F-22 Raptor speed

[Raptor_One]

Of course that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you cannot make the ridiculously simple calculation of...

(800mi/30min)*(60min/1hr)=1600mph (or 1920mph for 25 min)

.... and assume that this is the speed an F-22 would be flying for the entire length of the flight. You cover distance when you're climbinb, accelerating up to speed, decelerating down from speed, and descending. This distance is not insignificant. You are assuming that no distance is covered while flying at speeds slower than the maximum cruising speed. Go ahead and continue this silliness if you insist. Also, it's obvious that these numbers the pilots were throwing out were very rough approximations since there's a huge difference between 25 and 30 minutes flying time. It could have been 30 to 35 minutes too. Maybe even... gasp... 40 minutes. I somehow doubt that the pilots really went through the trouble of doing full calculations to determine exactly how long it would have taken them to fly direct from point A to point B. That's a pretty tedious thing to do using performance charts from a -1 flight manual.

You really shouldn't take these kinds of statements so seriously. If a pilot tells you it would take them between 25 and 30 minutes to get somewhere, they're not being that serious themselves. That is a huge variance. In combat that kind of variance is unacceptable! LOL! 5 minutes is the difference between life and death. Ughh... you guys don't get it.

[sferrin]

Of course that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you cannot make the ridiculously simple calculation of...

(800mi/30min)*(60min/1hr)=1600mph (or 1920mph for 25 min)

.... and assume that this is the speed an F-22 would be flying for the entire length of the flight. You cover distance when you're climbinb, accelerating up to speed, decelerating down from speed, and descending. This distance is not insignificant. You are assuming that no distance is covered while flying at speeds slower than the maximum cruising speed. Go ahead and continue this silliness if you insist. Also, it's obvious that these numbers the pilots were throwing out were very rough approximations since there's a huge difference between 25 and 30 minutes flying time. It could have been 30 to 35 minutes too. Maybe even... gasp... 40 minutes. I somehow doubt that the pilots really went through the trouble of doing full calculations to determine exactly how long it would have taken them to fly direct from point A to point B. That's a pretty tedious thing to do using performance charts from a -1 flight manual.

You really shouldn't take these kinds of statements so seriously. If a pilot tells you it would take them between 25 and 30 minutes to get somewhere, they're not being that serious themselves. That is a huge variance. In combat that kind of variance is unacceptable! LOL! 5 minutes is the difference between life and death. Ughh... you guys don't get it.

So first you say they don't take the trouble to do the calculations and then you say 5 min is the difference between life and death. So which is it?

And no I don't think they engaged warp drive at Langley at went zero to 1600 mph in a split second. I thought that would be so obvious that it didn't need to be pointed out but apparently it isn't On the other hand if I'd put "average" at the beginning of those two numbers would it have kept you from these tirades? Doubtful. Also by your line of "reasoning" it could have just as easily been ...gasp...15 minutes

25- 30 minutes sounds like at least a little bit of thought went into it and you can take your paragraph of flight profile and jettison it because they simply said it would take 25-30 minutes to cover the 800 miles and all I was referring to is the AVERAGE speed which is obvious.

So how about getting off your soapbox because you don't have any more of a clue about the Raptor's actual capabilities than I do and attempt to stay on topic?

[idesof]

Of course that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you cannot make the ridiculously simple calculation of...

(800mi/30min)*(60min/1hr)=1600mph (or 1920mph for 25 min)

.... and assume that this is the speed an F-22 would be flying for the entire length of the flight. You cover distance when you're climbinb, accelerating up to speed, decelerating down from speed, and descending. This distance is not insignificant. You are assuming that no distance is covered while flying at speeds slower than the maximum cruising speed. Go ahead and continue this silliness if you insist. Also, it's obvious that these numbers the pilots were throwing out were very rough approximations since there's a huge difference between 25 and 30 minutes flying time. It could have been 30 to 35 minutes too. Maybe even... gasp... 40 minutes. I somehow doubt that the pilots really went through the trouble of doing full calculations to determine exactly how long it would have taken them to fly direct from point A to point B. That's a pretty tedious thing to do using performance charts from a -1 flight manual.

You really shouldn't take these kinds of statements so seriously. If a pilot tells you it would take them between 25 and 30 minutes to get somewhere, they're not being that serious themselves. That is a huge variance. In combat that kind of variance is unacceptable! LOL! 5 minutes is the difference between life and death. Ughh... you guys don't get it.

So first you say they don't take the trouble to do the calculations and then you say 5 min is the difference between life and death. So which is it?

