F/A-18E/F Enhanced Performance Engine

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4

aircraftfan01 5/14/2009 1:57:07 AM

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?

Rough calculation of TtW ratios based on best internet data I could find. Assumed an air-to-air load for the SH with use of the enhanced engines:

	Thrust/
	Weight
	Ratio
Rafale F2	1.04
Typhoon	1.18

MiG-29SM	1.13

Gripen	0.94
F/A-22	1.27
F-35A	0.83
F-18 SH	1.1

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica PIG reply 5/14/2009 2:00:39 AM

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...

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.

What debate? I ended that before it even started...

OK so you want a confrontation? OK what do you want to fight about? FADECS? FOR WHAT. That isn't a question BTW. Look, stop trying to create something from nothing. Fighters do not fly or fight at anywhere near the speeds listed as V_Max on wiki, .mil sites or manufacturers websites when operationally configured. What brief sprints into upper mach numbers they do, are very brief. Unless of course we are talking about aircraft that are purpose built to fly and fight at those sustained speeds. YOU have no idea what I have an idea of. Stop trolling and start debating/discussing. If you don't understand what I'm saying, ask. If you have any kind of real exposure or insight into these issues then you should know exactly what I'm speaking about.--DA

...In French, the underlined and highlighted text means F-22. I also said...

I didn't say dash speed isn't useful, you did. I know what happens in operation and I can tell you that combat configured warplanes are not flying around at the wiki V_Max.--DA

It's the same for the other Specs like Maximum Mach that people get all caught up over without realizing most combat loaded warplanes NEVER fly that fast and certainly not for any sustained period due to fuel limitations and mechanical limits on the engines and airframe. The only operational aircraft that go beyond what's typical in terms of flight performance speed are the F-22 and Mig-25/31. But these are specialized designs. All the rest are about the same from a flight performance point of view having their platform specific advantages and disadvantages.--DA

OK. So I clearly covered all o...

To include fighters that are designed to fight supersonic. I also mentioned the usefulness of dash speed and clearly separated it from V_Max because combat configured planes aren't fighting at their V_Max.

You mentioned Rafale droptanks being certified for high Mach numbers ect. They do that because a warplane might reach those speeds in some cases for instance in a dive and the weapons and fuel carried need to be capable across the flight regime.

The reason I asked you to post a mission profile that takes a Rafale in operational configuration to M2.0 is because if you did, you would see that if it were even possible theoretically, it would be a very short flight with a SFC that high.

The moral of the story is that V_Max for modern warplanes as listed on the web are pretty mu

Quote Reply

PierreLeGrand DarthAmerica 5/14/2009 4:18:46 AM

Keep spinning all you want.

You still didnt get anywhere near reality and are in a total state of denial.

I dont know what air force is in your country but over here the get to M 1.6 without the need for diving and they fly supersonic every day in military power too.

We're passed WWII Technology. Your post isn't worth my attention.

Bye.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 More falsehoods. 5/14/2009 1:47:06 PM

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

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

Sure they do, that's why I am wondering why you posted an F-22 pilot's work and then claimed that Dassault product could do the same. That is called a false analogy by the way. Still waiting for the Dassault example.

You might try to at least use Cartesian logic instead of asserting facts that are not facts. (Its called proof of statement, something you notoriously lack the ability to do..).

Phaid

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.

WHICH history?

From where i come from we have a territory which dictates hich climb rates and high Max Mach and Mach firing capabilties only for defenses purposes, exercises are practiced in the roles of interception just as well as A2G and dogfights with guns.

The only restriction is territorial because there arent many area inhabited in France these flight would take place over the sea much of the time.

Supersonic?

But my dear Phaid, MN pilots fly Rafale Ms at M 1.3 i military power with 4 MICAs and a central 1.250 l tank EVERY single A2A mission, ALL external tanks were cleared for M 1.6 and this is for a good reason too.

The amateur has no clue.

Regards, PLG

Quote Reply

PierreLeGrand Mr 12345 5/15/2009 6:13:05 AM

Its called reheat or afterburner, amateur. Its one of the several reasons that badly designed combustion pot on the M-88 burns those engines out. Heat leaks forward into the engine compressor stage. How did SNECMA screw that up?

Denying evidences.

Being proven to INVENT most of what you write.

Using UNREALETED links hoping people will trust you on what you say.

Never actualy val;idating with anything remotly more serious and substantial than Wiki.

Insisting into trying to imply that other are lying and using the same sort of ditry tricks than you do.

Flaming every topic on the subject is harly a proof of intelligence or knowlege.

My flight instructor had more than 2000 flight hours on everything from P47 to Mirage 4000 and he thaught me something which apply to you very well.

In this business when one doesn't learn one dies... FAST.

You wouldn't make it through the selection door for a modern A-F Cadet school and you show why at every single of your post.

Regards. PLG

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4