| Author |
Message |
|
mustang65
|
Posted: Oct 02, 2009 - 03:22 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Sep 03, 2009 - 04:00 AM
Posts: 99
Location: Georgia
Status: Offline
|
| How long do you think an F-15C Eagle can maintain top speed with a canopy designed to take the heat caused by high speed would go for if it had tanks to coast up, and then start a VMAX dash? The engines an last up to an hour on a VMAX dash before overhauling them anybody have any ideas? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: May 23, 2013 - 6:28 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Kryptid
|
Posted: Oct 02, 2009 - 10:10 PM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Aug 10, 2008 - 02:16 AM
Posts: 343
Status: Offline
|
| I don't know any numbers but it'd probably survive longer than a MiG-25 would at VMAX. That thing could burn its engines out above Mach 2.83 in a single flight. |
_________________ Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for Him.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
bazdriver
|
Posted: Oct 03, 2009 - 08:33 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: May 20, 2009 - 12:02 PM
Posts: 78
Status: Offline
|
Some informations:
1. VMax use is PROHIBITED (unless in combat situation).
2: VMax CONTINUOUS time is limited to 6min, each use must be reported so that hot section borescope inspection may be performed.
3: Time at speed above Mach 2.3 is limited to 1min MAXIMUM |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
mustang65
|
Posted: Oct 04, 2009 - 02:53 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Sep 03, 2009 - 04:00 AM
Posts: 99
Location: Georgia
Status: Offline
|
| yeah it is limited to that time since the canopy threatens to cave in under extreme air pressures since the heat of high speed is melting the Plexiglas, so what if they used a different type of material to use that could take the heat. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
bazdriver
|
Posted: Oct 04, 2009 - 04:45 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: May 20, 2009 - 12:02 PM
Posts: 78
Status: Offline
|
| Sorry Mustang, I can't get into more details but I can say you that the 1min limitation above Mach 2.3 is 100% linked to the engines performance envelope and limitation, not to the windshield or canopy. This two pieces have also a limited time but it's much greater for safety consideration. Can't give you more... |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
mustang65
|
Posted: Oct 04, 2009 - 09:12 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Sep 03, 2009 - 04:00 AM
Posts: 99
Location: Georgia
Status: Offline
|
| Theoretically if they modified the engines for top speed then the plane could hit top speed and then be able to maintain it, but the engines from a book that I read said that the engines are limited to one hour before the core is burned out. Sure you would not do this on any old day because of regulations but it is possible to stay at top speed for more than a minute. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
sprstdlyscottsmn
|
Posted: Oct 04, 2009 - 09:27 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Mar 10, 2006 - 01:24 AM
Posts: 1193
Location: Phoenix, Az
Status: Offline
|
| sure, you can make engine designed for an hour of continuous M3+, they did that in the 60's but it is impractical. Remember, the Eagle has NEVER hit M2 in combat, never above 1.5 IIRC |
_________________ James,
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic (WTF?)
|
|
|
|
 |
|
TC
|
Posted: Oct 07, 2009 - 02:44 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Moderator

Joined: Jan 14, 2004 - 07:06 AM
Posts: 4006
Status: Offline
|
Yeah, the Eagle never really needed a sustained supersonic cruise out of the combat environment. Remember, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kosovo, and Afghanistan aren't that big. All the Eagle and/or Strike Eagle needed was a short dash to escape the threat area, and then they could return to a cruise speed, or even slow down to a descent speed.
I'd be interested to hear what Gums would have to say on this one, but I'm certain that he'd agree with me, when I say that the top combat speed for the Eagle would really only have seen its full potential, had we had jets from Bitburg, Keflavic, and Soesterberg doing ops from the other side of the Iron Curtain. I thank the Big Guy Upstairs, that we never saw that happen... |
_________________ "He counted on America to be passive...He counted wrong." -- President Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|