Joined: Dec 14, 2005 - 05:03 AM
Posts: 2198
Location: Under the engine somewhere.
Status: Offline
....the F404 would have a slower maximum speed too in comparison to the J79. TEG
_________________ [Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Sponsor
Posted: May 19, 2013 - 1:33 PM
F-16.net Sponsor
madrat
Posted: Mar 22, 2010 - 03:30 AM
Forum Veteran
Joined: Mar 03, 2010 - 03:12 AM
Posts: 986
Status: Offline
That_Engine_Guy wrote:
....the F404 would have a slower maximum speed too in comparison to the J79. TEG
Wouldn't it's lower level - like under 20000 feet - general performance be better?
bjr1028
Posted: Mar 22, 2010 - 03:39 PM
Forum Veteran
Joined: Jul 07, 2009 - 04:34 AM
Posts: 503
Location: Dubuque, IA
Status: Offline
Depends on how you define better.
madrat
Posted: Mar 22, 2010 - 07:42 PM
Forum Veteran
Joined: Mar 03, 2010 - 03:12 AM
Posts: 986
Status: Offline
The general life of the aircraft using thrust and fuel consumption factors across different settings and circumstances should generally favor the F404 below 20000 feet. If you mean to get Mach 2 supersonic then I'm sure the turbojet is probably more suited for that. Most fighters don't spend much time in that flight profile.
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
