F22 records??

[mr fish]

The one that captured my imagination was STREAK EAGLE, before her we had among others,skyray-starfighter-phantom-hunter-lightning and and behind the curtain ye166-ye266 etc.
In times past it was a given that the new kid on the block would be stripped out and boosted up to go for the "time to height-payload to height" records among others, with such a powerful aircraft as the F22, why no attempts.
Is it more than just cash and software??
p.s, just for the record(see what i did there!!), what currently holds the records-NO GOOGLING!!!

[Jackonicko]

Sukhoi P-42, I guess.

[MOLWillie]

Wonder if they shaved down all the big boiler plate headed rivets on this lead sled 42 to lighten her up:ooh:

[FlightTester]

....Streak Eagle and others were used to artificially set records for performance and generally used a Rutowski Climb profile, i.e. subsonic climb to the tropopause, pushover to go supersonic and then a pull up to gain maximum height. I believe that the Lightning used to do similar manoeuvers to climb above U2's and drop on them - couldn't sustain the altitude but could get there.

So... Flight Testing has moved on since those days and people are more interested in what an aircraft is capable of sustaining, rather than some grandstanding manoeuver - there are better ways of gauging performance now. Also, as I mentioned above, aircraft used to have to use a Rutowski Climb to get to altitude - I think you'll find that the F-22 has got so much excess energy that it can effectively go wheels up, 90 degrees nose up and continue accelerating all the way to maximum service ceiling.

Another fundamental was that the Streak Eagle was absolutely gutted to get it's climb record - only one hydraulic system, no redundancy in the flight controls, no weapon system etc. You could get away with that in an Eagle if you had a certain disregard for safety (these days we don't), I don't think you'd get away with it in a fourth or fifth generation fighter - to many computers trying to talk to each other - remove the black boxes and you'd definitely save some weight, but the aircraft probably wouldn't work too well. :ok:

[BOAC]

and continue accelerating all the way to maximum service ceiling. - Hmm! I think we have a different definition of maximum service ceiling?

[Jetex Jim]

I don't think you'd get away with it in a fourth or fifth generation fighter - to many computers trying to talk to each other Isn't it more a case of with software intensive flight controls, as I think Mr Fish is suggesting, the cost of stripping out all that weight goes way beyond removing all the hardware. Extensive rework and qualification would be required for the system to deal with what would be effectivly a new aeroplane, now configured way outside the normal envelope.

[FlightTester]

BAOC - you're right - should have read absolute ceiling not max service. Obviously impossible to continue to keep the nose 90 degrees up too, so basically looking at a curved climb to altitude, rather than a series of sawtooth climbs. Perf was never my strong point!

[ARXW]

Forget altitude and speed records watch those videos of a USAF Colonel(?) commenting on Cope India and the Indian Participation in Red Flag and F-22 versus Su-30MKI where he said that the F-22 has 28deg/second sustained turn rate!! Whom is he fooling?? Would that eb possible. I know most top of the range jets of today would be doing well to turn at that rate instantaneously (in that first max pull) but sustained 28deg/sec is too much I think and I don't believe he was talking about the use of thrust vectoring to attain that either (which would be the only plausible way to me to achieve such a feat). He mentioned the F-15 had 15-16deg/sec rate (plausible) and the Su-30MKI 21-22deg/sec (a bit too high IMO). 15/16 is certainly possible I recall figures for the Lightning F6 of 14deg/sec inst. and 12deg/sec sustained and that was more than 40years ago but 28 is too much! If you do the math or the physics rather I think one would come up with some crazy numbers! Especially as the 22 has an enormous wing/body area! It has enormousthrust but I'd be more ready to believe a time-to-height record than a STR record! I've seen it turn conventionally in a level turn at or above corner velocity -an F-16 type airshow level 9g turn and it looks pretty much like an F-16 certainly no better and the F-16 at 9g clean at 450kts at low alt I'm quite certain it achieves much less than 28deg/sec instantaneous TR!!

[ARXW]

Here's the videos of that lecture I was talking about:
Part 1:
YouTube - Indo-US Red Flag Air Force Exercise Lecture 2008 Part 1 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU)
PArt 2:
YouTube - Indo-US Red Flag Air Force Exercise Lecture 2008 Part 2 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgAQ7lv0w)

[MOLWillie]

Thanks for the links, ARXW.......good stuff.

I see one disadvantage with the F22 and it's vectored thrust.

There is a slight time lag between the nose pitch and the tail end pitch.
For example, the two exhaust buckets oscillate up, this forces the tail of the craft down as well as the complete aircraft down thru it's lateral axis a tad. Then the nose pitches up. Canards would help in this situation if they worked in unison with the buckets, but then they need good airflow over them to be cause a pitch change of the nose. At low airspeed canards are a dead loss.
The ideal set up would be to have thrusters in the nose of the craft similar to the Space Shuttle to nudge the nose in unison with the buckets. Then there would be optimum pitch balance about the lateral axis of the craft.

[OFBSLF]

Canards would help in this situation if they worked in unison with the bucketsDon't canards significantly increase radar cross section?

[LowObservable]

Canards definitely have an RCS:

Radar Cross Section - Google Book Search (http://books.google.com/books?id=j7hdXhgwws4C&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=rcs+duck+radar&source=bl&ots=NHhnn4EEnj&sig=jzrwxMLr1BWpPT3XHlXKhozfArw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA264,M1)

(With bonus RCS geek humor - google "Rombauer and Becker")

[rousseau]

Some debate made recently in Aviation Forum with Video proved that F-22 does can turn 28 even 30 more degrees per second sustained.

See the first 180°turn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgaOrCYb7b0

[Lightning Mate]

I believe that the Lightning used to do similar manoeuvers to climb above U2's and drop on them

I have six years flying on it which says not true. Why do that when the Red Top could take out several thousand feet?

OK, I'll bugger off now.........

[John Farley]

ARXW

I remember when Pugachev arrived at Paris 1989 in his Su-27 and did a few manoeuvres on arrival. I also remember the expression on the face of a BAE man when he looked up from his stopwatch and said "that 360 took 10 secs". Then a short while later Pugachev did the first cobra we had ever seen in the West while on his downwind leg to land. We nearly forgot about the 360.

BTW I am not suggesting that represents a sustained turn rate just a short term average. In the following years I timed quite a few such 360s at Paris and Farnborough but never got under 11 secs myself.

[Obi Offiah]

F-15 Streak Eagle Records:

Part 1 YouTube - F-15 Streak Eagle Record Flights Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLka4GoUbLo)

Part 2 YouTube - F-15 Streak Eagle Record Flights part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7YAN9--3MA)

Despite being held back with the tailhook, I waas surprised how remarkably short the take-off roll was and the accelerating through mach one in the vertically is impressive.

[Yanchik]

John Farley,

You mean, surely, ANOTHER BAe man ?

Y

Reference: "John Farley first flew the P.1127 in 1964 while a test pilot at the Royal Aircraft Establishment. He spent 19 years contributing to the development of the Harrier, retiring as Chief Test Pilot BAe Dunsfold. He then spent five years as Manager of Dunsfold and a further two as Special Operations Manager at BAe Kingston." from John Farley's Lecture (http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/history_farley.htm)

[John Farley]

Yanchik

Thank you - I did mean another BAe man.

Tea and biscuits with my Proof Reader: "You must not dash off such slapdash posts in future or they could become career limiting"

JF