| Author |
Message |
|
dimik
|
 Posted: Jun 30, 2005 - 05:01 AM
|
 
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: May 11, 2005 - 12:04 AM
Posts: 26
Status: Offline
|
May i ask one thing, wing loading, would it be beneficial to have a higher wing loading, or lower, it's the pressure on the winf, correct? Also, what aspect of an aircraft does it affect, maneuverability?
I've heard rumors that the B-2 employs PST, but not wave cancellation.
"Comparing with the traditional fighter (such as F-16) which can firing AIM-120 with the cruise speed of 0.8~0.9 Mach (by maximal military thrust), the same AIM-120 firing from EF-2000 with the supercruise speed of Mach 1.2~1.3, or F/A-22 with the supercruise speed of Mach 1.5~1.7 will have 25~40% (from EF-2000), or 60~75% (from F/A-22) more effective range.
And the supersonic maneverability and supersonic acceleration for F/A-22 and EF-2000, on the other hand, will reduce 25~50% effective range of enemy's AAM and SAM."
Really? Amazing, now, what formula did you utilize to calculate that? So, let me get this straight, because they're cruising at a higher speed, the initial starting speed of the missile is higher, so it covers more distance, correct?
you use the weight of the gun shells? Where do you get that from? Wow, that's pretty accurate
Oh, you used a magazine |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 25, 2013 - 11:50 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
toan
|
|
Posted: Jun 30, 2005 - 06:44 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Nov 27, 2004 - 04:14 PM
Posts: 535
Status: Offline
|
|
dimik wrote:
May i ask one thing, wing loading, would it be beneficial to have a higher wing loading, or lower, it's the pressure on the winf, correct? Also, what aspect of an aircraft does it affect, maneuverability?
I've heard rumors that the B-2 employs PST, but not wave cancellation.
"Comparing with the traditional fighter (such as F-16) which can firing AIM-120 with the cruise speed of 0.8~0.9 Mach (by maximal military thrust), the same AIM-120 firing from EF-2000 with the supercruise speed of Mach 1.2~1.3, or F/A-22 with the supercruise speed of Mach 1.5~1.7 will have 25~40% (from EF-2000), or 60~75% (from F/A-22) more effective range.
And the supersonic maneverability and supersonic acceleration for F/A-22 and EF-2000, on the other hand, will reduce 25~50% effective range of enemy's AAM and SAM."
Really? Amazing, now, what formula did you utilize to calculate that? So, let me get this straight, because they're cruising at a higher speed, the initial starting speed of the missile is higher, so it covers more distance, correct?
you use the weight of the gun shells? Where do you get that from? Wow, that's pretty accurate
Oh, you used a magazine
1. Wing-loading has the direct relation to the fighter's lift-force and sustaneous turn rate. Usually the lower the wing-loading is, the better the laters are.
2. About the active cancellation for B-2A and Rafale:3. As for supercruise that can extend the range of AIM-120:4. About the weight of gun shells: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dimik
|
|
Posted: Jul 07, 2005 - 02:35 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: May 11, 2005 - 12:04 AM
Posts: 26
Status: Offline
|
Wow, you are incredibly thorough
On increasing the range of the AAM's, if a MiG-29 were to go full afterburner and go to Mach 2.3 at 50,000 feet, would it increase the range of the missile? and if so, by how much? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dizasta
|
|
Posted: Oct 14, 2007 - 05:20 PM
|
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Oct 03, 2007 - 09:16 AM
Posts: 3
Status: Offline
|
| Well I don't want to sound like a party crasher, but if this thread was suppose to be a pre-excersize debate about which fighter would be better, then what happened to the excersize face off b/w the Viper and Flanker? Forgive my ignorance if I missed something here, or has the excersize not taken place as yet? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
avon1944
|
|
Posted: Nov 26, 2007 - 10:12 PM
|
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Nov 24, 2004 - 02:03 AM
Posts: 394
Status: Offline
|
|
toan wrote:
It is said that the EW system of B-2A stealthy bomber has the capability of active cancelleation, and even PST, but the USAF doesn't confirm it, of course.
dimik wrote:
I've heard rumors that the B-2 employs PST
I don't know the exact definition of what the B-2 bomber has but, it has an 'ionizer' wire or system in leading edge of the wing that nullifies the effectiveness of RF energy. This energy field also stops or blocks RF energy from reflecting off the AN/APQ-181 radar antenna.
It is the same sort of system employed by the F-35 to block RF energy from entering cracks between the fuselage and access panels. Those gaps magnify the return of RF energy. The F-117 and F-22 minimize the space between the gaps but, F-35 has gaps more typical of fourth generation aircraft and uses this energized field to keep the RCS low.
NOTE:
The leading edge of the B-2 Spirit Bomber is not straight, it is an arc! I did the calculations and the radius of the arc is 2,629 feet.
dimik wrote:
On increasing the range of the AAM's, if a MiG-29 were to go full afterburner and go to Mach 2.3 at 50,000 feet, would it increase the range of the missile? and if so, by how much?
Yes, the fuel a MiG-29 would use going that fast translates into a very short range or distance from its base. The laws of physics are the same whether it is an F-22 or MiG-29 as far as launching a missile at very high speed and its effects on the missile's range. Now whether a MiG-29 can launch a weapon at that speed without separation problems, I don't know.
Adrian |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
