cruise? Due to the fact that the Raptor would have to open the aircrafts payload doors INTO the slip stream, there by having its doors ripped in the related slipstream of the aircraft at supercruise.


The F-22 has repeatedly launched both AIM-9 and AIM-120 missiles at supersonic speeds during weapon separation and operational flight testing. The first shot was an AIM-9 launched at Mach 1.1 in August 2002, and subsequent shots were taken up to Mach 2. Perhaps the most extreme launch conditions have been at supersonic speed while the plane was pulling high g's and rotating up to 100 degrees per second. These test shots have cleared the F-22 launch envelope while proving that there are no structural problems or safe separation issues.

Here are a few news articles discussing the flight test program.

www.edwards.af.mil...
www.codeonemagazine.com...
www.navycompass.com...
www.afa.org...



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Hello,

Look, I am going to be blunt about some of the replies to this thread, they are frankly sickening, are you all so insecure that even the mention or possibility of a flaw, send your poor wee minds into attack mode?

I do not believe in all the PR that the US Military has been pumping out, nor do I believe all the hype that the fans of the F/A 22 on this forum have been pumping out either. You know what they say about men that boast 24/7 about their equitment, it very rarely ever meets expectations.

My post was a question, if the F/A 22 Raptor, could have a flaw, due to the fact that the payload doors would open OUTWARD into a volient slipstream during Super Cruise. I didn't SAY it had it, I merely said that it could have it. As the seeker of said earlier an SANE aircraft fan would have the mental ability to consider the fact that there COULD be flaws, the same way I accept that this aircraft COULD do what it says on the tin, if not I think you need to reconsider your advice Seekerof.

I have yet to see an air to air shot of the Raptor at mach with the doors open or for that matter an air to air shot of the Raptor in any "odd" configuation postions, aka upside down and launching a missile.

All that most of you did was throw useless facts and figures at me and insult me, all you said is how the Raptor will rule the skys etc, folks READ the first post, I didn't ask that, nor did I ask how long it would rule the skys, NOR did I ask about its proposed air combat ability, its that simple.

Seekerof: Its simple, a good book for you is Model Aircraft Aerodynamics by Martin Simons, it goes into much detail about parasite drag at hi speeds and the resulting problems.

- Phil



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 04:49 AM
link   
There's an obvious difference between a military aircraft enthusiast and an industry insider; so when ATS'ers like Aerospaceweb, Seekerof or Intelgurl have something to say, I for one listen.

Aerospaceweb linked to some very interesting articles, here are quotes from 2 of them:

Nov. 5, 2002:
"F/A-22 test pilot Maj. Jim Dutton launched an AIM-120 AMRAAM from an altitude of 35,000 feet while supercruising without afterburners at an airspeed of 1.5 Mach. Dutton’s target was a rocket drone traveling in excess of Mach 2 and at an altitude of 51,000 feet. The missile, which had no warhead, flew within lethal range of the target and, from preliminary data analysis, was assessed a kill."
Edwards AFB News Archives

Sept. 22, 2003:
Raptor 03 launched a AIM-9 missile at elevated g while rolling 100 degrees per second.
Lockheed's "Code One" magazine

As for Goose's statement that he does "not believe in all the PR that the US Military has been pumping out", that's ok, but if you don't believe multiple statements from both industry spokesmen as well as both the USAF and the US Navy (see Aerospaceweb's "Navy Compass" link) then whats the use in discussing the Raptor at all since these are our only sources for 1st hand information?

Goose also said, "I have yet to see an air to air shot of the Raptor at mach with the doors open or for that matter an air to air shot of the Raptor in any "odd" configuation postions, aka upside down and launching a missile."
So your statement implies that you won't believe it till you "see" it? Are you saying that the words in print by sources considered reputable by most standards are not worth the paper they may be printed on?

This may be a conspiracy web site and not meaning to bring philosophy into this, but at some point you have to consider that there is truth somewhere or you have no point of reference.



[edit on 17-5-2005 by bios]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Hello,

Yeah, your right to a degree, I would like to see some images of the aircraft in those configurations, but there is a reason for it, there has been alot of hype about this aircraft over the past 4 to 5 years and over that time frame some ideas have changed in relation to how the F 22 effectiviely operates.

I suppose to a degree its a question of trust, while I have the faith of those two people that you mentioned having an inside view onto the in workings, I would still like to 'see' that the aircraft can do that, the same way, I want to see a JSF hovering with a weapon load, same way I want to see a british Conventual Aircraft Carrier.

I take military press releases and company press releases with a pinch of salt, example, the first Gripens where released to Czech Airforce, both the company and the airforce stated quite publically that the aircraft preformed, flawlessely, this was until one of the pilots that delivered one of those aircraft complainted that the aircrafts software was incompatable with the installed IFF and Radio equipment. It was in a write up in airforces monthly.

You are quite correct, that I would settle my views once I see a picture, its really that simple, I know the physics of problem, so if they have solved it, GRAND, then show me proof, rather than a few paragraphs from the AF PR department, without pictures etc. I have seen many of the config pictures of americas other fighters, the F-16, F-18, A-10, F-15 not to mention the Typhoon and Rafale, yet I have yet to see an evaluation shots of the drop and launch proceedures in any thing other than wings level situations.

- Phil



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 06:01 AM
link   
I agree with gooseuk. Sorry, but if you believe with your eyes closed the information provided by the manufacturer and the government... sorry, but for me in a situation like that, those are the 2 sources I would believe the least... because they are the sources with more interest in people thinking about the success of the project. Also, I still see problems with dropping the missiles at mach, maybe I also need to see to believe, and I'm not that sure that they have solved it... you are saying "oh, they had years to solve that" and it's true, but maybe they didn't found the solution. Trusting till the end of days to the engineers and all that... they are not gods, they can't solve everything, people do mistakes...
And to finish, I will say: you have the same right to believe in the Raptor than I have in not to believe...



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk
You are quite correct, that I would settle my views once I see a picture, its really that simple, I know the physics of problem, so if they have solved it, GRAND, then show me proof, rather than a few paragraphs from the AF PR department, without pictures etc.

... actually a photo would not do you any good either because there is no way to look at a photo and determine that an aircraft is going supersonic...

It seems to me that the only way you could be convinced is to be in a chase plane and actually watch the event with one eye on the Raptor and the other eye on the air speed of the chase plane.

Of course then it could be said that the air speed indicator had been doctored.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   
"The AVEL, which is made mostly of aluminum, has a nine-inch stroke, and ejects the missile out of the bay at more than 25 feet per second, with a force of 40Gs. The long stroke and high velocity are required to safely separate the missile from the aircraft in all combat conditions. Unlike conventional missile launchers, the AVEL requires no explosive pyrotechnics cartridges, (which means the AVEL requires less logistics support and maintenance) but instead uses the aircraft’s hydraulic system to eject the missile. The entire missile launch sequence --door opening, AVEL ejecting the missile, missile ignition and flyout, door closing --takes just seconds"

www.globalsecurity.org...

So, to answer the question, no.

Edit: You are right about the slip stream, the entire aerodynamics of the plane change when the bay is open, but i'm sure those things have been taken care of. Are you trying to say the force of drag would be so high, the bay would be ripped off the plane? That would be one of the first questions in mind during the design process.

[edit on 17-5-2005 by Aether]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I must insist in this point... I'm not meaning they haven't solved this... what I say is that the fact they realised from the beginning that this could be a problem, doesn't mean they were able to solve it... Of course, I don't think that gooseuk has seen a problem the engineers hadn't seen years before... but maybe they didn't had success when trying to solve it... and this problem doesn't mean the plane will have structural damages... it's easy to solve by not opening the bay doors when the airplane exceeds certain speeds...



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Gooseuk, Chemapeich, and others who keep disagreeing with what is being presented to your obvious not liking, please provide sourcings to the contrary.

There have been a sufficient number of links given in this topic refuting what you and others are seemingly still trying to refute, and yet, none of you have produced anything resembling source information to the contrary.
I have asked this before, this is the second request.

Interesting, no?




seekerof

[edit on 17-5-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   
What I mean is that, like many other times (mass destruction weapons in Irak, for example...) the data provided by your government and their partisans don't deserve to be listened by me... sorry but I won't believe this kind of lies... and maybe when they say the truth (it's possible that it's true that the F22 hasn't this trouble) I won't believe them because of their earlier lies... They should try saying the truth more often to achieve credibility



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Gooseuk, Chemapeich, and others who keep disagreeing with what is being presented to your obvious not liking, please provide sourcings to the contrary.

There have been a sufficient number of links given in this topic refuting what you and others are seemingly still trying to refute, and yet, none of you have produced anything resembling source information to the contrary.
I have asked this before, this is the second request.

Interesting, no?


seekerof


LOL

Again for the members of the forum, that appear to have the inability to read
I haven't said that I am 100% sure that the Raptor has this problem, I am saying that it may have this flaw, I will repeat that word again MAY have that flaw, based on your other posts it appears you have some first hand knowledge of the military, it could be that your pride in your armed forces is over coming your common sense, that is another possibility.

I will say it again, while reading Britains Secret Projects: Bombers since 1949, I came accross a number of references to the design of bomb bay design and the process of the aircraft opening said bomb bay doors, could cause problems with aircraft at high mach numbers. After reading up on that I refered to an aerodynamics text book about parasite drag at high mach numbers and in most cases it said that there would be a considerable force being applied to excerted on those areas being dropped into the slip stream.

My theory is that while the Raptor wouldn't have a problem with ejecting its missiles into a slipstream while at mach, my problems or issues arise if the raptor will be able to actually open its bomb bay doors into the slip stream with out the resulting forces causing damage to the airframe.

How can I provide sources of a theory Seekerof, if it appears I am the first to come up with it you eejit! lol.

ALTHOUGH I can provide the sources of the materials that I used to come with the the theory. Again.
- British Secret Projects: Jet Bombers Since 1949 by Tony Buttler
- Model Aircraft Aerodynamics by Martin Simons

As for the sources that have been presented to me, I have already replied to them, repeatedly, yes they appear to make mention of this situation, yes I believe that the people posting them are trustworthy, but they fail to make mention of the stresses on the aircrafts airframe, or to mention of the launches where made by the test aircraft, rather than the production models.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   
This is funny, I don'tknow what are you people still talking about it, the bomb bay doors were extensively tested at supersonic speeds already during the F-22 and F-23 competition and I can assure you they make not problems.

And it's funny how everyone is talking about Pak-Fa as F-22 competition, please remeber that not only is the prototype not flying, no one (at least from the public) even knows how it will look like. IMO there is at least 15 years until we will see it in service. Or more likely the Sukhoi will made crippled variant in order not loose market and keep the price down.
And why are you all so sure that it will not go the same way as Mig-1.44 or Berkut. China for example withdrew the ir Pak-Fa participation proposal(if I remeber correctly) why do you think would they did it, if this plane should be so fantastic.

To the manuvrability issue - aka F-22 VS Su-37 dogfight - it still amazes me that people consider F-22 to be not mauvrable, while in fact the design was chosen because it was more manuvrable than F-23. And why are you overlooking the fact the F-22 is able to make 60 degrees AoA in sustained flight (only one today), that it has the lowest wing loading ratio from all todays planes (including russian) and highest thrust to weight. Besides look at todays short range AA misilles they are able to make 70-100Gs and the seekers cover the whole forward hemisphere- do you think any plane has any chance to outmanuvre them?



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Will anyone answer the questions i posted.

BTW : I have read somewhere that the PAK-FA's weapons bay will have sliding doors(unlike the raptor's downwardly opening ones).

The PAK-FA (prototype in late 2006)

img223.exs.cx...




Am I the only one that looked at the pictures of the PAK-FA and thought it's really just an attempted copy of the F22? Clearly, there are more similarities than differences.

Emulation is the sincerest form of flattery.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk
I have yet to see an air to air shot of the Raptor at mach with the doors open or for that matter an air to air shot of the Raptor in any "odd" configuation postions, aka upside down and launching a missile.


Here's a photo of the first supersonic Sidewinder launch. Look at the back of the plane in between the vertical stabilizers and you can see shock waves.

www.edwards.af.mil...

I also have an excellent unclassified video of F-22 testing put together by the Combined Test Force (CTF) at Edwards. It includes about 1 minute of footage of weapons testing, including a large number of AIM-9 and AIM-120 launches at a variety of conditions. Among them are supersonic, high-g, and rolling shots. Unfortunately, the video is 40 MB in size. Even if I cut it down to the weapons part, I can't get it under 20 MB.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I'll just say that the concerns voiced in the thread are unfounded.
There is no problem firing the weapons in supercruise.

No, I don't care if you believe me or not, the Raptor's target will.
Those who know me here, will know why I state the above.

For those who don't, I'll merely add the disclaimer that the above is my "opinion"
only....



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   
This is becoming a bit condensending.

goose, we are aware of your question, and Seekrof of all people have responded adequetly enough to respond to your question, it's not our fault you refuse to accept that.

Just to let you know, noone cares what you think, the government does not read your post and go "Hmm, this kid has a point, lets consider this." No, instead, they go, test the aircraft, and see it's strengths and use it to its full advantage. So in essence, it really doesn't matter what you think.

Longbow, where do you get your information? 1)Only Stealth Spy spoke about the PAK, probably why no one responded. 2)The YF-23 BlackWidow II is clearly better than the YF-22, why? Well that's what the statstics seem to claim. The Raptor won the ATF competition not because of it's capabilities, but because of its proposed price. The margin of difference between the Raptor and Blackwidow was so small, that the government decided the loss was necessary for the price. So they disregarded the Blackwidow, however today, it probably would have been the better choice.

O, and Seekrof, I understand that the Typhoon, Eurofighter, and Grippen would have been better matches, I chose the Su-37 because it's my favorite aircraft.
It still works, the Su-37 is quite the formidable machine.

I don't mean to be insulting anyone, but Goose, you insulted all of the people who responded to your thread, because you refuse to acknowledge what we have given to you, you make these claims. It's not our fault you do this, and we certaintly don't care, we are all entitled to our own beliefs.

What you believe us to be [nationalists or otherwise] does not really matter to us, because we have our own beliefs, and I'm on Gazrok's side.

Always listen to what Intelgurl, Seekrof, Gazrok, and any other well experienced member have to say.

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
To the manuvrability issue - aka F-22 VS Su-37 dogfight - it still amazes me that people consider F-22 to be not mauvrable, while in fact the design was chosen because it was more manuvrable than F-23. And why are you overlooking the fact the F-22 is able to make 60 degrees AoA in sustained flight (only one today), that it has the lowest wing loading ratio from all todays planes (including russian) and highest thrust to weight. Besides look at todays short range AA misilles they are able to make 70-100Gs and the seekers cover the whole forward hemisphere- do you think any plane has any chance to outmanuvre them?


Sure the F-22 is a highly manuverable airplane and significantly more manuverable than the YF-23 and and the F-15, but it does not even come close to matching that of the Sukhoi.

The F-22 is a large airplane with a stable airframe and has 2D TVC, while the Sukhoi is an unstable triplane with 3-D TVC.

IMO the F-22 cant even match the manuverability of the Mig-29.

We all know that the F-22 is meant to take down its enemy before it can sight it. But to assume that this will be the case everytime will be silly.

Surely lots of Sukhoi's will escape the 22's BVR might and engage the raptor in WVR.

Besides russian short range missiles are far superior to western equivalents.

What's the big deal if the F-22 can do a 60 degree AoA manuver. Sukhoi's used to do Cobras (where the Su goes upto 120 degrees AoA), with full fuel and a full ordinance fit some two decades back. The new Sukhoi's with 3D TVC, new FBW can do Kulbits cork screws and what not.

There is no conclusive evidence that the F-22 can do a cobra, and even if it did its only matching something that the Sukhoi could do 2 decades back.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Hello,

I will direct this to the members that replied with links to sources of links:

I would like to thank aerospaceweb for posting a link to a image of a F/A-22 launching at supersonic speeds.

As for the other members that posted links I would like to thank you for the effort in finding those links.

As for the members that choice to attack rather than read my replies, I will carefully and simply repeat my comments from earlier posts in this thread, hopefully, you will beable to understand it this time, hopefully.

I have read the reports from the links, many of those links appeared to be either from manfacturer sources or AF sources, now, again I will repeat why I have some distrust for those sources as they have been discredited in the past. I can't understand why those people who are attacking me, haven't picked that up in my earlier posts, either though a lack of attension or the inability to read my previous posts. I stated that on many occasions the Airforce PR departments have been more than willing to make false statements to cover an embrassment, the incident with the A-12 is a prime example, up untill the US government cancelled the program the PR departments where saying there where minor delays but the program was progressing well.

Now if you can't understand why I would want an indepentant source, rather than two sources that DEPEND on the aircraft doing what they have been raved about for the last 5 years ::shrugs:: there is no hope for you.

In conclusion it appears that the Raptor has the ability to launch its muntions while at supersonic speeds and then the AF PR dept have already stated that there are no limitations of the ability to successfully launch its muntions in any stage of flight, while I would still like to see some images of muntion launches in some thing other than a wings level scenario, I will leave it here for fear of more reprisells.

For those still wishing to continue the childish insults, please pm me.

- Phil

[edit on 18-5-2005 by gooseuk]





 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant