F-22 maneuverability

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 18 Mar 2004, 23:44
Location: Sumter, SC

by shawafb » 19 Mar 2004, 00:00

I have a question for some of you experts regarding the maneuverability of the Raptor. I have heard stories saying that the thrust-vectoring makes the F-22 the most agile fighter in the world. I have also heard that it can't even outperform some modern fighters like the Viper in a close-in dogfight.

What have you all heard, and how would it perform against the Su-27, Su-35, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen, etc.?


User avatar
Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2802
Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

by Gums » 19 Mar 2004, 05:40

Salute

Local yokels flying the Raptor at Tyndall say it is indeed better in a knife fight than the Viper. Trying to talk with a troop or two now checking out in the beast.

Remember that flight control system 'laws' are way different than the F-16.

Stay tuned.

out,
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"


Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3138
Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

by elp » 19 Mar 2004, 15:04

Lets hope if the jet is used in harms way, it is never used in close. It's best ability is to:

-Position itself because of great situational awareness using great fuel economy at high speed / high altitude, so as to launch an attack at maximum advantage to its own team. Many times getting off BVR shots without being detected, let alone even being locked up. It can manuver, but unless it is a super-important-has-to-be-killed-immediately situation..... why whould anyone use such a platform where the enemy can also detect and take a shot at you too? ( WVR ) It is the same as the new air to ground weapons we have vs. small SAMs and AAA: "I can touch you, but you can't touch me"... and in the F-22's case add: "you can't detect me before it is too late.... if ever." In the first night of an important air op, the enemy, using legacy technology ( anything EF2000/Rafale and below ) has to come up or watch a lot of ground targets die. No choice. Except that they will come up, die, and those same ground targets will die anyway.

Let the enemy use the old rule book and die.
- ELP -


Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 338
Joined: 06 Feb 2004, 13:37

by SwedgeII » 25 Mar 2004, 19:16

Yeah but somebody is going to make a NEW rule book that includes Air to Air drones, that are Small, stealthy, cheap and pull 20+G's. and will fly rings around any manned aircraft.


Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3138
Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

by elp » 25 Mar 2004, 20:30

Well, when I take over :o It will be F-22, A-45 UCAV, and legacy F-16s. Just have to work out the first part of my plan.... :twisted:
- ELP -


Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 289
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 12:49

by Wildcat » 28 Mar 2004, 10:50

SwedgeII wrote:
Air to Air drones, that are Small, stealthy, cheap and pull 20+G's. and will fly rings around any manned aircraft.

Well, if your drone is stealthy so that the enemy can't detect it, and smaller than most of manned fighter aircraft, I wonder if the ability to pull more than 20G is really useful. Moreover, it would probably increase the cost of the drone much.
If we want drones to really act as "force multipliers", I think we have to make them as simple and as cheap as possible.
The most challenging thing about UCAVs, perhaps, is not technology, but succeeding in finding a new way to think about aerial warfare, without usual prejudices.


Enthusiast
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 23
Joined: 26 Feb 2004, 17:06

by bmwf1kin » 28 Mar 2004, 12:51

If the X-31 prototype were sucessfull. It will certainly be the most maneuverable aircraft in the world, much more agile than F-22, rafale, typhoon, su-35.

Wondering when will they start production of X-31 :D


Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2809
Joined: 05 Sep 2003, 20:36

by habu2 » 28 Mar 2004, 16:15

X-31 was very successful for the purpose it was designed - as an experimental aircraft. The X-31 was never destined for production but tested many technologies destined for other production aircraft.

IMO the US muddied up the whole naming convention affair when they designated the JSF prototypes as "X-planes"... and then followed that up with calling the production version of the X-35 the F-35. :evil:
Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation


Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 289
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 12:49

by Wildcat » 29 Mar 2004, 15:44

I've never understood myself why they didn't call it F-24. It is very unclear to me...


Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 535
Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

by toan » 28 Feb 2005, 07:36

The F-35 is the first American fighter originated from the project of X-plane directly. Since its code is "X-35" during the X-plane stage, it should be reasonable and convenient to call it "F-35" during the fighter stage.


User avatar
Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: 29 Jun 2004, 20:14
Location: Cheyenne WY

by Roscoe » 28 Feb 2005, 15:39

Only if it had been called XF-35 would it have made sense. I think someone in leadership made the same (mistaken) assumption you did at the award announcement press conference and DOD backed him up. It was quite frankly an aberration of the nomenclature process. That said, given the few number iof aircraft being developed these days, it really isn't a big deal...
Roscoe
F-16 Program Manager
USAF Test Pilot School 92A

"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns" - Dos Gringos


Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 02:35
Location: New Hampshire

by Sniper69 » 28 Feb 2005, 18:45

I think it was posted someplace else on this site that someone either observed or knew someone that observed the Raptor doing backflips while maintaining forward momentum. That should give you a good idea about how manuverable it is :devil:


Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 631
Joined: 24 Feb 2005, 13:33

by allenperos » 28 Feb 2005, 18:56

True story Sniper69, with vectored thrust and nose-up stabilators, this is highly possible, remember the nozzles pitch up 20 degrees and can vary through-out the maneuver and so can the horizontal stabs, I will be looking for this at the next airshow soon near me, in-fact I can figure it out mathematically. Will keep you posted sniper69. AP
F-16B, CC 80-0623 ERAU ROTC
MD-11, 90, 80, Cognizant Aerospace Technical Writer - Powerplant RR, GE, and P&W


Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 540
Joined: 19 Mar 2004, 18:24

by EriktheF16462 » 02 Mar 2005, 18:49

There is a video floating around on the net of it doing it. I saw it, don't remember where but it did not appear to be doctored at all.
F16 462 AD USAF. Crew dog for 3 and Even a pointy head for a few months.


Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 401
Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

by agilefalcon16 » 02 Mar 2005, 20:49

How agile would the F-22 be if it didn't have the thrust-vectoring nozzels? Surely not as agile as the Viper right?


Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests