Flying SUPERSONIC with NO Afterburner | Why SUPERCRUISE is so Important?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- Supersonic flight with no afterburner has a name. It is called supercruise.
Why is it so important? Why some fighters have been designed to fly supersonic at full throttle but without engaging the afterburner (ore reheat)?
It is not just a matter of speed; there is more than meets the eye in suprecruise.
Let's unpack it.
#Supercruise #Supersonic
Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribes...
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
tinyurl.com/y4...
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the TH-cam Partner Program, Community guidelines & TH-cam terms of service.
Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millennium-7-history-technology
Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7
the "dumb" tailchase would be a great tactic for an unmanned fighter. just keep the opponent occupied and its no longer able to complete its mission
You should do s video on India's Astra Air to Air missile!
Millennium 7 * HistoryTech if a jet engine produced enough thrust without afterburner and the plane where light enough, could it super cruise?
@@trevoncowen9198
Yes if transonic drag was low
9:45 Could you explain why the F-35 isn't capable of supercruise and why it wasn't considered a design requirement? Is it because it's not necessary for a multi-role fighter, but if so, why are both Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale capable of supercruise?
Would have never occurred to me that the main reason is to help the missiles skip the transonic barrier! Great video as always!
Same, its incredibly obvious but such an important detail.
Yeah the only thing I thought speed helps with giving the missile higher speed. Kinda like sprinting to throw a javelin. Didn't even know what transonic barrier stuff is.
I learned about the importance of supersonic missile launches from Growling Sidewinder's DCS videos. Great stuff if you want to learn about BVR and dogfighting combat tactics, I am not even that interested in military aviation generally, but that stuff is fascinating.
That would be underestimating the difference in KE, It's square law so a 1.41 increase in speed doubled your KE. If we take an AIM-120D as an example they have about 7MK of KE at mach 0.9 from an F22 at Mach 1.8 they would have a tad over 28MJ. That's a big difference on it's own.
@@sid.h I was about to post this very same thing!
The absolute Best Supercruising plane was the American Space Shuttle its reach around Mach 25 without any engine trust wenn it comes back to land 🙄🥴😄👍. Sorry joke
🤣
And the only aircraft to be down by a piece of foam.
But Space Shuttle cheated a bit because it used the most powerful force in the universe. The force of gravity!
Did anyone complain about supersonic booms from the shuttle ? I heard not.
And it had an unlimited range! Maneuverability was a tad bit lacking though
I follow many channels related to military technology but you are the only one presenter who doesn't treat us like idiots and give us a glimpse of the science behind the equipments. Thank you very much for it and congratulations.
Check out task and purpose
You are right up there with Mark Felton and Forgotten Weapons when it comes to really, really good military related videos. Your topics might be a bit different, but the quality you deliver leaves noting to be wished for.
Jop, this channel, Mark Felton and GrowlingSidevinder's video from DCS are very nice combination :)
I love your content, especially because you’re on of the only military science channels who gives European fighter jets the love they deserve, especially my boy Eurofighter
Great video, thanks! I slightly disagree about Concorde as a supercruising aircraft because AB was only used for a very short duration in comparison to it's ability to cruise for hours at mach 2. I would describe it as a supercruising aircraft. The SR71 has a similar ability to cruise at high speed, which it achieved using the opposite method, of constant afterburner, exactly as you said.
I'd second this. It was able to maintain supersonic without afterburners, so is in "supercruise" at that point.
Paul Gillchrist who test flew a Northrop F-20 Tigershark on evaluation, attributed it with "Supersonic Persistence" Where it would continue to sustain supersonic flight, after the A/B cut out.
Another great video reminding me that, however much I think I know about planes, there is still so much interesting info out there!
You have become a channel that I first like the video, then watch the video. Awesome content man, great stuff.
Something I get rather mad at is that there is a common misconception around in the internet that the Rafale cannot supercruise with any payloads which I have debunked repeatedly.
I'm happy you took the time to check many of these facts cause in most of your videos they seem to be spot on.
Btw. the MiG-29A/MiG-29G can supercruise, too, without afterburner. Mach 1.3 @ 10000m, likely clean. It can enter supercruise without afterburner by climbing above that altitude and then go into a shallow dive. Just fyi.
