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.

 

 Raptor cleared at M 1.5 for AAM launch with all the agravations of "Compression shockwave effects" due to weapon baies doors...

 

  Give us a break! 

 

End of debate.

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?