Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

I have heard reports of the SDB being usable from 50 miles or more on the Raptor.

Actually its more than 60 NM for a subsonic hi-alt launch.

F-16.net Sponsor

M 1.5+ is enough to shrinken the enemies NEZ, combined with high altitude and VLO.

[quote="vegasdave901"]

strykerxo wrote:

The Russians great airframe builders quote]
I think you mean great airframe copiers Twisted Evil

you have no clue what you talking about

Last edited by Code3 on Aug 11, 2010 - 05:20 PM; edited 2 times in total

Prim...

IF:
you can't admit the Russians copy (or shall we say are inspired by) U.S. airframes...

THEN:
1) Put down the kool-aid
2) Grab neck firmly
3) Pull head out of butt
4) Wipe poop out of eyes
5) Take another look at Russian aircraft and U.S. version which came out 2-3 years prior
6) Note obviously similarities
7) Realize Russia copies superior things, just like everyone else
8. Be a man and apologize to VegasDave and admit you were wrong
9) Thank me for my help

Preemptive You're Welcome,
C3

Code3 wrote:

Prim...

IF:
you can't admit the Russians copy (or shall we say are inspired by) U.S. airframes...

THEN:
1) Put down the kool-aid
2) Grab neck firmly
3) Pull head out of butt
4) Wipe poop out of eyes
5) Take another look at Russian aircraft and U.S. version which came out 2-3 years prior
6) Note obviously similarities
7) Realize Russia copies superior things, just like everyone else
8. Be a man and apologize to VegasDave and admit you were wrong
9) Thank me for my help

Preemptive You're Welcome,
C3

He refuses to believe anything posted here or on other forums that conflicts with his "Russia Strong! Putin Good!" beliefs. The fact is that the Russians are doing and have done quite well for having such a small tech and industrial base. The T-50 is about as good as could be expected given what they have to work with. The thing is, it's no F-22 and it can't fight the way the F-35 fights.

[quote="primorsky"]

vegasdave901 wrote:

strykerxo wrote:

The Russians great airframe builders quote]
I think you mean great airframe copiers Twisted Evil

you have no clue what you talking about

I am not saying they're designs are totally copied, or do not pocess ingenuity & sophistication. But look at the time line of US / Russian AC and you will see a remarkable picture develop, they had a good basis for their designs.

CLUE #1 = T-4 (aka B-29)
CLUE #2 = Buran (space Shuttle)
CLUE #3 = T-4 (B-70)
CLUE #4 = T-144 (Concorde)

too name a few, notice any similarities, but this is not the thread for it. The Russians are capable AC designers, and very possibly could have come to these same design conclusions, but look closely at the dates and ask yourself some questions.

Sincerly
CLUELESS

[quote="strykerxo"]

primorsky wrote:

vegasdave901 wrote:

strykerxo wrote:

The Russians great airframe builders quote]
I think you mean great airframe copiers Twisted Evil

you have no clue what you talking about

I am not saying they're designs are totally copied, or do not pocess ingenuity & sophistication. But look at the time line of US / Russian AC and you will see a remarkable picture develop, they had a good basis for their designs.

CLUE #1 = T-4 (aka B-29)
CLUE #2 = Buran (space Shuttle)
CLUE #3 = T-4 (B-70)
CLUE #4 = T-144 (Concorde)

too name a few, notice any similarities, but this is not the thread for it. The Russians are capable AC designers, and very possibly could have come to these same design conclusions, but look closely at the dates and ask yourself some questions.

Sincerly
CLUELESS

Huh. Well despite their piracy, they obviously had a time machine considering the Tu-144 flew before the Concorde.

Some soviet designs are obvious copies of western designs, others forge their own path. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive, and you should not use "but the Tu-4 was a B-29 copy!!" to dismiss everything coming out of the country, which seems to be your inclination.

I was curious about the speed and range of the F-22 compared to the F-15 and asked a Raptor pilot at the Elmendorf Open House about how having more gas got him further. He nixed that and said it wasn't the cruise speed or the range or the turn rate that made the 22 so good. Quote: "I kill EVERYTHING way before it knows I am there. My last four fights have been gun kills on a 15 or 16 that never saw me slide into the six o'clock position." When I asked about supercruise he said it was supercruise PLUS altitude that made the difference.

Haven't posted in awhile, still like this site!

Occamsrasr wrote:

Quote: "I kill EVERYTHING way before it knows I am there. My last four fights have been gun kills on a 15 or 16 that never saw me slide into the six o'clock position."

Tee-hee!

At some point someone needs to post that over at keypub. Laughing

[quote="Prinz_Eugn"]

strykerxo wrote:

primorsky wrote:

vegasdave901 wrote:

strykerxo wrote:

The Russians great airframe builders quote]
I think you mean great airframe copiers Twisted Evil

you have no clue what you talking about

I am not saying they're designs are totally copied, or do not pocess ingenuity & sophistication. But look at the time line of US / Russian AC and you will see a remarkable picture develop, they had a good basis for their designs.

CLUE #1 = T-4 (aka B-29)
CLUE #2 = Buran (space Shuttle)
CLUE #3 = T-4 (B-70)
CLUE #4 = T-144 (Concorde)

too name a few, notice any similarities, but this is not the thread for it. The Russians are capable AC designers, and very possibly could have come to these same design conclusions, but look closely at the dates and ask yourself some questions.

Sincerly
CLUELESS

Huh. Well despite their piracy, they obviously had a time machine considering the Tu-144 flew before the Concorde.

Some soviet designs are obvious copies of western designs, others forge their own path. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive, and you should not use "but the Tu-4 was a B-29 copy!!" to dismiss everything coming out of the country, which seems to be your inclination.

Last comment on the copy controversy, We agree that not all are copies and that the Russians are quite profecient in AC design. the T-4 was a flat out copy and you are correct on the T-144 mere months apart from the Concorde.

Isn't it Mach 1.72?

Mach 2.25 wrong. But thats whats released, and theres also a statement that says it can go 2.42 which is wrong as well.
Supercruise would be 1.5-1.82, if it can go Mach 2, that would be awesome.
Engines test go up Mach 2.5, no releases on any faster.
The only way to figure out is, to figure it out.
With amount of Thrust it has and going slower than the F-15s top speed doesnt make sense.

velocity264c wrote:

Mach 2.25 wrong. But thats whats released, and theres also a statement that says it can go 2.42 which is wrong as well.
Supercruise would be 1.5-1.82, if it can go Mach 2, that would be awesome.
Engines test go up Mach 2.5, no releases on any faster.
The only way to figure out is, to figure it out.
With amount of Thrust it has and going slower than the F-15s top speed doesnt make sense.

It does make sense if you account for the materials that are probably involved. Making RAM that's maintenance friendly, works well, and is more heat resistant than titanium... just doesn't strike me as realistic. Physically, the F-22 could probably go really super-fast, but you'd be looking at a Class A overspeed from the million-plus dollars of RAM you just melted off the airplane.

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

velocity264c wrote:

Mach 2.25 wrong. But thats whats released, and theres also a statement that says it can go 2.42 which is wrong as well.
Supercruise would be 1.5-1.82, if it can go Mach 2, that would be awesome.
Engines test go up Mach 2.5, no releases on any faster.
The only way to figure out is, to figure it out.
With amount of Thrust it has and going slower than the F-15s top speed doesnt make sense.

It does make sense if you account for the materials that are probably involved. Making RAM that's maintenance friendly, works well, and is more heat resistant than titanium... just doesn't strike me as realistic. Physically, the F-22 could probably go really super-fast, but you'd be looking at a Class A overspeed from the million-plus dollars of RAM you just melted off the airplane.

Very True, but I didnt say the plot will go that speed, i just said what it should/could/might or what is able to do. But bottom line its not limited to the speeds above.Still the RAM, and materials can get damaged if they go any faster, possible other parts of the A/C as well.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

F-22 - True Supercruise speed?