Thank you! I can only suggest GrowlingSidevinder's video who is a DCS player and explains a lot about BVR fights. He says the same/similar you can her in these videos.
He is one of the few gaming channels that are focused on the simulation aspect. It is still DCS though.
*_WHAT !!!! THE F35 CAN SUPERCRUISE BACKWARDS !!!_*
Great channel 👍
Informative.... good video.
Loved the background music..
Nice video, well explained as always. Hello from Serbia...
Another Sunday treat, thank you for another illuminating video whilst doing my chores, kinetics is such a good topic and I was re-watchhing your missile vids last week so this was extra good, I love how educational your body of work is individually and together.
Again pure information no political BS thank you 🙏🏿
I had some bad Mexican food supercruise right through me. I heard the sonic boom when it came out. Also I am barely over 3 years old but I go by Jupiter years.
the Gripen is beautiful. Hey Canada super cruise is something we need to forget the F35 and F18 and go with the Gripen
Don't you have like PTSD with monoengine in canada ?
I like the graph at 4:45
In your video, "The Waist of the Fighter - Understanding the Area Rule" you taught us about wave drag and the area rule. In this graph, it seems to show the "ideal area rule" shape for 0.9mach would be quite different than the ideal shape for 1.3mach ?
Thank you for the great info
Great video and the lack of Supercruise is one of the main reasons why I find it incredible stupid Denmark took the F-35 instead of example the Swedish Gripen.
Interceptor is one thing the F-35 is not.
Also we know that in a conflict in the Baltic Sea all our airfields will get hit by cruise missiles 30 min after it starts.
They F-35 is a more highly advanced aircraft. It’s just that simple.
@@jafr99999 True it is more advanced.
But it is more expensive as well and that means less units ready for action and its advanced edge will not help it against the fact about 1-2 hours after a conflict with Russia (even a restrained one) it would have no airfields to operate from in Denmark.
And then our aircraft would have to operate from highways, and having the same aircraft as the Swedes would make this a lot easier.
@@jafr99999 Also Lockheed Martin gave vastly inflated numbers for actual flight vs maintence hours for the F-35, compared to the proven ones provided for Gripen.
AND gave as part of the deal with Italy the service contract for EU F-35's to an Italien company.
This will mean that we will get a lot less operational aircrafts on hand at any one time.
The F-15C can actually supercruise with two pylon-mounted A2A missiles (sparrow or sidewinder); i.e. a relatively clean configuration.
A former captain of mine who previously flew F-15s, told me, that he even supercruised in clean configuration, when flying "cross country".
@@xyzaero My buddy told me the same thing. He confirmed supercruise with minimal A2A loadout and zero unused hardpoints on the C model. He said that zero burner was required to achieve SC, either. So just full military power and he said you were supersonic and solidly past transonic. He didn’t say a Mach number, but I’m left to guess 1.2-1.3 due to him insisting that he was well past the transonic region.
@@DBravo29er the Eagle is still an incredibly powerful machine. I think only the Eurofighter and F-22 have more “raw performance”
@@xyzaero Agreed. The F-22 is properly appreciated but I actually think many don’t understand what a hot rod the Eurofighter is.
@@DBravo29er You are absolutely right, that’s why I mentioned the Eurofighter. I think the Eurofighter is the top dog in raw flight performance worldwide. There is nothing as agile, fast accelerating etc. Once a week 1 or 2 Eurofighters come to my home airport, and sometimes they put on a short “show”, including an unrestricted climb departure and it is just incredible what this airplane can do.
They are just basic Trench 1 Typhoon. The Eurofighter is in line to receive larger control surfaces and there is even an option for a 20 percent trust increase, plus 3D trust vectoring. Imagine what such an upgraded Typhoon could do 😁
Fantastic video, one thing I would point out is that afterburner isn't always just for combat and emergencies. Every hornet takeoff is in ab.
It can also be used to save your a
ASSets when trying to emulate a saber dance landing a T-38
I thought it was only to safe fuel, really useful feature!
The dynamics of opening a missile bay door and dropping a missile into a supersonic airstream must be interesting. I'm guessing there are some trade secrets around that.
Interesting facts: The first jet fighter with a known supercruise capability was the YF-17 prototype. Even the A-12 could not super cruise that I know of. Some older aircraft might have been able to supercruise by using afterburner to become supersonic, and then throttling back. Some notable planes that were pretty fast: XFCU-8 Crusader III prototype, the F-106, the YF-23 prototype was reputed to be much faster than the F-22. It's speed is still classified, probably just to protect the reputation of the US Air Force.
