F-22 Raptor speed

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1092
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19

Unread post03 Oct 2006, 01:31

sferrin wrote:
Raptor_One wrote:And what were his sources? He says some sources... what were they? Are those his conclusions, the USAF's, an independent, unbiased 3rd party analysis? What? Just because you get a book published doesn't mean everything in it is fact. If someone talks of sources yet doesn't actually tell you what the sources they're talking about, a red flag should go up.


ROFL 'bout what I expected from you. Jay Miller is one of the most respected aviation writers out there and he deserves his reputation.


Listen... I don't care who Jay Miller is. Did he actually name his sources? If not, why? If he did, why don't you go and find them from his book. I suppose you believe everything you read.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5563
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post03 Oct 2006, 04:31

Raptor_One wrote:
sferrin wrote:
Raptor_One wrote:And what were his sources? He says some sources... what were they? Are those his conclusions, the USAF's, an independent, unbiased 3rd party analysis? What? Just because you get a book published doesn't mean everything in it is fact. If someone talks of sources yet doesn't actually tell you what the sources they're talking about, a red flag should go up.


ROFL 'bout what I expected from you. Jay Miller is one of the most respected aviation writers out there and he deserves his reputation.


Listen... I don't care who Jay Miller is. Did he actually name his sources? If not, why? If he did, why don't you go and find them from his book. I suppose you believe everything you read.


Just because you don't seem to be able to sift the wheat from the chaff doesn't mean the rest of us can't.
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1092
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19

Unread post03 Oct 2006, 06:10

So you're trying to say you have a better sense for whether someone's writing/speaking the truth than I do? It's funny though... you started this thread believing that you had something really solid to go on. At least one pilot came in here and said otherwise. You still think that the F-22 can do between 1600 and 1920 MPH in MIL power though, don't you? And based on what? You still believe it despite warnings from other fighter pilots... hehehe. Keep on separating that wheat from chaff. You're obviously the expert at that.
Offline

habu2

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2810
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2003, 20:36

Unread post03 Oct 2006, 15:21

Jay Miller is one of the most connected aviation writers alive. Jay was selected by Lockheed to write the official history of the SkunkWorks. He even had access to Kelly Johnson's personal diaries. Jay knows is stuff. Only once in over twenty years have I been able to tell him something about aviation/aircraft that he did not already know.
Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation
Offline

idesof

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 634
  • Joined: 29 May 2006, 22:59

Unread post03 Oct 2006, 15:54

habu2 wrote:Jay Miller is one of the most connected aviation writers alive. Jay was selected by Lockheed to write the official history of the SkunkWorks. He even had access to Kelly Johnson's personal diaries. Jay knows is stuff. Only once in over twenty years have I been able to tell him something about aviation/aircraft that he did not already know.


Raptor_One: One thing is being a skeptic--which I applaud, it will serve you well in life--and another altogether is being a mere contrarian. How long does it take the light from the sun to reach the Earth? Eight minutes, you say? And how do you know that? Because some scientist told you? Were you there when said scientist conducted his experiment? Better yet, have you ever stood on the surface of the sun and chased one photon until it reached the Earth and verifiably observed the eight-minute figure? To a certain extent, all human knowledge is based on faith and an appeal to authority.

That being said, if you know even a teensy-weensy bit about military aviation you know who Jay Miller is (in the same way that if you know anything about naval combat you know who Norman Polmar is). You are more than welcome to question the reliability of his sources, but you might as well question whether light really does take eight minutes to reach the Earth from the sun.

Also, it may serve you well to tone down your superiority complex (which may stem from a deep-rooted inferiority complex, as is usually the case). Make your arguments, sure, but it would be nice to see you cease and desist from your constant ad hominem attacks. Enough already. I think we're all getting sick of this back-and-forth.
Offline

bf-fly

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 191
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2006, 04:58

Unread post03 Oct 2006, 16:10

Raptor claw quote ,and MKOPAK and Check six's comments

By definition supercruise means without afterburner. Maybe you mean that from a zero start it takes too long to get to 1071 MPH without killing the 7 minute deal, and that you have to use A/B to get to speed quicker?
If this quote is from a general I seriously doubt he would have taken time to consider time required for acceleration - he probably just took total distance divided by cruising speed.



A) The math stands, it is correct

B) I was quite clear. I said from a static ground launch with burner to attain super cruise, please read what I wrote, don't assume...,

C) I understand what supercruise means, thanks for the tip.

D) Counting a static start, acceleration, and a climb to the mid twenties where the CAP is run over D.C. a speed closer to 1.6 must be attained, (interpolating Raptors claws mach numbers, not my a/s numbers)

E) The General referenced used prepared and considered remarks, stating 7 minutes from Langely to CAP over D.C. with 41 minutes of fuel remaining, not "35 or 40", but precisely 41 minutes. VPRWZL post was spot on, but these were prepared remarks, not off the cuff. I'll find the reference for you

F) 8 minutes to DC in an F-15 (I assume)? I know my geography. I've never flown into Langely, but I've beed to KPHF many times. (and others). Ever notice that coast near Langley and DC? No windows over the Ocean to break. A 600+mph average, which counting acceleration time, would be the max allowed by your chosen top speed of no more than Mach one, would take 12 minutes 45 seconds. I'll do the math for you, 60 mph is 1 mile per minute, 600 is 10 miles per minute. 127.65 miles would take 12.765 minutes. (700 mph average which would be impossible under your chosen limit would still take 11 minutes) To attain an 8 minute flight would require about 900 mph, further, to go over water would be farther still, so even faster is required. That same General said the F-15 would arrive on fumes. (Burner required)

My point is, not that this is the perfect example, but it is more precise than an off the cuff "25 or 30 minutes".

Consider:

1)The F-22 is climbing
2) If Mach 1.6 is the average (using Raptor claws' math), that is down low, not it's optimal supercruising altitude.
3) If Mach 1.6 can be attained at 25K, then one of you guys can convert than to 37+K to gain one possible solution to your question.
4) I reasoned that if it arrived with only 41 minutes fuel on station plus reserves, then some burner had to be used, but if it did the entire time it would arrive on fumes as well just like the F-15.
5)If we use a scientific method, rather than conjecture, we can arrive an airspeed that is accurate. If we take the average speed of all available information, and convert that to a consistant altutude, we can arrive at a reasonably accurate number. (tempature would likely be unknown adding a variable)
6)Metz, the test pilot provided some insight, Dozer, this General, and some others that maybe you guys can provide, can be blended to provide a good picture.
Offline

bf-fly

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 191
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2006, 04:58

Unread post03 Oct 2006, 16:18

I don't think this qualifies as off the cuff;

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Nov2005/1105paths.asp
Offline

idesof

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 634
  • Joined: 29 May 2006, 22:59

Unread post03 Oct 2006, 16:28

bf-fly wrote:6)Metz, the test pilot provided some insight, Dozer, this General, and some others that maybe you guys can provide, can be blended to provide a good picture.


Yes, about Mach 1.6 to Mach 1.8, as extensively documented. Until we KNOW otherwise, can we just drop this???

By the way, nice work, bf-fly.
Offline

bf-fly

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 191
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2006, 04:58

Unread post03 Oct 2006, 16:40

Well the thread is F-22's speed. I thought this forum was an attempt to quantify it's speed, top speed and supercruise. I'm simply providing a scientific method as a starting point rather than speculation.
Offline

idesof

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 634
  • Joined: 29 May 2006, 22:59

Unread post03 Oct 2006, 16:47

bf-fly wrote:Well the thread is F-22's speed. I thought this forum was an attempt to quantify it's speed, top speed and supercruise. I'm simply providing a scientific method as a starting point rather than speculation.


With so much insolence and sarcasm on the net, I guess you thought I was being facetious! Not at all. I mean it: nice work. I thought your post was clear and well thought-out. It also serves to reconfirm what we already knew, which judging by the attitude of some of the people posting on here, we either did not really know it and/or have no business knowing and/or no business wanting to know.
Offline

bf-fly

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 191
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2006, 04:58

Unread post03 Oct 2006, 16:50

Thanks
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1092
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19

Unread post03 Oct 2006, 16:53

bf-fly wrote:Well the thread is F-22's speed. I thought this forum was an attempt to quantify it's speed, top speed and supercruise. I'm simply providing a scientific method as a starting point rather than speculation.


Your calculations are not based on a scientific method. There is actually a definition for the term "scientific method".
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1092
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19

Unread post03 Oct 2006, 16:57

idesof wrote:Also, it may serve you well to tone down your superiority complex (which may stem from a deep-rooted inferiority complex, as is usually the case). Make your arguments, sure, but it would be nice to see you cease and desist from your constant ad hominem attacks. Enough already. I think we're all getting sick of this back-and-forth.


Now who's engaging in personal attacks? I would define a superiority complex as someone who states something as fact that is not necessarily so. Then when asked to back that up, said person refuses.
Offline

bf-fly

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 191
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2006, 04:58

Unread post03 Oct 2006, 16:58

Is that the best you can do? While that is not precisely what I meant, I wasn't that far off

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning.

Although specialized procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results. Theories that encompass whole domains of inquiry serve to bind more specific hypotheses together into logically coherent wholes. This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.
Offline

bf-fly

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 191
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2006, 04:58

Unread post03 Oct 2006, 16:59

Wow, you're a piece of work.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests