 |
|
Topic started on 1-10-2005 @ 08:43 AM by waynos
|
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!  
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 1-10-2005 @ 09:00 AM by FredT
|
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"
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-10-2005 @ 10:02 AM by Darkpr0
|
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.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-10-2005 @ 10:13 AM by FredT
|
 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]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-10-2005 @ 10:29 AM by intelgurl
|
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.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-10-2005 @ 11:15 AM by waynos
|
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
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-10-2005 @ 12:25 PM by intelgurl
|
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.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-10-2005 @ 02:24 PM by waynos
|
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!"
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-10-2005 @ 10:53 PM 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 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]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-10-2005 @ 02:24 AM by apex
|
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.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-10-2005 @ 10:01 AM by emile
|
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
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