The F-111 was damn fast, faster than an F-15 at sea level, though in many ways an overly ambitious, problematic aircraft from a previous generation. A dangerous plane.
My opinion - the F-35 is garbage but has good avionics and fancy though highly toxic radar absorbing paint. Speed has actually been downrated because they will literally burn their own tails off. I do not believe they are even supersonic at this point. The primary reason for the f-35s performance is a super rated afterburner which has been tacked on to it. Otherwise it has no more real thrust than the F-22 engine. It's just a feature to impress generals at air shows by burning up all it's fuel in a few minutes. But they are right that it's main power is just networking, radar and fancy missiles. The basic airframe is garbage though.
I'm sorry but the F-35 is not garbage. If you expect the F-35 to fight like an F-16 then yes it will perform poorly. That is not it's role or the tactics that would be applied when flying the bird. You can't judge a fish by it's ability to climb trees.
The F-35 is the most integrated airframe to ever fly. The amount of situational awareness it gives the pilot is unrivaled. This allows the pilot to make the best decision at all times with the best information available.
SEED and stealthy A2G will be it's primary tasks. Additionally it can feed data back to the AWACS without using it's radar.
A typical F-35 A2A engagement might look something like this
- F-35 uses passive search to identify enemy aircraft
- F-35 sends bandit location data via datalink to AWACS
- AWACS commands F-15EX to fire AIM-260 missle from over 100 miles away
- AWACS provides guidance into the AO
- AIM-260 recieves updated location via F-35 datalink and it's onboard radar for terminal guidance
- Splash bandit
By the time the bandit knows it's being targeted it's too late to react.
Additionally the F-35 could continue to do a strike or SEED mission without missing a step.
Fifth and sixth generation air warfare is going to be wild for anyone unable to keep up.
It's a completely different way of thinking about air combat. I didn't even mention loitering munitions for air superiority and area denial or autonomous drone swarms used to overwhelm anti air defenses.
I was under the impression that the EE Lightning could supercruise. In review, this comes down to wether people tightly define as per the US originators definition, or more loosely supersonic without afterburning. This gets into a lot of beer argument at the bar.
I shall take a slightly different view. I love the Lightning. But the ability to fly supersonic without lighting up the afterburners was good because that plane drinks fuel at ungodly rates, the pilots need to have a 3rd sense for knowing where the nearest in flight refueling tanker is, and the fuel gauge is monitored more than the early radar :P
Super cruise is a very interesting subject. I have to note, that Eurofighter seems to have really terrific performance in this area.
Sir, side note, your videos are top class. Has to be said!
Cheers!
I have one thing to say just on the end of the video - energy, and talk of merge. And this is only my laymens view, so not based on absolutely solid science or evidence. But high speed / energy at high altitudes, seems to be a misnomer. Aircraft with wing loading, especially high wing loading - have limited lift at high altitude. Its worth nothing that in NATO tests, no 'fighter' did well against lumbering Vulcan bombers in tests at 45,000 feet. The enormous wing of the Vulcan gave it the ability to still manouver. The fighters were unable to 'turn' at these altitudes in the same way. (In beyond visual range with modern missiles the point is moot, Vulcan dies..)
Most dogfighting pre/merge/post merge won't be at high altitude, or if it is, it will be very high speed/low G.. - probably with hard drops into lower altitude..
Concorde is also considered a supercruising aircraft. The reality is that most supercruise capable aircraft use the afterburner briefly to go supersonic, then throttle back and accelerate to higher Mach. Supercruise is generally defined as sustaining Mach 1 or greater.
Another thing you mentioned is definitions. The US defines supercruise as Mach 1.5 specifically. Probably because achieving Mach 1 speeds without afterburner really isn't that remarkable. After all, the old EE lightning did it.
@@EEEEEEE354 Well, if it is easy, everyone would do it :)
If you really take the US definition, this rules out several planes in the video which are stated as being capable.
I adore the lightning. And it might fit someone's definition, as it was very capable within certain tick boxes. Outside of those boxes, it wasn't capable. Phantom came along and had a much wider capability (and was a tremendous plane in its own right...)
