Forum: F-22A Raptor

johnwill wrote:

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

On a similar vein, as someone mentioned in an earlier thread, we aren't given at what altitude the 410nm radius corresponds to. The operational altitude of the plane might be significantly higher than that to which 410nm corresponds. At 60000 feet, drag is low, and cruise ought to be more efficient than at, say, 40000 feet.

Another hint that 410nm might not reflect true capability is according to the Raptor team website http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html, the actual requirement was just 360nm including just a 100nm supersonic "dash" each way (recall that the original ATF spec was around 700nm to be able to access central Europe from bases in England). The point of supercruise is to be able to operate supersonically for extended periods of time. Now, 100nm at 800kts is just 6-7 minutes. Considering how integral supercruise was as part of the Raptor's design philosophy, I would guess that the 260+100nm requirement, hence the 310-100nm radius, is somewhat of an understatement.

F-16.net Sponsor

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

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

Yes the altitudes were the same for the Mach 3.0 vs Mach 3.2, at least initially, both planes climbed to maintain a contant speed profile as fuel was burned, but in the end the difference between their altitudes was very small.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-22 Raptor range