Boy YOU are the one trying to dispute and obvious FACT!

  That the limitation you are mentioning doesn't APPLY to military aircrafts in operational conficuration, those who does are all listed in this doc, structural Mach are NOT because WAY higher than that by design.

 

READ again...

 

 

 

 

A2A AIM 9B M 2.0 , M 1.5 with engine Temperature limitations, Firing envelop of the AAM M 1.7.

 

Sure!

 

WHEN are they will be disclosed to public in about 40 years but for the time being, interception over the French territory requiers high climb rate and maximum Mach, we dont have the luxury of 2000 fighters over a small territory... 

 

Limitation remains the SAME in operational configuration and they are those imposed by the external load NOT the airframe and to a mush lower extend the engine as opposed to what you say.

 

Rafale manual would be showing EXACTLY the same to the pilot, weapon configuration vs Mach limits MINUS the engine parameters because FADEC takes care of these and the M88 have NO limitations of the sort from 750 kt sea level to M 2.0 at 55.000 ft.

 

Why do you think these AAMs configuration are quoted with a Mach limit AND firing Mach limit?

 

Dont try to make an airliner of it it become ridiculous.

 

Regards. PlG

 

you evaded Darth;'s request and dodged his point...he asked you to point out an "operationally configured" Rafale....you produced a chart showing launch parametres.  That's not the same thing...can you show, anyone who has actually launched a Matra or Sidewinder at M 1.5 to M2.0?

 

A high mach number is meaningless, most times, because as people keep saying, you never actually USE this dash speed and when you do 'dash" it is far slower than the rated POSSIBLE dash speed because of ordnance, fuel constraints, terrain, or simply that the a/c is old or badly worn.

 

Phantom Over Vietnam is a nice account of an F-4 in Vietnam...THEORETICALLY his Phantom was capable of Mach 2, but as his place was patched, and poorly polished, and had other non-aerodynamic issues, plus the ejector racks, he could NEVER have reached it...Dash speeds, or fanboi dash speeds in high Mach numbers, are based on a clean a/c, polished, at height, with a perfect set-up...pretty much what you WILL NEVER find on an operational a/c.

 

The only a/c who's high speed is relevant is the F-22 and super-cruise...which is apparently the ability to fly high Mach at a sustained pace...that's revolutionary.  But neither the F/A-18 or the Rafale has that capability.

 

Bottom-Line: what is a realistic dash speed for a Rafale, at 500 metres, half a load of fuel, ejector racks or ejectors with ordnance, and two MICA's, and having flown over 20 sorties in the last 14 days?  I'm sure it's far less than it's rated dash speed.

Not really sure why there is an argument about FADECs here.  FADECs were developed so that pilots could slam the throttles around on their jets without risk of stalling or damaging the engines, and to extract optimal performance from the engine in its entire performance envelope.  In that sense a FADEC-equipped aircraft has some advantage over one that does not have a FADEC for flying at high speeds, but the main advantages of a FADEC come into play during subsonic maneuvering, not supersonic dashes.

 

The limitation on dash speed is airframe design, not the engine.  E.g. the F-15 using the same engines as the F-16 nonetheless flies faster (even if the T/W ratio is the same) because of its basic design, its variable inlets, etc.  FADEC or no makes no difference there.

 

A FADEC also does not eliminate engine wear.  The FADEC keeps the engine operating within its limits, but the fact is that running faster will always put more wear on the engine than not.

 

In any case, the real reason dash speed is almost never used isn't any of those, it is simple fuel consumption.  It's nice to have for interception, sure, but in an OCA or strike mission you want to avoid it because the more you use AB the less fuel reserve you have.

 

I was just trying to think of instances of supersonic dogfights.  I know that at various points airplanes in Vietnam and since have gone supersonic at times during engagements, but it is very uncommon.  Even then I don't know of any instance of anyone actually firing at those speeds.

 

One of the more interesting dogfight descriptions is of a 33rd TFW 4-ship of F-15Cs against a pair of MiG-29s and then a pair of MiG-25s on January 17 1991.  The F-15Cs were flying cover for strike packages, and in each case the MiGs were headed for the strikers when the F-15s intercepted them.  The fight with the MiG-29s involved merge speeds of between 550 and 600 knots (so 1200 kts closures) and stayed around 300-450 knots afterward.  The fight with the Foxbats was faster, the Foxbats were going around 700 knots but even so the Eagles never went supersonic and they were able to splash both Foxbats.  (there is a very detailed account of this dogfight in F-15 Eagle Engaged, by Steve Davies and Doug Dildy, Osprey publishing).

 

It may amuse some to know that in the above referenced fight, one of the F-15s executed a 12g turn at 450 knots; the pilot stated that "I seriously overstress the jet" in doing that but it did not cause any problems.

Good way to kill yourself. Compression shockwave effects on a dropped missile's nose  that lights off inside an aircraft's shock cone are BIZARRE.

 

I've seen Raptors do it  successfully, but they were DESIGNED to do it successfully.

 

Herald 

Quote: Paul Metz, chief test pilot for the F-22

 

Source:

 

F-22 Pilot Perspective
 
This article appeared in the October 2000 issue of Code One Magazine.

The kinematic range of an AIM-120 AMRAAM, for example, increases by fifty percent as aircraft speed increases from 0.9 to 1.5 Mach (this assumes an altitude advantage for the shooter). That is, the missile can reach targets fifty percent farther away because its initial speed coming off an F-22 flying 1.5 Mach is much faster. The Raptor easily supercruises in this speed regime. This missile range advantage intensifies the F-22?s sensor advantage—the radar on a Raptor can see a bandit long before a bandit?s radar detects a Raptor.

link

I would like to see an authoritative source for a Dassault product launching a Sidewinder at MACH 1 +.

 

That should be VERY interesting considering all, the falsehoods I've read thus far.across multiple threads.

 

Herald 

 

 

In what way is that incompatible with what I said before?  "Do not normally ..." does not mean "is incapable of".  But the fact that an aircraft has been shown capable of doing a certain thing at a certain speed does not mean that it is something people think is a good idea to do, or that it is done with any regularity.  And indeed history shows that it is extremely rare for supersonic-capable fighters to fly at supersonic speeds at all, much less at their max dash speeds, even in air combat.

I would like to SEE someone knowing enough about the subject not to have the slightest doubt that test lilots WRITE flight manual after duely testing and validating every single aspect of every line they write on them.

 

Pierre, this is NOT "friendly advice."

 

You ought to calm the f#ck down and stop being so aggressive in your posts.  If you do, I am sure we will, too.  If you do not, I'm sure it soon won't matter because you won't last much longer around here.

 

Not you will either make some sort of snide response, or you will consider my suggestion and carry on with your conversations on StrategyPage.  I wonder which you will choose.

 

I hope this is part of a truely democratic process because i keep receiving insults from people and i only respond to them politely...

 

  So i takie it the not so friendly advise will be passed on to the offernedr should I?

 

Regards PLG

You can take it or make assumptions about it any way you feel like.  However, from past experience, I have seen that SYSOPS cuts some slack for established members who have a history of contribution to the discussion boards.  Newcomers, not so much--especially when they show up with all guns blazing, sans humility.

 

Back to the topic,, I'm sure the SH pilots won't be complaining about the added power so can anyone translate what this improvement means in terms of real world performance / capabilities.

I agree.  Too many posts about a poor selling french fighter, operated by only one country, that is not viable on the international market.

 

What about the original topic?

 

It would seem that a 20% thrust increase would put the Super Hornet in the middle of the pack in terms of thrust to weight ratio versus other 4th generation fighters.  Would this not improve what some consider to be the Hornet's somewhat sub par acceleration in the transonic realm?

 

If it was not for the compromises necessary to operate off a carrier (wing design and added weight) the Hornet's overall speed and acceleration would be quite good with this increased thrust.

 

I wonder if the US Navy and the RAAF might upgrade their SH's engines in the future?