But it was built as an interceptor, with rate of climb and high speed being doctrinal. If you examine it critically, the RAF never had enough QRA available against any serious raiders, and lack of range was an issue in this area all the way back to point defense spitfire and hurricane. And after the '57 idiotic defense white paper, which basically ruined manned aircraft development in the UK, Lightning was under developed though its whole program. Even with that, there are some things only Lightning could do in its time, and it took some tremendous planes to eventually come and do what it did, only a lot better. It generally left the US century series in its wake.
many things are trade offs, especially in old gen aircraft.
@@AdmV0rl0n I don't really go by the US's definition. Most likely what happened is we made it Mach 1.5 because supercruise isn't a particular unique or special capability. Supercruising at Mach 1.5 and above, now thats pretty wild. Can't have a one of a kind super unique fighter if everybody else can do it too lol. I am however, of the opinion that aircraft like gripen that cruise at Mach 1.2 clean are probably not going to be supercruising in actual combat. The aircraft did it in a straight line at 28,000 feet. They say it can do Mach 1.1 with an air to air loadout. Pretty unconvincing... Raptors can supercruise at Mach 1.82, but most pilots haven't seen that on mil power. More like Mach 1.5 operationally.
Interesting stuff about the Lightning. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about the aircraft myself but I am aware that it was quite remarkable. I happen to be of the opinion that supercruise isn't super important or realistic in combat for most aircraft. When I think supercruise, i think Typhoon, F-22, and Su-57. Millennium brought up some good points, but I guarantee you the lightweights like Gripen and Rafale are going to light their burners when a BVR fight comes along.
@@EEEEEEE354 I think huge amounts get missed in all the hoopla about combat. In reality, if you are BVR you might be high, and you perhaps may keep a conversation around a ranged argument. I don't think people really realise that at high altitude, a lot of engines don't work that well, the air is damn thin, and beyond that a lot of wings don't work well. No one will be pulling 9 G turns at 50,000feet. And when people pull sustained ... say 2g, as much as you may turn, you are burning energy and drag to make that turn and your stall speed is likely a lot higher than at lower down altitudes.
In the end most actual dogfighting will drop to middle or low altitude where engines and wings .. work.
There is an argument to make specific high altitude missile platforms instead of some of this lunacy. Just build a platform that cruises at 70,000, carries shitloads of evil missiles, ECM and its own AWACS ability, and dominate the area. In terms of the UK, instead of burning Eurofighter airframe hours chasing dumb bear bomber intrusion it would be better. Leave the dogfighting and dancing to the fighter boys.
Un altro video fantastico. Hai una capacità unica di spiegare idee e concetti complessi in un modo che chiunque può capire. Grazie.
Thank you for this informative video! Here is another enlightening comment on the subject:
Everest E. Riccioni , Col . USAF 2/10/2005 8:48:59 PM
" The F-22 has not yet demonstrated effective supersonic cruise The USAF has never appreciated that speed without persistence is meaningless. Proof� Six USAF aircraft capable of Mach 2.2 never exceeded 1.4 Mach in combat over North Vietnam in 10 years of war, in hundreds of thousands of sorties. The F-15 has never demonstrated its performance guarantee of Mach 2.5 flight in a combat configuration on a realistic combat mission profile. The USAF has the wrong definition of supercruise �(supersonic flight in turbojet thrust, i.e. without using an afterburner. Cruise means covering distance efficiently. Fighters with wings properly sized for subsonic maneuver achieve efficient supersonic flight at altitudes of 60,000 feet requiring partial afterburning thrust. This may be unknown to the testers since the test program limits testing to below 50,000. The proper cruise condition may remain unknown. All supercruisers cruise at very high altitudes using some afterburning (i.e. ramjet) thrust-MiG-31, SR-71, as did the many designs that I have studied, generated, or supervised. (Detailed aerodynamic-thermodynamic analysis is available upon request.) The GAO report that the F-22 has demonstrated supercruise is specious and misleading. The reports have merely stated that the F�22 has demonstrated 1.6 Mach flight speeds in pure turbojet (dry) thrust. No report of distance traveled or persistence at those speeds was made. Supersonic speeds in dry thrust bode well, but this capability is not sufficient to achieve supercruise. Proper data are global radius of action and global persistence plots as functions of speed and altitude, for rational missions. These data must be then compared to those of the F-15 and the ancient F-104-19 to establish progress. For example , the 40 year old F-104A-19 has twice the supersonic radius of the 20 year old F-15C at 1.7 Mach, and out-accelerates it at Mach 2.2.Compare! In comparison lies the proof of progress. " I am not saying it ... Cheers .
Interesting comment, thanks
This is 15 years old. There is an F22 pilot in the fighter pilot podcast who talks about supercruise.
@@mignik01 Quoting above PO "The GAO report that the F-22 has demonstrated supercruise is specious and misleading. The reports have merely stated that the F�22 has demonstrated 1.6 Mach flight speeds in pure turbojet (dry) thrust. No report of distance traveled or persistence at those speeds was made. Supersonic speeds in dry thrust bode well, but this capability is not sufficient to achieve supercruise." so yes is it supercruise or not? 15 years old report doesnt mean that it has been superceded. Plus what did the F22 pilot actually said? Without details and just throwing supercruise doesnt mean anything.
@@superchargerone Go to the podcast. You will see it there.
Enter the BAC Lightning - The daddy of Supercruise
Great video as usual. Pertinent information and clear explanations. Thank you
Huh? The Gripen E/F can supercruise?! 👍
Well yeah, that was one of the requirements of the SwAF.
@@michaelkeller5008 The Gripen is underrated because it's the single biggest threat to the US fighter jet industry. The American-dominated media plays it down and the average American doesn't know squat about non-US planes. The average American just assumes that it's inferior because it's a small fighter and not American.
Great video, you explained a lot. But it also reminded me of what could have been. The YF-12 interceptor would not have been able to "supercruise" because it used an afterburner/ramjet feature at cruise, but its performance would have been phenomenal (superduper cruise?). Based on the SR-71 range of over 2,000 miles at Mach 3.2 , the YF-12 would dwarf any of these modern planes. How long can they supercruise at only Mach 1.5? Add 4 AIM-54 missiles with modern guidance systems, launched at Mach 3 and 80,000 feet and the threat would have been awesome. Increase its stealth and electronics and a modern YF-12 would be very impressive.
They HAD IT, for the F-12 . . . it was designed to carry "8" AIM-47A long range "Air to Air" missiles, also known as the GAR-9 . Their RANGE, was 100mi, at Mk-6 . . . its "Radar" was the ASG-18 system, ( The "Father" of the AWG-9 Radar of the "Tomcat". ) Look it up for yourself !.
No mention of the first military aircraft capable of supercruise to go into service. The English Electric Lightning which went into service back in 1959
That's because all the in service variants required afterburner to maintain supersonic speed
The initial prototype was shown to cruise at 1.02 in a clean configuration only - The 1st production variant weighed more and has the parasite drag of the weapons which reduced sustained cruise to 0.94
later variants reduced this further with the increased belly tankage reducing the non-after-burning cruise with weapons to 0.91
This is before considering that super-cruise as a concept is to put you above the peak of transonic drag, where as that places you directly AT said peak
Good video! And here you receive your 500th like for it.
Great info as always........Can you make a video on why some fighter manufacturers go with two engines over one Like the Gripen and the Eurofighter.
Think it has been mentioned many times in his videos, maybe it's too short an answer to dedicate a video to.
Super communicator!
Actually the Concorde engineers did call a function of the Concorde Supercruise. I am talking here of the Ability to stay supersonic without using the afterburneres. This function is also called Ramp smoothing which reduces the air intake speed to a subsonic speed by using small ramps inside the intakes. This only worked above mach 1.3 explaining why it needed afterburners to go supersonic in the first place...
This guy would be lost without his AI assistant....
😂😂😂😂
Afterburners don't typically 'double the engine thrust'. Engine thrust usually increases about 40 to 50 percent, give or take, for most fighter engines.
Super cruise engines will burn less fuel when flying at super sonic speeds than after-burning equivalents. However at sub sonic speeds they tend to burn more fuel than engines that do not super cruise. Ironically they also burn a little more fuel in afterburner as well.
While the f-35 doesn't super-cruise its engine is more efficient than the f-22 engine from which it was derived, when flying at sub sonic speeds. As a result the f-35 has much more range than the f-22, for this and other reasons. The f-22 apparently can only super-cruise for a limited period of time, which limits its capability in many situations. It's a nice capability to have, but like anything it has limitations.
बहुत तार्किक प्रस्तुति।
In english, it means, "very logical explanation".
@@yogeshchaudhary2093 thank you 🙏
@@billhanna2148 my pleasure
Truly very informative. Keep it up .
Great insight! Thanks
11:10 velocity pursuit , proportional, optimal 'lob', midcourse guidances
Good stuff
fantastic knowledge, esp on aam + supercruise (energy). brill.
Wow... learned so much !!!
If nobody else has said - English Electric Lightning.
Super cruising sounds like a favorite evening past time In San Francisco
as you say going fast is safer but turning is more difficult
it is easy to generate high G and that is what is needed to force the missile to use high G as the intercept point moves around in sky. I think some missiles don't use lead pursuit while they are traveling to the target since the pilot then can make the missile start maneuvering loosing speed, but the missile need to use it when closer or risk missing. So defending pilot need not start manuver immediately and he has his countermeasures onboard chaff/flare and jammer ( which he can flip on and off if the missile has home on jam capability ) and if he can do the doppler notch perfectly it is nice but might die trying.
it differs between pilots how many G they can take and for how long should affect what the pilot tries to do.
if the two sides merge, and have similar performance, you might have to slow down to corner speed to make the sharpest most efficient turn you can make. This is not a fixed number but depends on how loaded the aircraft is with fuel and weapons. You seen WWII fighters drop their droptanks as the fight starts. Or multirole fighter doing air-to-ground mission should need to jettison all the bombs to be able to win the dogfight.
There is also another speed called corner velocity but is unclear to me what it is. It is a higher speed, maybe it is the highest speed at which you still can still generate maximum degrees per second in a turn.
The addition of offbore weapons might also affect if the pilot wants to slow down or not.
So I want to hear more about tactics and speed. Have anything changed the last 20 years?
Are the latest versions of missiles basically the same as the first version or have they gotten a brain upgrade?
A retired USN pilot told me that early F-4B's which had a slick wing and no slotted stabilator could exceed Mach 1 without afterburner...yes, that is useless trivia now. BTW, I wouldn't know an Su-30 from a 35. I'm an old school jet fan.
Interesting! They say also SAAB 35 Draken (operational 1960) had that ability (to reach supersonic speed without using afterburner).
images.app.goo.gl/YVvCcwKEjcvWZt4R8
Very interesting, but as a little indication and as personal opinion, su 57 has not operative internal bays, try to investigate about that😉
Define operative....
The EEL Lightning was the first jet to supercruise
I disagree that the Concorde was "not technically a supercruise aircraft". It was able to cruise at M2 for multiple hours without afterburner. The fact that it needed a touch of reheat to accelerate through M1 doesn't detract from that in any way. I suspect that plenty of the other aircraft on this list need either afterburner or a "dive-climb" acceleration profile to punch through the transonic in all but the cleanest configurations.
Excellente vidéos. Lerci
And perhaps a tiny subtle feature of supercruise... Less time to target on a long mission, less pilot fatigue.
Excellent information here. 👍
You had a "Six" pilot that said his F 106 needed afterburner to get there, but could supercruise and maintain suprsonic speed.
Amazing video love from india
I gave this a thumbs up just for the opening montage!
Very insightful.
Πότε θα θέλατε να μας πείτε για το ρωσικό δόγμα στην πολεμική αεροπορία??
question : if the the drag becomes normal after the barrier then why dont planes use the afterburner to get to mach 1.1 and then use dry thrust
The drag coefficient is lower, but the drag keeps rising, albeit at a lower pace because ... the coefficient is lower. To accelerate from M 0.7 to M 1.2 (0.5M delta V) requires a larger impulse than from M 1 to M 1.5, same delta V but lower impulse.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech thx . and big fan
how sr71 supposed to use afterburner in ramjet mode that already used to cruise for longtime supersonic flight?????please somebody help im cnfused😮
Does going supersonic contribute to the skin of the aircraft heating up, don't they need special coatings?
The paint is designed to withstand temperature and abrasion. Very expensive, but if you use it for your car it will remain pristine. Just joking.😀
But what is supercruise used for spaciffically
Chinese military media announced j20 can achieve supersonic cruise last July.
It's a factor. More important than starting speed is starting altitude.
Fighters that can climb and build great speed while climbing stand a better chance than not.
You'll light everything up, drop stuff you can afford to drop, climb as fast and as energy efficient as possible and try to calculate optimal launch position.
If engaging at BVLOS you'll never engage at military thrust, supercruise or not. Unless you want to die that is.
Supercruise makes things easier. Patrol range, starting speed etc.
But if you have fuel to spare, power and a fast fighter (high T/W, low loading), you'll probably still come out on top, given similar metrics.
Starting altitude is in a way the same as speed. Unfortunately high altitude also makes you an exelent target for radar, ground baset irst systems. So there are advantages and disadvantages with it depending on plane and mission.
Sure. But this is clearly talk about intercept with air to air. And no. Speed is not the same as altitude. In physics yes. In this reality no. Because you cannot compensate in starting speed for what the missile gains in thin air. Your MAR is far larger for someone engaging you at high altitude than low.
Concorde required after burners for take off and to break Mach 1. However, it could supercruise at Mach 2, at 60000 feet.
Speed Is Life.
There is a 0% chance of knowing with certainty whether the F-35 can supercruise. Official statements claim that it can supercruise for 150 miles or so. It is surprising that anyone would claim to know with certainty that it cannot. The rumor is that it can supercruise indefinitely, though it will lead to excessive erosion of the stealth coatings. This seems like a fairly solvable issue.
But seriously, given the clean configuration and no external fuel tanks, and the fact that has 2X the dry thrust of a JAS Gripen E and only 1.5X the empty weight…it seems likely that it’s Supercruise potential is about the same as a Gripen E
The reality probably is that it can almost certainly supercruise for longer distances at altitude in the thin air and a bit lighter fuel load. The physics pretty much guarantee it. The drag coefficient between an F-35 and a Gripen E with a fuel tank are going to be virtually identical.
This is just something that probably is best not advertised, so you really have to be a bit gullible to believe it can’t supercruise. It is probably discouraged in peacetime (for maintenance reasons) and fully encouraged during wartime missions that might require it. There is zero benefit to publicizing such capabilities.
The thing is 150 miles is not CRUISE.. that is DASHING. Cruise is an already old term and means a large leg of travel.
What is ATOA WPN?
Pretty certain Concorde could break the sound barrier without reheat, it just took longer and burned more fuel in the process.
If I remeber corectly it had to flaten the triectory or even go inte a shallow dive.
Aslo it need the afterburner to take of with full load due to low speed inefficency of concorde wing.
I did a few calculations of spike and boom and there wings is about 30% more efficent at low speed.
Kind of annoying how secretive about fighter capabilities our military is, probably because they are actually a mess with 70% of the budget stolen.
Yeah. No.
Oh boi where do I even start?
don't worry the next-gen air 2 air missiles will have articulating rocket motors and that will improve mid-air maneuvrability by 75% or more as the tech is perfected over the next 20 to 30 years
Give me a shout when they invent hyper cruise
I love how people pretend to understand what the hell you drew on diagrams and then call you a genius, a messiah of airspace, but maybe they are truly smart and I am jealous and pissed of at my failures at understanding principles of thermodynamics ,because they flunked me twice in the subject so I actually had to study the subject! Anger is blinding and I am just playing man,so serious..hahaha
If we had to compare 2 supercruise planes to M1.3 for example ... The Rafale maintains this charge with missiles externally
The F22 more radar stealth with its hidden charge, but should open a hatch when fired ...
What will be the consequences for the supercruise speed of the F22 of this opening hatch? and for its missile at the moment of the release in the supersonic air, can it fire without problem?
Who will be in terms of speed, discretion and shooting envelope ... the one who will lose the most when shooting during a supercruise ?
The F-22, the drag will increase but it should be for literally 3 or 4 seconds. The supersonic release from the weapon bay was actually one of the aerodynamic problems to solve.
I think that with the variable cycle engine, the supercruise issue will be solved for the f35 from what i've heard
It's not really an issue. They wanted range, not supercruise. The F-35A interestingly enough has greater range than the raptor even though it's smaller. Supercruise is way overhyped.
@@EEEEEEE354 Supercruise is not meant for extended range. As millennium explained excellently, fuel consumption at supersonic speed is still higher in mill power, than travelling at mill power subsonically.
