Forum: F-22A Raptor

strykerxo wrote:

I recall an F-22 pilot saying that "the only thing he wished the F-22 had was longer range."

Yeah, I see/hear that a lot. Funny thing is, most cannot actually provide a source for that elusive F-22 pilot quote.

FYI...what jet pilot wouldn't want more range??

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

StolichnayaStrafer wrote:

I remember an article in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics from back in the early days of the ATF trials. It said that one of the main requirements, since it would be a "stealthy" aircraft, was to be able to carry an internal fuel load equivalent to the F-15Cs internal AND external fuel capacity. I assume they did not quite achieve those results.

F-15C with three bags: 3,560 Gallons
F-22 internal fuel only: 3,082 Gallons

I'd say they did pretty good.

ummm.... I think I know who that pilot was... I don't want to get him into more trouble... If you know what I mean...

I'm not talking about Mike Shower's interview...and he meant it in the way that I noted...who wouldn't want more? He wasn't complaining.

checksixx wrote:

StolichnayaStrafer wrote:

I remember an article in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics from back in the early days of the ATF trials. It said that one of the main requirements, since it would be a "stealthy" aircraft, was to be able to carry an internal fuel load equivalent to the F-15Cs internal AND external fuel capacity. I assume they did not quite achieve those results.

F-15C with three bags: 3,560 Gallons
F-22 internal fuel only: 3,082 Gallons

I'd say they did pretty good.

WOW

It could be that it just gets somewhere so fast and covers such a great distance that they would like to have more. The fuel fractions can be misleading with the thirsty engines. It is hard to say whether it was an "I wish or it needs more".

They DID get pretty close to the mark on that fuel requirement! Surprised

But sure, those newer engines must be a lot thirstier of course- thanks for posting that, checksixx! Thumb

Does the reduced drag of a clean AC (F-22), compensate for the thirstier engines?

Newbie Joined: Nov 18, 2007 Posts: 2 Status: Offline

On the official af.mil website it is stated that the Raptor can carry 18000 lb of internal fuel. I think the USAF is ‘lying’ about that. In the JSF’s Program Brief brochure (26th September 2006) there is some data available regarding internal fuel capacity for all three versions of JSF and for other AC:

For example…

F-35A – 18480 lb
F-35B – 14000 lb
F-35C – 20000 lb
F-16 – 7160 lb
F-22 – classified

It doesn’t seem logical to me the JSF would have greater int. fuel capacity than much bigger Raptor. Any explanation?

The Raptor carries just over 19K of fuel internally...it's public.

Veteran Joined: Mar 10, 2006 Posts: 329 Status: Offline

and remember that the F-35 still has a very broad body and only one engine and two weapons bays compared to the Raptors two engines and four bays. Easy to see how the smaller fighter has more fuel actually.

I wonder if these engines are closer to the Sr-71's than the F-15's. I remember a pilot saying that the faster you went in a Blackbird, the more fuel efficient you became. I can imagine there must be a compromise somewhere in the design of supercruising engines.

Newbie Joined: Nov 18, 2007 Posts: 2 Status: Offline

Tinito_16 wrote:

I wonder if these engines are closer to the Sr-71's than the F-15's. I remember a pilot saying that the faster you went in a Blackbird, the more fuel efficient you became. I can imagine there must be a compromise somewhere in the design of supercruising engines.

I guess that pilot meant the transition from normal turbojet running to a more fuel efficient ramjet. In order to accomplish that, you first have to accelerate your plane to high enough speeds (Mach 2 or more) before activating the ramjet. I don't believe there's a torbojet/ramjet hybrid mounted on the Raptor.

Veteran Joined: Mar 10, 2006 Posts: 329 Status: Offline

Actually in a FOIA document that was linked to in another thread it shows that an SR-71 flying at 3.0 mach has much less range than an SR-71 traveling at 3.2 mach. less than a 10% increase in speed gave a more then 10% increase in range, so amount of fuel burned per hour actually dropped.
I imagine that this is due to the fact that the inlet produced most of the thrust at Mach 3+ so going faster resulted in more inlet thrust?

Were 3.0 and 3.2 at the same altitude? Without specifying altitude, the comparison is meaningless.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-22 Raptor range