LY744
Topic Author
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

Fighter Jets: Max Speed Without Afterburners

Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:07 am

The maximum speed for fighters is often well publicised, but as we know using afterburners is only a temporary measure due to fuel consumption. What I would like to know is how different modern fighters (any airplane you have stats on automatically qualifies  Smile ) stack up against each other in terms of their maximum speed with dry thrust only.

Any help is much appreciated.


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
jcxp15
Posts: 989
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 12:05 pm

RE: Fighter Jets: Max Speed Without Afterburners

Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:15 am

Don't know the exact speed, but the F-22 can exceed Mach 1 without the use of afterburners.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Fighter Jets: Max Speed Without Afterburners

Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:39 am

What kind of external stores are these fighters carrying at the time? After all, there is no point of having a fast moving fighter if they can't shoot at anything!
The last of the famous international playboys
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Fighter Jets: Max Speed Without Afterburners

Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:55 am

I believe that the F-22 will be the victor at the moment because it's the only fighter capable of Supercruise capability, Mach 1+ flight without afterburners.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
LY744
Topic Author
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Fighter Jets: Max Speed Without Afterburners

Tue Sep 21, 2004 4:15 am

Well I don't think the F-22 has any competition when it comes to this due to its super-cruise capability (rumoured to put it at a cruise of 1.4 mach or so). But what about other fighters? As for what kind of load they would be carrying, ideally it would be nice to compare a number of aircraft in a clean configuration but right now any relevant data would be good to get this going.


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2120
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: Fighter Jets: Max Speed Without Afterburners

Tue Sep 21, 2004 4:19 am

"I believe that the F-22 will be the victor at the moment because it's the only fighter capable of Supercruise capability, Mach 1+ flight without afterburners."

This is a popular misconception. The F-22 is the first fighter plane capable of 'high' mach numbers without afterburner. I never understood when it first was being touted as the first aircraft to go supersonic without reheat. Our first generation fighters could go supersonic in a shallow dive, with very low powered inefficient jet engines and not nearly as aerodynamic as their decades later counterparts. Hell, a 747 can get up to Mach .9, so it only seems logical that a hugely more aerodymanic aircraft with very minimal frontal area and almost 1 to 1 thrust ratio even without afterburner could go just that much faster on its own.

When that catch phrase first came out, I talked to an ex AF F-4 pilot, who actually did maintance test flights after they got worked on. He explained the whole flight profile of those tests, part of which was to go supersonic without the benefit of afterburner.


As for LY744's question... I would assume that the afterburner on the F-14/15/16/18 would add a pretty similiar punch across the board. If that is true, then perhaps they would still be ranked the same, albeit the top speeds being uniformly lower than with a/b. So it would be something like this:

F-15 2.5+
F-111 2.5
F-14 2.2
F-16 2
F-18 1.8

That's for the American fighters, so let's say without a/b you lose .8 (just throwing that out there for examples sake) then it would look something like:

F-15 1.7+
F-111 1.7
F-14 1.4
F-16 1.2
F-18 1.0


Good question, and I'd like to know the answer.
Here Here for Severe Clear!
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Fighter Jets: Max Speed Without Afterburners

Tue Sep 21, 2004 5:18 am

"I believe that the F-22 will be the victor at the moment because it's the only fighter capable of Supercruise capability, Mach 1+ flight without afterburners."

The F-22 would win a competition but isn't the only fighter with supercruise capabilities. Typhoon can go Mach 1.2 with standard equipment for interception (2x AIM-9x/ASRAAM or IRIS-T + 4x AMRAAM or Meteor), some people say the Rafale does so, too. Both are already in service.
I support the right to arm bears
 
User avatar
f4wso
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Fighter Jets: Max Speed Without Afterburners

Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:30 am

Somewhat related is the fuel consumption. In the RF-4, we would plan on 200 pounds of gas a minute at low level (480 kts) and 100 pounds a minute high level. I forget what the cruise mach we used. 480 was an easy number for mental math since it was 8 miles a minute. The F-4E had similar fuel burns but was closer to 420 knots due to the external stores drag. Afterburner fuel flow was four times the normal flow so it was between 800 and 1000 pounds a minute at low altitude. A slick F-4E could with the Military Operating Area off the end of the runway could takeoff, stay in afterburner for a couple of quick intercepts and be back on the ground in 20 minutes. It makes for a very short day and certainly not the way to build time for the airlines.
Gary
Cottage Grove, MN
Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
 
Cheshire
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2001 11:48 pm

RE: Fighter Jets: Max Speed Without Afterburners

Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:38 am

The TSR-2 could supercruise before the term was even invented. According to the TSR-2's chief test pilot, Roland Beamont, the aircraft was easily able to exceed the speed of sound without augmentation. In fact, an accompanying Lightning was on 'burners just to keep up!
 
ftrguy
Posts: 347
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 8:17 am

RE: Fighter Jets: Max Speed Without Afterburners

Wed Sep 22, 2004 3:42 am

I've done 1.0 in an F/A-18 w/o afterburner.
 
LY744
Topic Author
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Fighter Jets: Max Speed Without Afterburners

Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:49 am

Frtguy, anything on external stores at the time?

Gary, good stuff, thanks for sharing!


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
ftrguy
Posts: 347
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 8:17 am

RE: Fighter Jets: Max Speed Without Afterburners

Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:38 am

It was a long time ago, but probably just an external centerline tank. I was very high and in a slight decent. I was actually shocked to see it tick over to 1.0 and caught me by surprise.

Just a side note. The F/A-18 actually flies faster and is more aerodynamic with AIM-9's on the wingtips. That's what the plane was designed to do and is slower without them. Not by much
 
User avatar
f4wso
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Fighter Jets: Max Speed Without Afterburners

Wed Sep 22, 2004 11:12 pm

What Ftrguy makes sense. The AIM-9s give a streamlined shape vs. a flat sided rail. Perhaps it is like having the fore and aft fins of the missile be like little winglets Smile
Gary
Cottage Grove, MN
Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Fighter Jets: Max Speed Without Afterburners

Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:38 pm

I think the difference is that while these aircraft mentioned could exceed the Mach barrier for dashes, or could make minimal mach numbers without afterburning, the F-22 can do it for extended periods, and does not need afterburning to reach it. Afterburning is available and increases thrust by a good bit, but the ability to go longer distances without the fuel burn from AB was the goal. The F-35 guy at Farnborough told me that the fuel burn was still pretty strong even without AB, but then again he was selling the less expensive a/c and there seems to be some serious competition between Ft.Worth and Marietta. THere might alos be some hurt feelings as well about the fact that ALM Antillean Airlines (Netherlands Antilles)">LM is building a fighter outside of Ft.Worth that turns into a little sour grapes. I don't know why because they will be building F-35s long after the production run for the F-22 is over, a'la F-15/F-16.

All that said, the F-22 will be the king of the skies for the forseeable future. I just hope we build enough to spread them around a little.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos