Talk:Supercruise/Archive 1

Archive 1

Concorde did supercruise

As our Concorde article points out, Concorde did supercruise, but the engines did have afterburners for accelerating to its superconic cruise speed. Hence I'm going to put it back in the list. --Robert Merkel 02:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

If it's ok to include Concorde, what about Tu-144, which also seemed to have the capability? According to the article, "A cruising speed of Mach 1.6 was possible."(when A/Bs OFF) - Marsian / talk 07:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Er... "It was possible to fly at Mach 1.6, but usually it did not. Instead, it always used A/Bs and flied at Mach 2" was the case? Or... - Marsian / talk 07:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure. But stick a note that it usually cruised with afterburners. --Robert Merkel 08:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. - Marsian / talk 10:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I had missed the fact that the presence of afterburners and supercruise capability were not exclusive. Maybe a few words about this in the article would avoid future confusion. --Homer Jay 15:58, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Not all aircraft can supercruise like you think.

Basically at this rate you can add the F-16, F/A-18E, and F-15 to the list. Most modern aircraft can go over mach 1 without afterburner in a clean configuration.

However, with the exception of Civilian aircraft, military aircraft should be excluded from the list if they cannot supercruise with full combat capability. The Rafale's supercruise capability is merely a claim not a fact. Hence it should be removed from the list.

Remember, supercruise is typically described as efficient supersonic travel without the use of afterburner. The Eurofighter Typhoon also does not fit into this category as it is never stated that it can supercruise for the majority of its combat radius.

Ex: The F-22A can supercruise efficiently because its engines were designed to do so. The Eurofighter's Eurojet engines are IN FACT in the same class as those used on the F/A-18E.

At this rate, the list will keep getting longer and longer.

If this article does turn into a list feauturing (for example) "planes that can supercruise in clean form" Then SU25 may well be in on the list, as an american pilot who flew it stated that it "will do mach one you punch everything off". I'll check back in a week to check opinion on this.

This article, like all articles on the latest generation of fighter aircraft, suffers from a severe lack of credible sources. It would be a whole lot easier if you'd cite yours so we can evaluate your claims. Oh, and in the unlikely event you're a defence contractor or work for an air force who has direct knowledge of some of this, could you please go leak away to Jane's or some other publication so we can then cite them rather than making anonymous claims on the Wikipedia? --Robert Merkel 05:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

All gas turbines work most efficient at their max rev (=max power) settings, so your claim is bogus. - Alureiter 09:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Your absolutely correct. But the engine's efficiency isnt in question, but the overall performance of the airframe itself. At transonic speed the air passes across the airframe irregularly, some areas at supersonic, and others subsonic, decreasing the overall efficiency in flight. Whereas on the F-22, it can fly at supercruise due to its high dry thrust and clean airframe design, as this was intentional. Skrip00 22:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, can you cite a source for this? --Robert Merkel 22:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transonic The Eurofighter fits into this category very well with its quoted "supercruise" speeds.Skrip00 23:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It also fits into supersonic. Also: The Eurofighter's engines are much less powerful (just 2x60kN dhry) compared to the F-22. If the Typhoons airframe is so inefficient, why does it still reach Mach 1.3 with external armament but without afterburners? And why does it reach >Mach 2.0 with just 2x90kN "wet" (comapred to F-22's 2x156kN). *sigh* I know from public discussion boards (something wikipedia is NOT!) such attempts to make the F-22A shine more, e.g. some people define supercruising as "cruising without afterburners at Mach 1.x", and x is an arbitrary number choosen so that the F-22A makes it and concurrent models not. But as a matter of fact, as long as we keep "our" reasonable and accepted defintion here, i.e. cruising supersonic at military/dhry thrust/without afterburner, many other aicraft besides F-22A can supercruise. Yepp, even the old Ligthening. - Alureiter 00:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can further define supercruise using the qualifier "efficient". This way we can knock off alot of aircraft that dont truely belong on the list. Or move them into a "disputed" category. Like I said, at this rate we better add the Su-27, F-15C, and F/A-18E onto the list as all these aircraft can theoretically supercruise in a clean configuration. Also, the Eurofighter's numbers are still unreleased.Skrip00 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"If the Typhoons airframe is so inefficient, why does it still reach Mach 1.3 with external armament but without afterburners?" - Simple, aircraft engines have come a long way. You can push a 747 to over mach 1 without afterburners if you really wanted to... but it isnt really aerodynamically suited to do it. Skrip00 00:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

But not with just 120kN of thrust. Face it: There's nothing special with F-22's airframe that makes it supercruise, it also does it just with large amounts of thrust, having some of the most powerfull engines ever installed in a fighter. In fact because of its fuel hungry engines its supercruise range isn't greater than a 50 year old F-104A-19's[1], and the F-104 has rather short legs. - Alureiter 02:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ohhh, so now where looking at the imfamous Col. Everest E. Riccioni "report" eh? Slander written by a lobbyist... hmmmm. Also not factually supported either. This is the same guy who said the F-15C was a step in the wrong direction and that the US should focus on building dogfighting aircraft without radars... Not the man Id want running the air force... Ricconi wants future air combat to be like WWII all over again, close in dog fights. In addition to which: do you have ANY hard evidence as to the range of the F-22A on supercruise?

"There's nothing special with F-22's airframe that makes it supercruise" - Aside from the fact its designed to carry ordinance internally and free of drag-inducing weapons stations? Skrip00 03:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Some more evidence=

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2000/articles/oct_00/f-22/f22_1.html "Level acceleration in military power or less is sprightly at all altitudes but downright astounding in full afterburner. I wish I could state some acceleration times, but they remain classified. Approaching Mach in military power, the acceleration reduces slightly as drag rises, but the aircraft punches on through easily. Accelerating through Mach in military power in the Raptor feels similar to accelerating in full afterburner in an F-15. ... The best seat in the house for supercruise is from a chase F-16 or F-15. Remember, we fly both these chase jets with just a centerline fuel tank to give them a fighting chance to play with the Raptor. Still, the F-22 usually leaves these aerodynamically “slick” chase airplanes in the dust. The F100-110, -129, and -229-powered F-16s don’t fall very far behind the Raptor in the initial acceleration through Mach. But the race is really no contest at the higher Mach numbers and once on cruise conditions. Nothing can sustain supersonic conditions with the persistence of a Raptor. Load those chase F-16s and F-15s with combat-representative stores and they would not stay with the Raptor during acceleration or sustained cruise.

Invariably, our test mission runs are dictated by the fuel state of the chase aircraft. A curt “Bingo” forces us to decelerate and take the chase to the tanker for more gas. The Raptor always has lots more supercruising fuel left. I would be a pretty upset taxpayer if this next-generation fighter didn’t show clearly superior capabilities over anything flying today. While the Raptor is superior in many areas, the airplane is truly unsurpassed when supercruising."

"Nevertheless, in an article on the FB-22 in Air Force Magazine, January 2005, an image of a slide from a Lockheed FB-22 proposal indicated the F-22's combat radiuses as:

- With a supercruise of M1.5 for 100 NM: 405 NM (750 km) - With a supercruise of M1.5 for 50 NM: 455 NM (840 km) - High-subsonic speed in whole mission: 595 NM (1,100 km)

Note that this is radius, not range. Unfortunately, it does not indicate what the altitude profile is (hi-lo-hi, etc), or any other conditions such as reserve fuel, any loiter time, etc, so it is difficult to make an apples to apples comparison with anything else." http://www.afa.org/magazine/Jan2005/0105raptor.asp Skrip00 12:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

But this raises an interesting point; by your numbers, even the F-22 is incapable of going supersonic for more than a small portion of its mission. Heck, 100NM at M1.5 takes only about 7 minutes, and even doing that severely reduces the combat radius. This is in direct contrast to the Concorde, which spent most of its service life at supercruise (well, actually, it spent most of its life sitting in hangars, but anyway...) Another point that should be made is that the SR-71 may have run on afterburners but was actually designed to do so for long periods...

Another interesting one that might be eligible for the list; the Tu-160--Robert Merkel 05:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

But this raises an interesting point; by your numbers, even the F-22 is incapable of going supersonic for more than a small portion of its mission. Heck, 100NM at M1.5 takes only about 7 minutes, and even doing that severely reduces the combat radius.

Well the problem with my numbers is that there is no way to compare them to other aircraft. Im sure many aircraft can fly at M1.5 for 7 mins, but what are there combat radii? I figured for most fighter-aircraft, after that duration of afterburner, theyd need to refuel ASAP. They wouldnt have a combat radius of over 400 NM...

As for the Tu-160... im not sure it can supercruise... but like I said, without clarification of the definition itself, this list is gunna get longer and longer...

My to this dick-swinging contest

All gas turbines work most efficient at their max rev (=max power) settings, so your claim is bogus.

Standing still, yes. However, in flight, efficiency is affected by airspeed as speed correlates with the amount of air delivered. On the large scale, the optimum cruising speed ranges from piston-driven propeller<turboprop<high-bypass turbofan < low bypass turbofan < turbojet < pulsejet < scramjet.

Specifically for the question of supercruise, the bypass ratios for fighters has been declining in order to allow faster crusing speeds. I'm having trouble looking up the numbers, but it seems like the F404 was ~1.5:1 and the F119 will be 1.2:1. This probably places the point of max efficiency near or at the speed of sound.

Why is the Avro Arrow on the list?

Did it ever really supercruise in its short lifetime?

The Arrow article doesn't mention such an ability. I suspect some Canadians are convinced the thing could fly at supersonic speeds backwards underwater on one engine...--Robert Merkel 05:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

... and upside down. --BillCJ 19:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I vote for its removal then... Skrip00 22:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Arrow reference as it was not contested after nearly 10 months. --BillCJ 19:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

F119 Engines

One other point to consider is that of all the fighter-class engines out there, only the F119 is designed for sustained supersonic speeds. It does this through extensive use of titanium and innovative cooling techniques.

Actually, the Mig-31 can travel at supersonic speeds for longer then the F119 toting F-22A by virtue of fuel. So this is a pretty moot point. The F-22 can only sustain supersonic cruise without afterburner for 20 minutes. Add another Mach 0.7 to the speed, some afterburners and the Mig-31 manages a whopping 30 minutes.

It doesn't sound like a long time in the air but we're talking about a 570km mission for the F-22A without taking into account turning or reserve fuel and a 1300km mission for the Mig-31 ... also not taking into account its wide turning circle at such high speeds or its reserve fuel.

Note thats without external tanks and conformal / internal stores only.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

HAL Tejas?

I wonder why the HAL Tejas is on the list. There is no claim of it being able to supercruise. The 1.4 Mach speed reached was with reheat. If it is able to supercruise, it MIGHT only be with the Kaveri engine, which is still under development, and even that is just a belief, given the Kaveri specs. Sniperz11 05:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

DRDO Arjun

The DRDO Arjun doesn't supercruise either. In fact, it doesn't FLY! According to Defence Research and Development Organisation#Tank armament, it's a TANK! Looks like another case of sneaky vandalism. Sigh. - BillCJ 08:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth having a List of planes that can supercruise?

As it currently stands, there are 8 planes on this list. 4 are distinctively known for their SuperCruise features, and the rest are "if you strip them" supercruise capable. As we move into the future, the list will only grow longer and longer. Is it really necessary to list every aircraft capable of supercruise?

Would it be better to change this section or eliminate it completely? Perhaps it could be changed to 'Planes known for Supercruise' or even a list of planes in active service that are capable of supercruise. Mjf3719 (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I will retitle this section "List of Notable Supercruisin' Aircraft" by the end of the week if no one comments. Mjf3719 (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There's only one, maybe two that are truly worthy of the list. Lightning because it was first. Concorde because it spent longer supercruising than all the other aircraft put together, by a huge factor. ;-) - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

list inaccuracies

some of the mentioned aircraft in the list despite being good performers i belive donot have the aerodynamic capability or engine capability to supercruise i shall name them : f-4 , f-14 and the xb-70.

please donot cite other wikipedia articles cite credible sources please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.92.49 (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ramjets, Scramjets, and Rockets

I've added a section briefly discussing sc/ramjet powered aircraft, since we already have a section about aircraft that cruise with afterburners lit. I'm not sure if they would be considered to "supercruise" per se, since the term may really only apply to turbojets. (It's not exactly a formal definition.) One one hand, they cannot be equipped with afterburners, and from a certain point of view the ramjet could be considered an afterburner without a turbojet in front of it. On the other hand, I think they're worth mentioning, since experimental ramjets like the Nord 1500 Griffon have been created and they physics of the ramjet "wants" to cruise around Mach 3. On the gripping hand, I assume rocket planes like the X-15 don't count no matter how fast they cruise. Aubri (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Supercruise Engine Design

4th paragraph in the Military use section:

"The key challenge in attaining supercruise is not simply a high thrust to weight ratio but a radical redesign of the engine because the air entering a turbojet engine must always travel at subsonic speeds, regardless of aircraft speed. Otherwise compressibility waves (or shock waves) will create uncontrollable vibrations among the compressor vanes. Engine inlet design therefore can effectively limit the speed of the aircraft, regardless of thrust. The SR-71 Blackbird's distinctive engine inlet spikes and a system of bleed doors are designed to funnel air around the J58 engines for that very reason."

This paragraph provides almost no useful information and is misleading. Any engine that goes supersonic (except Scramjet) must have subsonic flow to allow for combustion. This requirement does not only apply to SC engines, as is proved by the mention of the SR-71.

Supercruise is just a matter of increasing thrust. From a conceptual stand point, a supercruise engine is no different from a "regular" engine. The only difference is that the supercruise engine is optimized to cruise above Mach 1 (supersonic efficiency > subsonic efficiency). The paragraph above should be deleted of changed significantly. Exorcet (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I am unaware of any jet fighter (other than the Lockheed YF-12) that has a longer combat radius at supersonic speeds than subsonic. Do you have a ref for this greater supersonic efficiency? (Also supercruise is suicide against SAIRST.) Hcobb (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean that the range in supercruise is greater the subsonic cruise range, what I meant is that the efficiency goals for the engine are shifted to supersonic flight instead of subsonic (I probably should have been more explicit). A supercruising aircraft can still be more efficient subsonically than in supercruise (as is the case for the F-22 supposedly). My problem with the paragraph in question is that it makes it sound like there is some difference in the conceptual design between a supercruise engine and a non supercruise engine (and it makes it sound as if thrust is constant with speed/altitude, which is also wrong). To my knowledge, there is no such difference, and the article does not enforce the idea of there being a difference with a source. The F110 was able to supercruise in the F-16XL http://f-16.net/f-16_versions_article1.html for example. The point about avoiding supersonic flow into the engine doesn't mean anything because any supersonic engine must avoid that. Everything ahead of the afterburner runs exactly the same whether the AB is active or not. So supersonic ambient velocity would not prevent the F110 from supercruising. Only drag force would. Supercruise was not possible on earlier fighters because of the drag from external stores. The F-22, Concorde, and TSR-2 lack this drag. The EF-2000 has semi recessed missiles and specially designed supersonic fuel tanks(http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/weapons.html , probably plays with the aera ruiling) in combination with engines more adept at supersonic flight than those on, say, the F-15 (EJ200's have lower static thrust, but I would guess that they have higher supersonic thrust. As this info is probably classified, I can't back it up.).

Exorcet (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Rafale

The Rafale was removed based on an old, dead-link editor claiming that it was "just a claim". But, there is a source for each of the claims. So, I added it back.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Stability question

Example the Tornado is not very maneuverable but very stable, with few jumps.

The modern instable maneuverable aircrafts although certainly faster with supercruise can to tire the pilot. So in a strike mission is it better a supercruise for 50 minutes or a little moderate cruise for more long time ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.59.208 (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

YF-17

The Northrop YF-17 could super cruise dry.