And no I don't think they engaged warp drive at Langley at went zero to 1600 mph in a split second. I thought that would be so obvious that it didn't need to be pointed out but apparently it isn't On the other hand if I'd put "average" at the beginning of those two numbers would it have kept you from these tirades? Doubtful. Also by your line of "reasoning" it could have just as easily been ...gasp...15 minutes

25- 30 minutes sounds like at least a little bit of thought went into it and you can take your paragraph of flight profile and jettison it because they simply said it would take 25-30 minutes to cover the 800 miles and all I was referring to is the AVERAGE speed which is obvious.

So how about getting off your soapbox because you don't have any more of a clue about the Raptor's actual capabilities than I do and attempt to stay on topic?

I have to go with Sferrin on this one. The pilot is quoted as stating, "But we did the math and figured we could be there if we supercruised in about 25 or 30 minutes." That implies more than a licking the finger and holding it up to the air to gauge windspeed approach. In trying to remain as cordial as possible (I say we ought to avoid terms like "silly" and "you don't get it"), you, Raptor_One, have always asked for specific quotes to get an idea of the Raptor's supercruise abilities. Now, that you get a specific quote, you discard it because it doesn't jive with your expectations. What you want is not an indication of any actual capability but proof of what you believe/expect. Anything else is baloney in your book. In short, you are just not playing fair. You insist on playing checkers when in fact everyone else may be playing chess. In this case, your preconceptions simply may not apply. I have my own preconceptions, mind you, and I think there is something here that doesn't make sense, but Sferrin has got a point: this is what a pilot said, and he said he did the math, and therefore it is not so easy to dismiss.

[Raptor_One]

Okay... if you don't get that it's silly to try to estimate how fast an F-22 Raptor can fly without afterburners from crude estimates like the ones quoted, I suppose no amount of logic will make a difference here. And yes... you were referring to the average speed based on crude estimates. My point is that if the average speed for a 30 minute trip is 1600 mph (which amounts to well over Mach 2.0 at altitude), what would the maximum speed actually be? Mach 3.0? Hahaha... c'mon now. Don't take these estimates seriously. I'm sure the pilots were not doing a serious calculation when quoting the 25 to 30 minutes. If they were, they wouldn't have given you a "25 to 30 minutes" range. They'd have given you a figure, perhaps rounded up or down to the nearest minute.

You can calculate exactly how long such a flight would take starting from zero velocity on one runway to zero velocity on the other. It's a tedious set of calculations and I highly doubt these Raptor pilots were sitting around with their -1 manuals, paper, pencils, and calculators doing them for the reporter's benefit. If you have a -1 manual for any aircraft, I suggest you try to do a similar calculation. I bet you it takes about 30 minutes (not counting any time you needed to actually figure out how to use the charts properly). Honestly, all these pilots were trying to say is that they have very fast jets. Very very fast. And that's true. They weren't giving you textbook numbers for you to go and do a math problem and figure out exactly how fast the F-22 can supercruise at. If they were, then the F-22 supercruises faster than a MiG-31 in max AB. If that's what you want to believe, be my guest. But it's silly.

[Raptor_One]

I have to go with Sferrin on this one. The pilot is quoted as stating, "But we did the math and figured we could be there if we supercruised in about 25 or 30 minutes." That implies more than a licking the finger and holding it up to the air to gauge windspeed approach. In trying to remain as cordial as possible (I say we ought to avoid terms like "silly" and "you don't get it"), you, Raptor_One, have always asked for specific quotes to get an idea of the Raptor's supercruise abilities. Now, that you get a specific quote, you discard it because it doesn't jive with your expectations. What you want is not an indication of any actual capability but proof of what you believe/expect. Anything else is baloney in your book. In short, you are just not playing fair. You insist on playing checkers when in fact everyone else may be playing chess. In this case, your preconceptions simply may not apply. I have my own preconceptions, mind you, and I think there is something here that doesn't make sense, but Sferrin has got a point: this is what a pilot said, and he said he did the math, and therefore it is not so easy to dismiss.

I wonder what kind of math they were doing that made them come up with 25 or 30 minutes? Which one was it? This must have been some pretty fuzzy math. Even if you took the 30 minute figure, it would mean that the F-22 had an average speed of well over Mach 2. Not only that, but if the average speed is well over Mach 2, that means the max speed is even FASTER than well over Mach 2. Fine... now you have your evidence. Go tell everyone that the F-22 supercruises close to Mach 3. That's about how fast it would have go at some point if it averaged well over Mach 2. So we've now jumped from Mach 2 supercruise to nearly Mach 3. Cool. What's next? Mach 3.5? If you guys would do a little more math yourselves, you'd realize how silly this is.

