F-16.net

Active Member Joined: Aug 28, 2006 Posts: 191

"That means that the aircraft that really needed engine upgrades got them and the ones that could do without... didn't."

Ask an A-10 pilot about that.

F-16.net Sponsor

toan wrote:

Combat Aircraft, 2007, May

Raptor Flag, report by Maj Lawrence Spinetta, USAF

1. Thrust of F119-PW100 today: 39,000 Ib class.

2. Supercruise speed of Raptor: 1.72 Mach.

3. Kill record of 27th FS F-22A in Northern Edge Exercise, 2006: 241-to-2

4. Exchange ratio of 94th FS F-22A in Red Flag Exercise, 2007: 36 : 1 (The Red force used "Unlimited Fighter Works", some Raptors were killed after they had run out of their missiles).

5. During the exercise, a F-22A was once encountered with three F-16 in WVR. After the former had killed two of the laters, the Raptor and the 3rd F-16 killed each other in a mutual kill.

Neno wrote:

toan wrote:

Combat Aircraft, 2007, May

Raptor Flag, report by Maj Lawrence Spinetta, USAF

1. Thrust of F119-PW100 today: 39,000 Ib class.

2. Supercruise speed of Raptor: 1.72 Mach.

3. Kill record of 27th FS F-22A in Northern Edge Exercise, 2006: 241-to-2

4. Exchange ratio of 94th FS F-22A in Red Flag Exercise, 2007: 36 : 1 (The Red force used "Unlimited Fighter Works", some Raptors were killed after they had run out of their missiles).

5. During the exercise, a F-22A was once encountered with three F-16 in WVR. After the former had killed two of the laters, the Raptor and the 3rd F-16 killed each other in a mutual kill.

I recently read the article to which you refer and I was a little surprised that the 39,000 lb figure was cited. Probably sea-level, static, uninstalled, though. In other words, should be less at take-off, quite a bit more at speed and altitude.

Number 3 above is incorrect. That kill ratio applies to the entire "blue" force, not just the Raptor. If memory serves, no Raptors were simulated lost during that exercise.

Regarding number five, anyone know if the Agressors wielded simulated HMS/HOBS? If they were indeed simulating the latest current threats out there as claimed, they should have. Which would explain the mutual kill. Moral of the story? Don't go WVR unless you absolutely have to.

Actually, one question I had when I read that account: what the hell happened to that Raptor's wingman (or lead)? So much for mutual support...

Well.. Another confirmation of the supercruise speed at mach 1.72..
With 39000 lb (class) what t/w ratio would result? Someone have some accurate weight data to do the math?

Enthusiast Joined: Jul 19, 2006 Posts: 74 Status: Offline

I've seen pilots put the Raptor's weight at around 65,000lb. I think that is with a regular combat loadout.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

JCSVT wrote:

I've seen pilots put the Raptor's weight at around 65,000lb. I think that is with a regular combat loadout.

65000 lbs = 29.5 tons

We know the internal fuel load of the Raptor to be about 9.5 tons
6 AMRAAMs = 0.9 tons
2 AIM-9Ms = 0.2 tons
480 x 20x102mm ammo = 0.25kg x 480 = 0.12 tons

That leaves an airframe weight of 18.8 tons. Sounds about right.

According to the book Advanced Tactical Fighter to F-22 Raptor:
Origins of the 21st Century Air Dominance Fighter
by AIAA, Aronstain etc.

The YF-23 supercruised with GE YF120-GE-100 engines at M 1.6 on november 29 1990
Yf-22 with ge YF120 supercruised at mach 1.58

I have my reservations about a heavier bulkier machine like the production F-22 raptor achieving better figures than the prototype.

Maximum thrust requirement was 35,000 lb class
Thrust level without afterburner was about 23,500 lb

Regards

F16VIPER

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

F16VIPER wrote:

According to the book Advanced Tactical Fighter to F-22 Raptor:
Origins of the 21st Century Air Dominance Fighter
by AIAA, Aronstain etc.

The YF-23 supercruised with GE YF120-GE-100 engines at M 1.6 on november 29 1990
Yf-22 with ge YF120 supercruised at mach 1.58

I have my reservations about a heavier bulkier machine like the production F-22 raptor achieving better figures than the prototype.

Maximum thrust requirement was 35,000 lb class
Thrust level without afterburner was about 23,500 lb

Regards

F16VIPER

The YF-22 is about 15.5 tons. The F-22 is significantly heavier. However, its aerodynamics are a lot more refined, as are the intakes and the engines were improved. In fact, the production aircraft should always outperform the rough on the edges draft design that is the fly off prototypes.

dwightlooi wrote:

JCSVT wrote:

I've seen pilots put the Raptor's weight at around 65,000lb. I think that is with a regular combat loadout.

65000 lbs = 29.5 tons

We know the internal fuel load of the Raptor to be about 9.5 tons
6 AMRAAMs = 0.9 tons
2 AIM-9Ms = 0.2 tons
480 x 20x102mm ammo = 0.25kg x 480 = 0.12 tons

That leaves an airframe weight of 18.8 tons. Sounds about right.

So.. 39 x 2 = 78 and 78/65 = 1,2 !! Fully loaded... not bad at all !!
But i'm asking how is possible to pass from 15,5 Tons of YF22 to the 18,8 of F22A !..

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

Neno wrote:

So.. 39 x 2 = 78 and 78/65 = 1,2 !! Fully loaded... not bad at all !!
But i'm asking how is possible to pass from 15,5 Tons of YF22 to the 18,8 of F22A !..

Not bad, but not not numerically as flamboyant as some people will like to think. I mean it is not much better than the F-15C for instance -- 50,000 lbs (-220 power) with 28,650 lbs fully equipped airframe and 13,400 lbs of fuel. Throw in 4 AMRAAMs, 4 AIM-9s and cannon ammo will get you to 44,750 lbs. Thats 1.12 fully loaded with full A/B. And we are not even talking about 29K -229 engines.

The difference of course is that dry thrust is higher and dynamic thrust at cruise is probably significantly better.

As far as the F-22 getting to be significantly heavier than the YF-22, it is no surprise. I mean the YF does not have any mission systems, it doesn't really need to withstand the rigours of service just a few weeks of fly offs and it doesn't even have any radar or electronic gear. It also does not need to actually pack enough fuel to meet range requirements. 3 tons is really quite a reasonable weight growth for an aircraft in is weigh class (15~20 tons) considering that the YF was a flying shell whereas the F is an operational fighter. Besides, weight alone doesn't affect performance that much. I mean a Boeing 777-200LR for instance gets up to 40% lighter as it burns up its fuel during those 17,000km non-stop flights it is designed for. It doesn't get any faster or even much more efficient economy wise in terms of fuel burn later in the flight.

Newbie Joined: Aug 29, 2003 Posts: 11 Status: Offline

Videos of the Raptor's demo during the recent Langley Air Show, when the F-22 was preparing to start its demo, the narrator said 37,000lbs of thrust each engine.

Marcelo wrote:

Videos of the Raptor's demo during the recent Langley Air Show, when the F-22 was preparing to start its demo, the narrator said 37,000lbs of thrust each engine.

A recent article written by a USAF officer quoted 39,000 lbs. Shocked

Remember, however, that those are all static thrust, uninstalled figures. All indications are that where the 119 really comes into its own is in the high altitude, supersonic regimes, where other fighters simply hit a wall and the Raptor keeps on accelerating indeffinitely in afterburner, such that you have to throttle back down to unaugmented thrust lest the aircraft, literally, starts to melt (and to keep it below Mach 2, which seems a likely max supercruise figure). Under those flight conditions, and when you take the ram-air effect into account, where the inlets themselves produce a substantial amount of thrust (think SR-71, whose inlets at one point, if I remember correctly, produced more thrust than the engines themselves), the Raptor is producing way more than 40,000 lbs. of thrust per engine. Can you imagine an SR-71 type aircraft using 119 technology, with a titanium airframe and variable geomery nozzles? Shocked

Maybe the so-called "Aurora" is not a far-fetched fantasy after all...

Enthusiast Joined: Jan 23, 2005 Posts: 68 Status: Offline

F16VIPER wrote:

According to the book Advanced Tactical Fighter to F-22 Raptor:
Origins of the 21st Century Air Dominance Fighter
by AIAA, Aronstain etc.

The YF-23 supercruised with GE YF120-GE-100 engines at M 1.6 on november 29 1990

The book is wrong,just pulling numbers out of a hat (or somewhere else)...The official supercruise speed for the GE YF-120 powered YF-23 is still classified,listed officially as "Very Fast @ 41,000ft." Without getting any more specific,let's just say M1.6 is VERY conservative Wink

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1088 Status: Offline

F16VIPER wrote:

According to the book Advanced Tactical Fighter to F-22 Raptor:
Origins of the 21st Century Air Dominance Fighter
by AIAA, Aronstain etc.

The YF-23 supercruised with GE YF120-GE-100 engines at M 1.6 on november 29 1990
Yf-22 with ge YF120 supercruised at mach 1.58

I have my reservations about a heavier bulkier machine like the production F-22 raptor achieving better figures than the prototype.

Maximum thrust requirement was 35,000 lb class
Thrust level without afterburner was about 23,500 lb

Regards

F16VIPER

As someone pointed out the F-22A has less drag. They slimmed it down enough that the production model has between 4000-6000lbs less internal fuel (depends if you go by the 23,000lbs or 25,000lbs figures out there for the YF-22). Also GE's F120 was sized for the 60,000lb aircraft the ATF eventually became. The YF119 was sized for a 50,000lb aircraft (GE did a redesign when the ATF weight got bumped up, P&W did not). That's the reason both YF120 prototypes flew faster than their YF119 powered counterparts. The F119 was bumped up to deal with the heavier weight the ATF became. The F-22A is good for at least Mach 1.7+ dry as that specific figure has been mentioned by several who've actually flown the aircraft.

Enthusiast Joined: Jan 23, 2005 Posts: 68 Status: Offline

The GE engine was also far closer to a production engine than its YF-119 counterpart..Some might even go so far as to say the prototype YF-119 was just a "hotrodded" F-100,with more in common with the -229 than the present day F-119..Do not mistake this as a slam on PW cuz it's not.

One need only to look at the exhaust nozzles on the 2 YF-23 prototypes to see which engine was intended for that aircraft..PAV-2 had much cleaner, more integral exhaust nozzles,without the afterthought "homeplate" exhaust nozzles that were fitted to PAV-1 (those are the obvious unclassified differences of course)..I won't even begin to go into the intake differences.

Sferrin,the biggest reason the YF-120 powered prototypes of both brands outperformed their PW counterparts was due to the YF-120 being a "variable cycle" design,and thus produced a considerably greater amount of (installed) dry thrust than the YF-119..

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Realistic thrust figures for the F119