| Author |
Message |
|
shocktroop
|
Posted: May 23, 2005 - 11:19 AM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: May 22, 2005 - 01:25 PM
Posts: 170
Status: Offline
|
All the sources that I have found about the F/A-22 say that the Raptor has a top speed of Mach 1.8 and can reach a speed of Mach 2 with afterburner.
The F-15C, which the Raptor is supposed to replace, has a top speed of Mach 2.5. Even the F-4E, which entered service in August 1962 has a top speed of Mach 2.17. The F/A-22 Raptor uses more powerful engines, so they should give him a top speed close to that of the F-15C.
The F/A-22 is heavier than the F-15C and the F-4E, but does this difference in weight effect the top speed that much?
Weights empty:- F/A-22: 34,000 lb.
- F-15C: 28,600 lb.
- F-4E: 30,328 lb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: May 26, 2013 - 8:07 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
allenperos
|
Posted: May 23, 2005 - 11:45 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Feb 24, 2005 - 01:33 PM
Posts: 631
Status: Offline
|
Here's what I have on top speed only, weight has little to do with top speed but does have to do absolute/combat ceiling, 50'/min rate of climb and 100'/min rate of climb, respectively,
Top speed - at FL 530, 1350 mph, or Mach 2.08, sonic velocity = 574 knts @ FL 360 where the temperature stabilizes but pressure continues to decrease.
Source: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ 007109282X/threefournineA">"Introduction to Flight", by John D. Anderson</a>, and NACA Standard Atmosphere |
_________________ F-16B, CC 80-0623 ERAU ROTC
MD-11, 90, 80, Cognizant Aerospace Technical Writer - Powerplant RR, GE, and P&W
Last edited by allenperos on May 23, 2005 - 10:44 PM; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Polaris
|
Posted: May 23, 2005 - 09:09 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Apr 19, 2005 - 02:03 AM
Posts: 137
Status: Offline
|
| The main problem, from what I've heard, for the F/A-22's top speed is not so much that the engines aren't powerful enough, but the fact that the skin starts melting somewhat significantly over Mach 2. I'm not 100% sure if that's correct, but please correct me if I'm not. Another thing I've heard is that to keep the inlet stealthy, they had to sacrifice Mach 2 performance. Again, if I'm wrong, please do correct me. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
calhoun
|
Posted: May 23, 2005 - 09:25 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Nov 05, 2004 - 09:04 PM
Posts: 138
Status: Offline
|
| The skin is fine past Mach 2. The inlets get more than enough air for mah 2. Its ratied at mach 2"+", meaning it will do well past 2, they just dont want to tell us how far past. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
agilefalcon16
|
Posted: May 23, 2005 - 10:52 PM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Jan 26, 2005 - 08:59 PM
Posts: 397
Status: Offline
|
|
Polaris wrote:
The main problem, from what I've heard, for the F/A-22's top speed is not so much that the engines aren't powerful enough, but the fact that the skin starts melting somewhat significantly over Mach 2. I'm not 100% sure if that's correct, but please correct me if I'm not. Another thing I've heard is that to keep the inlet stealthy, they had to sacrifice Mach 2 performance. Again, if I'm wrong, please do correct me.
Wasn't there a problem with the Raptor's engines overheating at speeds over Mach 2, or something like that? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
allenperos
|
Posted: May 23, 2005 - 11:01 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Feb 24, 2005 - 01:33 PM
Posts: 631
Status: Offline
|
Shouldn't be, I haven't heard of it? Overheating? Perhaps nozzles. Engine rotates at Mil Pwr, intake, sure it'll heat up, the heat will dissipate as it would in any other aircraft traveling at sonic velocity. Where did you hear of this engine over heating?
Remember afterburner is separate from the engine, doesn't have anything to do with it |
_________________ F-16B, CC 80-0623 ERAU ROTC
MD-11, 90, 80, Cognizant Aerospace Technical Writer - Powerplant RR, GE, and P&W
|
|
|
|
 |
|
calhoun
|
Posted: May 24, 2005 - 12:52 AM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Nov 05, 2004 - 09:04 PM
Posts: 138
Status: Offline
|
| Nope. Engines work great. No overheating that I've heard through DT, OT, or IOC. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
allenperos
|
Posted: May 24, 2005 - 01:07 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Feb 24, 2005 - 01:33 PM
Posts: 631
Status: Offline
|
| That's what I thought. Thanks for verifying calhoun. Agilefalcon16, does that answer your questions about overheating engines? |
_________________ F-16B, CC 80-0623 ERAU ROTC
MD-11, 90, 80, Cognizant Aerospace Technical Writer - Powerplant RR, GE, and P&W
|
|
|
|
 |
|
TC
|
Posted: May 24, 2005 - 01:11 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Moderator

Joined: Jan 14, 2004 - 07:06 AM
Posts: 4006
Status: Offline
|
It will beat the Eagle in a foot race and I'll leave it at that.
Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded! |
_________________ "He counted on America to be passive...He counted wrong." -- President Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Obi_Offiah
|
Posted: May 24, 2005 - 01:31 AM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Mar 28, 2004 - 12:09 AM
Posts: 230
Status: Offline
|
The F-22 has none variable inlets, is this a factor?.
Obi |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
VPRGUY
|
Posted: May 24, 2005 - 01:59 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Apr 24, 2005 - 07:03 PM
Posts: 853
Status: Offline
|
|
TC wrote:
It will beat the Eagle in a foot race and I'll leave it at that.
Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!
It'll smoke the viper too. When the -22 came to eglin for the climatic lab they did a few locals as well- it was sobering to see the F-16 chase plane in the pattern as the -22 took off. The -22 would start its roll as the F-16 came alongside in the pattern; the -16 would light burner, the -22 would do a mil takoff (full mil, I assume), and the -22 would be accelerating past the F-16 by the other end of the runway. That things got balls. |
_________________ Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
allenperos
|
Posted: May 24, 2005 - 03:33 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Feb 24, 2005 - 01:33 PM
Posts: 631
Status: Offline
|
Obi - It is not always necessary to have a variable inlet geometry type situation so long as the shock wave does not enter the inlet, however, it is possible to have compressible flow enter and go through a process called diffusion, where the pressure increases, temperature decreases, and velocity decreases. This situation can occur and allow the engine to run optimally, (normally).
Classic case, F-16, if you notice the upper lip of the inlet, the shock wave will form around that lip and keep the shock wave from entering the inlet, first stage and subsequent stages of the compressor. It is a give and take situation, an aircraft engine, is a "comprimise" of circumstances as Roscoe says in the construction of an aircraft. It's not perfect, but rather a negotiation of many factors.
You'll notice that a jet engine is a series of airfoils, as is an airframe. In the case of the F-22, I have seen compressible flow enter the intakes, what happens from there, well, probably diffusion. I mentioned earlier about variable inlet guide vanes and variable stator vanes between compressor stages, reversing in angle of attack, thereby diffusing the airflow, "Bernoulli's" principal of compressible flow. After doing some research after this post in several areas of compressibility, you can guarentee yourself that if the aircraft is traveling supersonic, the molecular flow of air going through the engine is and has to be subsonic, that is less than the speed of sound. Otherwise you will get that "compressor stall" or reverse flow of air through the engine. A good reference book and worthy of purchase is [Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators], by the United States Navy.
Prior to the engine, we have a variable geometry intake and then a variable geometry inlet. It doesn't necessarily have to be variable, it can be a fixed geometry inlet. |
_________________ F-16B, CC 80-0623 ERAU ROTC
MD-11, 90, 80, Cognizant Aerospace Technical Writer - Powerplant RR, GE, and P&W
Last edited by allenperos on May 26, 2005 - 01:06 AM; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Polaris
|
Posted: May 25, 2005 - 11:19 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Apr 19, 2005 - 02:03 AM
Posts: 137
Status: Offline
|
| Ah, ok. I stand corrected then. So, Allen and calhoun, you both are saying that the F/A-22 can go past Mach 2 significantly? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
VPRGUY
|
Posted: May 25, 2005 - 11:28 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Apr 24, 2005 - 07:03 PM
Posts: 853
Status: Offline
|
That's probably not something they can freely say  |
_________________ Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
falconfixer860261
|
Posted: May 25, 2005 - 11:30 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: May 17, 2005 - 04:21 PM
Posts: 984
Status: Offline
|
| Doesn't take long to hit bingo in most fighters once the burners are lit |
Last edited by falconfixer860261 on Jun 28, 2005 - 03:58 PM; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|