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.

 

F-22 Speed = Mach 2.84 Calculations!!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 04:39 AM
link   
I think the USAF has a couple of spy satellites that could be ready in a day or two for launching. But this is also why we have mach-3 to mach-7 spy aircraft just incase we have problems I outer space



E_T

posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON
Also the engines were different and it was more aerodynamic.The Sr-71's engines were i believe turbojets and funcitoned better at higher speeds, but fighter engines are turbofans.

Been away for week because 3400 km trip to northern Finland and to North Cape so there seems to work to do.

Blackbird has "hybrid" turboramjets.
www.wvi.com...
www.aerospaceweb.org...

And about difference between turbojet and turbofan:
science.howstuffworks.com...
www.aerospaceweb.org...


E_T

posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Nope the Black bird flew at 85.00o-100.000 feet. A hypersonic plane with a ramjet engine would fly higher than that and closer to space since a ramjet can work fine at those altitudes.
Nope, ramjets require air just like normal jet engines.

Read flight profile of HyperSoar:
www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
I'll see if I can find out for you pretty soon about the speed....but I don't talk to my dad that much, hehe....


That's likely something he'd gloat about, and then say "oops..."



Hehe, Im glad we might have some actual numbers one day.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 06:42 PM
link   


[edit on 20/8/04 by Intelearthling]



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 06:58 PM
link   
.


[edit on 20/8/04 by Intelearthling]



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Disadvantages of stealth technology

Stealth technology has its own disadvantages like other technologies. Stealth aircraft cannot fly as fast or is not maneuverable like conventional aircraft. The F-22 and the aircraft of its category proved this wrong up to an extent. Though the F-22 may be fast or maneuverable or fast, it can't go beyond Mach 2 and cannot make turns like the Su-37.


Westpoint and all of you liers dont bring anything false to this table. YOu are a bunch of lieing ****** who have their heads stuck in their ass.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I think Russian is right here, and I dont mean to put down the F-22. Regardless of your nationality (Im an American), you cant argue with the science of flight. And what does science say? Exactly what Russian pointed out. Stealth technology augments certain strengths of an aircraft and at the same time handicap the airframe. I wish people would quit with the rabid defense of the F-22 and realize that no plane is perfect.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Russian
Disadvantages of stealth technology

Stealth technology has its own disadvantages like other technologies. Stealth aircraft cannot fly as fast or is not maneuverable like conventional aircraft. The F-22 and the aircraft of its category proved this wrong up to an extent. Though the F-22 may be fast or maneuverable or fast, it can't go beyond Mach 2 and cannot make turns like the Su-37.


Westpoint and all of you liers dont bring anything false to this table. YOu are a bunch of lieing ****** who have their heads stuck in their ass.


But the F-22 has been able to engage and destroy five f-15's in a practice run. Plus it has thrust vectoring which will definetly give the Su-37 a run for the money.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON
But the F-22 has been able to engage and destroy five f-15's in a practice run. Plus it has thrust vectoring which will definetly give the Su-37 a run for the money.


Under optimal mock conditions.

I hate to use the argument but, "what has the f-22 done in combat conditions".

Thats why I dont like to compare the Su-37 or the F-22.

Never trust a governments training results until combat backs these claims up.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Agent 47, not to mention its low RCS, and fire and forget missles, BVR combat, just a few of the many things. Did you know why the control surfaces on the F-22 have a distint cats-eye look? Its becuase when the control surfaces move, an otherwise obvious radar signature will be generated, thats why the shape is the way it is between the interface.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON

But the F-22 has been able to engage and destroy five f-15's in a practice run. Plus it has thrust vectoring which will definetly give the Su-37 a run for the money.


I never said anything about the Su-37.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian
Disadvantages of stealth technology

Stealth technology has its own disadvantages like other technologies. Stealth aircraft cannot fly as fast or is not maneuverable like conventional aircraft. The F-22 and the aircraft of its category proved this wrong up to an extent. Though the F-22 may be fast or maneuverable or fast, it can't go beyond Mach 2 and cannot make turns like the Su-37.


Westpoint and all of you liers dont bring anything false to this table. YOu are a bunch of lieing ****** who have their heads stuck in their ass.


You are clearly talking about the Su-37 here.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Yesterday, I watched DISCOVERY channel. The kinescope of ten top fighter said that Raptor maximum speed is M2.5, then I search internet, got this link , and this ATS topic. Are there any more datum to prove independently?

[edit on 17-3-2007 by emile]



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 05:59 AM
link   
People, does it really matter?

I doubt the F-15 has ever surpassed mach 1.8 with any weapons on board. I also doubt the F-22 will ever surpass mach 2 in combat.

Why?
There is no reason to, and it GUZZLES fuel.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   
You just cant deduce a planes top speed by thrust to weight ratio.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Havent some test pilots exceeded 1600mph in test flights?



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Sorry and all, interesting little exercise in maths etc but this has no relation to the reality.

Firstly you can't just ignore drag as it's the next biggest germane factor after outright power.

Secondly you have completely ignored the F22's construction materials.

One of the things that made Concorde such a big deal of an achievement was it being a fully certified scheduled airliner capable of sustaining mach 2.2 for thousands of miles.

The sustained speed ability was a feat few other aircraft could match (never mind the rest of it) because Concorde had 'heat soak' capabilities way beyond the requirements a brief supersonic dash places on a run of the mill supersonic aircraft (yes, I know about supercruise - but that is only claimed at speeds of under mach 2)....North American did it with the XB70 and Lockheed achieved similar with the SR71/A12 aircrafdt but at mach 3+.

Few others have come anywhere near such an ability, ever.

Concorde was 'limited' to mach 2.2 because of the materials she was constructed from, not due to power or drag limitations. As an aluminium alloy skin was settled upon for Concorde that in itself demanded that mach 2.2 be the 'top speed' when in fact, given the power and aerodynamics of the plane, it need not have been.

Therefore to know the max speed of the F22 one muct know the heat soak abilities of the airframe and any limitations the unavoidable kinetic heating at high speeds impose on the construction.

This isn't a field for a quick calculation on the back of an envelope, those days are long long gone. Keep up the math though!





[edit on 8-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]


Boeing F22 SITE



Construction: a 67% titanium aft fuselage with electron-beam-welded subassemblies to withstand high-g maneuvers and supersonic speeds for extended periods


www.boeing.com...

If the airframe is made mostly from Titanium and i would be reasonable to assume the rest of the plane as made from high resistance composites, the F22 could actually resist going all the way up to Mach 3... Remember the SR71 body is also made from Titanium



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Echoing firepilot's sentiment's, one cannot deduce the top speed of an aircraft merely from a T/W number. Moreover, these T/W numbers being bandied about are totally meaningless as the boilerplate thrust quotes put out by GE, P&W and RR correspond to a SLS (Sea-Level Static) flight condition. Unless you've got the drag polars and CFD results for the airframe you don't know where the aircraft's most aerodynamically efficient flight condition is, and unless you are running the cycle model you don't know how the engine will preform at any given flight condition aside from the quoted SLS-IRP/Max power conditions. No one in this thread is employing those tools with the real hardware data, so all this talk about some a/c having X thrust and weighing Y lbs is all a waste.



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   
About the Concorde going M2.2 for thousands of miles: Yes, it cruised at supersonic speeds for thousands of miles, but not Mach 2.2. The fastest Atlantic crossing for the Concorde was around 2 hours and 53 minutes. The distance from New York to London is 3463 miles. If we do simple math, that averages out to a speed of ~1200 mph, which isn't Mach 2.2. Some other aircraft which could probably keep up with the Concorde are the TSR.2, B-58, and Mirage IV. Plus, those aircraft have aerial refueling, so in anything beyond about 4000 miles, the Concorde would be toast. The other obvious aircraft are the SR-71 and XB-70. SR-71 combines M3 speed with refueling. Even though the XB-70 didn't have aerial refueling, it could go Mach 3 for over 6000 miles.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join