[idesof]

I have to go with Sferrin on this one. The pilot is quoted as stating, "But we did the math and figured we could be there if we supercruised in about 25 or 30 minutes." That implies more than a licking the finger and holding it up to the air to gauge windspeed approach. In trying to remain as cordial as possible (I say we ought to avoid terms like "silly" and "you don't get it"), you, Raptor_One, have always asked for specific quotes to get an idea of the Raptor's supercruise abilities. Now, that you get a specific quote, you discard it because it doesn't jive with your expectations. What you want is not an indication of any actual capability but proof of what you believe/expect. Anything else is baloney in your book. In short, you are just not playing fair. You insist on playing checkers when in fact everyone else may be playing chess. In this case, your preconceptions simply may not apply. I have my own preconceptions, mind you, and I think there is something here that doesn't make sense, but Sferrin has got a point: this is what a pilot said, and he said he did the math, and therefore it is not so easy to dismiss.

I wonder what kind of math they were doing that made them come up with 25 or 30 minutes? Which one was it? This must have been some pretty fuzzy math. Even if you took the 30 minute figure, it would mean that the F-22 had an average speed of well over Mach 2. Not only that, but if the average speed is well over Mach 2, that means the max speed is even FASTER than well over Mach 2. Fine... now you have your evidence. Go tell everyone that the F-22 supercruises close to Mach 3. That's about how fast it would have go at some point if it averaged well over Mach 2. So we've now jumped from Mach 2 supercruise to nearly Mach 3. Cool. What's next? Mach 3.5? If you guys would do a little more math yourselves, you'd realize how silly this is.

I don't think these pilots would have gone through the trouble of accounting for take off and landing, acceleration, etc. If indeed they did "do the math," they were calculating the amount of time it would have taken to cover the 800 miles distance at max supercruise. In which case, as stated earlier, would have been Mach 2.34 or thereabouts based on a 30 min. supercruise profile. While doubtful, it is not beyond the realm of possibility. Of course I do not believe Mach 3 supercruise or anywhere near that. If you had read my post more carefully, I made clear I have my own doubts. However, I pointed out that since this is a direct quote, it cannot be discounted as mere silliness.

[Delta]

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123009594

It can for sure go Mach 1.7 without burners, or so says General Jumper.

[Raptor_One]

I don't think these pilots would have gone through the trouble of accounting for take off and landing, acceleration, etc. If indeed they did "do the math," they were calculating the amount of time it would have taken to cover the 800 miles distance at max supercruise. In which case, as stated earlier, would have been Mach 2.34 or thereabouts based on a 30 min. supercruise profile. While doubtful, it is not beyond the realm of possibility. Of course I do not believe Mach 3 supercruise or anywhere near that. If you had read my post more carefully, I made clear I have my own doubts. However, I pointed out that since this is a direct quote, it cannot be discounted as mere silliness.

Wait... but was it 25 or 30 minutes. Let's just take 25 minutes because we know how exacting those pilots must have calculating things. And of course they were trying to set things up so people like you could calculate the exact maximum supercruise speed. Wait a second though... they weren't exact. It's either Mach 2.fast or Mach 2.faster. So you're telling me they really didn't do a realistic calculation. They just took the maximum supercruise speed of the F-22 and found out how long it would take to cover 800 miles at that speed? So these pilots must be really stupid, because they just gave away classified information. Or did they think people couldn't do simple math? I really need to stop paying attention to this silliness. You guys are going to drive me nuts. I'm outa here.

[idesof]

I don't think these pilots would have gone through the trouble of accounting for take off and landing, acceleration, etc. If indeed they did "do the math," they were calculating the amount of time it would have taken to cover the 800 miles distance at max supercruise. In which case, as stated earlier, would have been Mach 2.34 or thereabouts based on a 30 min. supercruise profile. While doubtful, it is not beyond the realm of possibility. Of course I do not believe Mach 3 supercruise or anywhere near that. If you had read my post more carefully, I made clear I have my own doubts. However, I pointed out that since this is a direct quote, it cannot be discounted as mere silliness.

Wait... but was it 25 or 30 minutes. Let's just take 25 minutes because we know how exacting those pilots must have calculating things. And of course they were trying to set things up so people like you could calculate the exact maximum supercruise speed. Wait a second though... they weren't exact. It's either Mach 2.fast or Mach 2.faster. So you're telling me they really didn't do a realistic calculation. They just took the maximum supercruise speed of the F-22 and found out how long it would take to cover 800 miles at that speed? So these pilots must be really stupid, because they just gave away classified information. Or did they think people couldn't do simple math? I really need to stop paying attention to this silliness. You guys are going to drive me nuts. I'm outa here.

What's with the attitude? You really ought to try to calm down. If we really are so far afield commenting on this, and it is so stupid for us to even be talking about it, then, it's simple: don't worry about it, it's useless chatter, and you'll be just perfectly peachy and honkey dorey. No harm done. We'll just be couple of Fonsies and be cooool about it, okay?

[FoamtanaS]

No matter how fast it is said to be, no one knows how fast it will have gone by the time it’s retired. I would not doubt it is at or above 2000mph. When all is said and done, it will be the top aircraft of its time for many of it’s capabilities not just it’s speed. To this day no one will give a strait answer on how fast the blackbird was/is. A good friend of mine who eventually new he calculated issues related to the sled and its intakes would not tell me how fast and I know he new as they tracked it with a new fangled radar in the early 90’s. The most I got out of him was a smile when I said 7,000 mph.

First time poster and R/C pilot
Lee Ulinger

[toan]

Mach 1 = 295 m/sec = 1,062 km/hr = 660 mile/hr at the height of Stratosphere (from 36,000fts to 165,000 fts).

Therefore, the declaration of "Supercruising with the speed of 1,600~1,920 mile at the height of 40,000~60,000 fts" is actually equal to declare that Raptor could cruise with the speed of Mach 2.42~2.91 without using its A/Bs............

So, the great pilot's great calculation proves that Raptor should actually be a fighter of 3.5~5.0+ Mach class........What a great discovery and achievement, I see.................. .

[Neno]

Hello everybody i'm registered today (but i was following by some time this nice forum). I'm an italian boy, and i'm a ATF program's fans since i was child.
I'm sorry for my (eventually) mistakes but my english is a bit poor..
Iìd like to tell my opinion about this declarations: Ok Toan, Sincerely Mach 3.5 - 5.0 is too much even for the wonderful F-22 , but i think maibe mach 2.42 - 2.91 even with AB would be still a good new, considering that someone sad the raptor max speed whith AB was about Mach 1.7 - 1.8. Please consider that no many other aircraft would do better than mach 2.5.
I was reading for years that the problem with Raptor's top speed wasn't at all in engine's power or in aerodinamics, but simply in deterioration (by high bisonic temperatures) of stealth coating and termoplastic materials of which airframe is made of. So even considering "ONLY" mach 2.4 - 2.9 the cases are 3:
1) USAF did for years a grat work of "disinformation".
2) In some way they are now able to refresh or avoid overheating of F-22 airframe (this would be nice also for IR-stealth characteristics..).
3) Materials of which the f22 are made of are evolved or simply changed (this would justify weight increase).

[idesof]

Hello everybody i'm registered today (but i was following by some time this nice forum). I'm an italian boy, and i'm a ATF program's fans since i was child.
I'm sorry for my (eventually) mistakes but my english is a bit poor..
Iìd like to tell my opinion about this declarations: Ok Toan, Sincerely Mach 3.5 - 5.0 is too much even for the wonderful F-22 , but i think maibe mach 2.42 - 2.91 even with AB would be still a good new, considering that someone sad the raptor max speed whith AB was about Mach 1.7 - 1.8. Please consider that no many other aircraft would do better than mach 2.5.
I was reading for years that the problem with Raptor's top speed wasn't at all in engine's power or in aerodinamics, but simply in deterioration (by high bisonic temperatures) of stealth coating and termoplastic materials of which airframe is made of. So even considering "ONLY" mach 2.4 - 2.9 the cases are 3:
1) USAF did for years a grat work of "disinformation".
2) In some way they are now able to refresh or avoid overheating of F-22 airframe (this would be nice also for IR-stealth characteristics..).
3) Materials of which the f22 are made of are evolved or simply changed (this would justify weight increase).

Hello Neno and welcome to the forum! I believe Toan was trying to be sarcastic in his comments.

A huge portion of the Raptor's structure is made out of titanium, I believe a higher percentage than any previous aircraft. Food for thought.

[habu2]

What most everyone here seems to fail to grasp is the simple fact that no matter what some general says or some pilot brags or some reporter misquotes, it's none of your f***ing business what the top speed, cruising speed, or supercruise endurance is. The performance parameters of the F-22 are classified, and no one who has access to or knowledge of those parameters is going to (accurately) quote them in public. If they do it will be a short trip to Leavenworth, and they know that.

When some one breaks into your house do you say "I have a gun and 9 bullets" ??? No, you just shoot the m***** f***** and be done with it. You never show your full hand to your enemy.

[toan]

Personally, I think if you change "800 miles" to "800 km", then we will get a more reasonable result:

1. For their performance, which started at 2:40 p.m., Shower and Bergeson took off from Langley, 800 "miles --> km" away, at about 1:25.

A: 800 km / 1.25 hr = 640 km/hr = With the average speed of 0.6 Mach for this 800 km long trip that fits the National laws (Of course, the average speed is not equal to the maximal speed during this trip).


2. But we did the math and figured we could be there if we supercruised in about 25 or 30 minutes.

A: 800 km / 25~30 mins = 1600~1920 km/hr = With the average supercruise speed of 1.51~1.81 Mach for this 800 km long trip.