Is the Raptor capable of this...

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
Obviously since the Raptor uses composites and titanium the structure itself will have no problem with any heat.

That's a silly notion. Composites are essentially plastics reinforced with fibers. Plastics don't withstand heat well. Unless you're talking about carbon-carbon composites, metal matrix composites, ceramic matrix composites, but those are the more exotic and expensive stuff for specific applications.




posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Ok... So isn't it a bit strange... OK, i know that speed isn't everything... But still shouldn't the "best plane ever" go a bit faster than 2 mach...?



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
If Intel Gurl says 2.0-2.3 then thats what it goes.

Havent you guys learned anything yet? We have the worlds best refference right here



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   
That's true...
But it's still strange... Everybody have different sources... 1.78-3 mach...?



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Ok... So isn't it a bit strange... OK, i know that speed isn't everything... But still shouldn't the "best plane ever" go a bit faster than 2 mach...?


Why? You nailed it after the second 'OK'.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
yeah ok, but you would think that planes would go faster and not slower nowadays right...?



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
It is easy to think that but really, when you look at it, improvements in aviation technology stopped meaning higher speeds almost half a century ago. in the early 1960's when the F-4, Lightning and MiG 21 still 'modern' it was generally thought that speeds would conitinue ro rise and that mach 4 combat aircraft would appear before the end of the century. Clearly this never happened and we seem to be at a performance plateau that will not be exceeded for standard operational types.

Indeed there are many, and even some new, subsonic combat aircraft in service because that is the speed at which they do their job best.

There would certainly be great kudos in deploying a mach 3 fighter to squadron status but would the expense and technical nightmare involved actually achieve anything apart from a new Govt at election time?



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
yeah ok, but you would think that planes would go faster and not slower nowadays right...?


But in practical terms the Raptor IS faster. Remember, though the Raptor is a capable dogfighter (in fact the best in the world as of today), it's prefered style of combat is at BVR. That is where the stealth is really going to be a force multiplyer. So the Raptor is using speed more so to get where it needs to go then to dogfight.

Though it doesn't have the top end that one might expect, the Raptor CRUISES at on and a half times the speed of sound. Thats going to get you where you want faster then one short burst of Mach 2 speed using after burners.

Think of the difference between a sprinter and a distance runner. If you wanted to get some where far away, which skill would you rather have?



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Exactly. An aicraft that can go Mach 2.5 for three or four minutes (afterburners use LOTS of fuel) is still effectively much slower than an aircraft that can cruise at Mach 1.6 for an hour or two.

Fighters are not designed to set records that impress everybody, they are designed to fight. If the F-22 can approach its engagement at Mach 1.6, perform its mission, and exit the battle area at Mach 1.6, it's tactically more useful than an aircraft that is limited to subsonic speeds except for short bursts.

[edit on 7/24/05 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
That's true...
But it's still strange... Everybody have different sources... 1.78-3 mach...?


I think that the overall opinions and sources given within this thread are somewhat agreed upon and in that agreement, Mach 3 is not even a factor.




seekerof



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Ok... So isn't it a bit strange... OK, i know that speed isn't everything... But still shouldn't the "best plane ever" go a bit faster than 2 mach...?


Excuse me there, "Fighter Master" FIN, but an attribute for 'a' or 'the' best fighter in the world is not overall speed. Obviously, to novices and arm-chair generals, speed is the main factor, eh?






seekerof

[edit on 24-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Over Mach 1.7 with super-cruise and "around" Mach 2.6 at full afterburner.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
beyondSciFi?
Your article, which was near abouts the same the bios was mentioning, says:


“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.”


Again, the "around" 2.6 with afterburners is asserted and sourced where, exactly?





seekerof

[edit on 24-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Hey Seekerof, just wondering, but I noticed that your quote, "That Others May Live" is the phrase of U.S. Air Force Pararescueman. Are you an Air Force Pararescueman?



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   
This is the second time you have asked me this.
Can I allow this to answer your question?

Page Two: My Second post down






seekerof

[edit on 24-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I wouldn't worry too much about mach number, actual speed should interest you guys more. Although mach number is important, it depends on air density, humidity, altitude, temperature and other factors. So Mach 1.7 at 10,000 feet on a warm day is much faster then Mach 1.7 at 50,000 feet over the arctic. The "sources" that state these Mach numbers never say the actual speed in MPH or KPH or the altitude these speeds were achieved. Since most things about the raptor are classified, it would be ridiculous for anyone not personally working with the F-22 to state any speeds, mach numbers or not as its true performance. Anyway, I got my 2.6 mach number my calculating it based on many assumptions, so it could very well be wrong (I used mach number because it gives me a margin of error of plus minus 200MPH). Although I am confident that the f-22 might even go faster. Until the government lifts the vale of secrecy, we (the public) will not know.

IF I knew these numbers I could calculate is top speed:

Weight, drag coefficient, thrust, lift, and exhaust temperatures as well as operating altitudes I could give you a pretty accurate top speed in full afterburner. These numbers are classified so I dont know....

I can promise you guys one thing though, if it can do over Mach 1.7 under military power (23,000 pounds each engine), it can atleast do Mach 2.15 at the same altitude and air conditions at full afterburner (35,000 pounds each engine).

[edit on 24-7-2005 by beyondSciFi]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   
My wife can super cruise at mach 4+ at Filenes one day sale for hours and hours and hours. And the odd thing is, its ME that seems to be in total stealth mode, she doesnt even no I exist during these sales!



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   
There is a material called carbon carbon. It can resist an atmosphere re-entry. I am not sure if the F-22 uses tis material of something similar.

However even is potentially the Raptor can go up to Mach 3 it doesn`t make sense. It wasn't built for speed, so even if it is capable, probably it won't be used in order to reserve the plane.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
ummm as you said carbon carbon is for a re-entry vehicle not a fighter that is supercruising in the atmosphere. i think you answered your own question there.

[edit on 25-7-2005 by Canada_EH]



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Carbon Carbon composite is also incredibly brittle and not good for constant use aircraft.





new topics
top topics
 
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