It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

a defintition of supercruise, and which aircraft can do it

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
came across this on wikipedia, it may not be definitive and much of it has been said before but nice to see it set out

supercruise


with the amount of Raptor fans who bang on about supercruise ad nauseum its funny to see planes doing it since the '50's, including, of course, an airliner!




posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
The Concord was really just a oversized fighter IMHO


As you point out, Supercruise is hardly a new feature as I pointed out in this post:

We Almost Had Supercruise in 1954 and 'Area Rule"



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Well that doesn't mean that supercruise is a BAD thing,

A few more examples of 30-50 year old technology to those you would say that these things are nothing special.

SR-71 Blackbird-Fastest ground-launched aircraft.
English Electric Lighting-Damn good aircraft, high speed and altitude. And its a FIGHTER. Not just a recon plane.
F-15- Best air superiority craft EVER. Not one kill on record.
F-16-Extraordinary Multirole fighter, and one of the first Fly-By-Wire fighter aircraft.
F-18- Super Reliable navy and air force aircraft. Also a new test platform for the use of wing torsion to produce control. And it has the Blue Angels

P-52 Mustang: Best dogfighter ever.

These are just a few examples.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Well that doesn't mean that supercruise is a BAD thing,


I think what Waynos and myself were getting at is that the concept which is batted around regrding the Raptor is hardly a new or novel idea but has been around for some time.

BTW, none of the planes on that list supercruise


[edit on 10/1/05 by FredT]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Actually, in the context of the F-22 Raptor, the US Air Force defines supercruise as the ability to cruise at speeds of one and a half times the speed of sound or greater without the use of afterburner for extended periods in combat configuration.

So while supercruise by the layman's definition (read Wikipedia) has been around for a few decades, this USAF definition goes a lot further, and puts the Raptor in a class by itself.

I too tire of Raptor fanatics who continuously go on about how the Raptor is the best to the point of being obnoxious to the other people in the forum - however, it is a truly impressive aircraft of which there is currently no equal, and one should note that it is not just supercruising that makes the Raptor so impressive, it is that it integrates the features of supercruise, advanced avionics and stealth.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I feel I have to point out that I certainly never said supercruise was a bad thing, nor was I having a pop at the Raptor, which is obviously the most advanced and impressive fighter in the sky. I was quite specific in my point. As Fred pointed out.

You just see so many fanboys sieze upon supercruise as a unique feature of the Raptor, which it clearly is not. It is however an impressive capability because since English Electric first achieved it in 1954 just look how short the list of planes with the ability actually is.

Possibly for the first time ever I also must pick up on something Intelgurl; said.

Since when do the USAF have the right to 'define' what supercruise is?Specifying 'mach1.5' rather than just 'above mach 1, and 'in a combat situation' is being rather selective in order to create an area for the Raptor to be unique in, it appears.

Incidentally, the Lightning actually met that very definition as soon as it entered RAF service in 1960, which is still kinda funny



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Possibly for the first time ever I also must pick up on something Intelgurl; said.

Since when do the USAF have the right to 'define' what supercruise is?Specifying 'mach1.5' rather than just 'above mach 1, and 'in a combat situation' is being rather selective in order to create an area for the Raptor to be unique in, it appears.

I am not sure that the USAF or anyone else needs a "right" in order to define a term.
What they have done is define what their standard for supercruise is. That does not in any way negate the accomplishments of past aircraft, but it does insure that when you hear or read that a USAF aircraft supercruises, it is doing so at or in excess of M 1.5.

As for the USAF being selective in order to create an area for the Raptor to be unique in. I would venture to say you are dead on accurate in that assesment, and the USAF/Lockheed probably did it to help sell Congress on the Raptor.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Yes, thats fair enough I suppose.

I just felt it sounded big headed for the USAF to have its own private definition , I mean, whatever next? "We only class 'airborne' as being over 80,000ft, therefore we are the only Air Force in the World!"



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Yes, Great Britain was really a Great Aviational Country, the P.1 also flew in supersonic without afterburner at that pass time which is far away from today.
But, the point is 1) why we differentiate subsonic transonic and supersonic?
because in aerodynamics we realized that there are shock waves flow which accompany aircraft cause the fighter almost has no capability to maneuver and unstable. Also as this kind of shock wave flow, fighter flying in transonic will be exhausting fuel much more than usual time.So most of transonic fighter which like F-100 MiG-19 etc. still make dogfight in subsonic speed.
2) Why USAF defined that supercuise must be continue to more 30 minutes? We have known that in aerodynamics cruise speed means the speed was holded you could got a maximal rang. But the speed of maximal rang would be useless if the cruise speed would be higher, which means a higher cruise speed with maximal rang, the time which a fighter fly to complete is shorter.
Now, USAF anounced F-22 has a M.1.72 cruise speed, is it means that time Raptor flying is shorter than which flying at M1.58 in the pass time? Or the rang is smaller than flying M1.58? I am not sure. But I knew that keep a cruise speed at M1.72 without using afterburner for 30 minutes is meaningful.

[edit on 1-10-2005 by emile]



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 02:24 AM
link   
I am not going to have an go at the raptor not being the best, because it is one really nice plane (to look at) and is really good. I don't see how the USAF can redifine supercruise either. Will there ever be a plane which can do hypercruise as in, cruising above Mach 5? Of course it would burn a lot of fuel, but planes dio anyway.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by emile
Yes, Great Britain was really a Great Aviational Country, the P.1 also flew in supersonic without afterburner at that pass time which is far away from today.
But, the point is 1) why we differentiate subsonic transonic and supersonic?
because in aerodynamics we realized that there are shock waves flow which accompany aircraft cause the fighter almost has no capability to maneuver and unstable. Also as this kind of shock wave flow, fighter flying in transonic will be exhausting fuel much more than usual time.So most of transonic fighter which like F-100 MiG-19 etc. still make dogfight in subsonic speed.
2) Why USAF defined that supercuise must be continue to more 30 minutes? We have known that in aerodynamics cruise speed means the speed was holded you could got a maximal range. But the speed of maximal range would be useless if the cruise speed would be higher, which means a higher cruise speed with maximal range, the time which a fighter fly to complete is shorter.
Now, USAF anounced F-22 has a M.1.72 cruise speed, is it means that time Raptor flying is shorter than which flying at M1.58 in the pass time? Or the rang is smaller than flying M1.58? I am not sure. But I knew that keep a cruise speed at M1.72 without using afterburner for 30 minutes is meaningful.

[edit on 1-10-2005 by emile]


I am sorry that messege I posted in which every Range lost a last "e" which has no pronounciation so I miss the time to edit it. I do apologize for it




top topics



 
0

log in

join