It is used for going into combat, where having high energy is the difference between live and death. Supercruise is not overhyped at all, as millenium explained greatly, but i guess you didnt even watch the video and went straight for posting uninformed comments.
@@dyren7437 "they wanted range, not supercruise" what part of this statement makes you think that I believe supercruise increases maximum range? Come on now, don't put words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that the F-35 is a multirole fighter with a variety of of missions besides air to air combat. Supercruise was never a design objective of the aircraft. Range in internal fuel was. Supercruise is not needed for the F-35's role. This dude is claiming it's a "problem" when it's not. So yeah, I did watch the video, it just seems like you can't read. Do I need to break down english for you? "They wanted range, not supercruise". Saying "not supercruise" means that range and supercruise do not go hand in hand. I was NOT saying Supercruise was for extended range. I was saying the F-35 was optimized for range INSTEAD of supercruise. Who TF are you calling uninformed if you can't even read?
This is why the F-22 has a combat radius of 590 nm internal fuel, and F-35 760 nm internal fuel. in fact, no supercruise capable aircraft can even approach the F-35's range on internal fuel. Supercruise limited range. The reason I'm saying Supercruise is overhyped is because it is not always necessary for the mission at hand. The F-35 is a strike fighter with kinematic performance of an F-18 or F-16. It was never designed to supercruise. It's fantastic air to air capabilities are achieved through superior sensors, electronic warfare, and stealth. Supercruise is just another point to make, it's not the end of the world if you don't have it.
@@EEEEEEE354 Reading your last sentence: "supercruise is way overhyped" made me think you were talking about supercruise in general, not just for the f35.
Reading it again it makes more sense.
@@dyren7437 read it right the first time. I absolutely hate when people like you misconstrue what I'm saying. Everything was clear, there should be no misunderstanding. Supercruise isnt overhyped just for the F-35. It's overhyped in general for an aircraft with more missions than just killing other fighters.
All you really need is a better than 1 to 1 thrust to weight ration without afterburner. Evidence in point English Electric Lighting and the F-20 Tigershark both of which could go supersonic without an afterburner.
@Vladimir Polonium They are going to jettison drop tanks the moment they think there is an engagement coming. Two heat seekers and A gun should probably be the standard applied.
Please do videos about EM theory
If I am not mistaken, the English Electric Lightning was also able to supercruise.
Yes, but it was a similar case like the F-104.
It might have been able to but wasn't too fuel efficient in any case, beautiful 50s aircraft though.
It could only do it in a vary narrow altitude window and with minimal armaments.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech according to the Lightning F6s Operating Data Manual it could supercruise at Mach ~1.05 at SL with full fuel and 2 red tops, and this speed only got higher with altitude.
Wasn't designed to do so but ended up managing it just fine. Either way wouldn't call it a cruise since you could empty the thing's tanks in 10 minutes!
This was a really interesting video. The explanations were very clear and concise with lots of (for me) new information. Excellent,thankyou!
So do aircraft capable of supercruise need to use the afterburner to go past Mach 1? And when does transonic end, at Mach 1, or later around 1.05?
It really neved does. It also depends on the shape of the aircraft. Byt by say 1.3 the effect start getting neglectable.
You can design a aircraft to to have a smalet or wider transonic range. A example of a plane that suposed had a very narrow range was the sonic cruiser, hence going all the way ro 0.95 in cruise.
Most supersonic aircraft try to have the wide range so they can go over it with a lowet peak.
This is good.
... which of course is lacking on the bigly, bestest F-35 effectively subsonic stealth fighter.
Concorde could accelerate to supersonic speed without afterburner. It just took much longer and used much more fuel than with afterburner, reducing range.
Obama : we have the best fighter in the world
Let's scrap it!
The real reason behind building stealth is that they have clean wings and are more air dynamic,otherwise stealth is a scam!
im disappointed you didnt touch on the english electric lightning
Sorry about that
I don’t think I’m a “fanboi” of the F-35; but the actual pilots will tell you (and have) that the aircraft can supercruise. Inasmuch as it uses afterburner to accelerate above Mach 1.2 (like the F-22) to Mach 1.5, then cuts to military power. It can then cruise above Mach 1.2 for 100nm-200 nm
While it’s true that the F-35 cannot sustain supersonic speeds indefinitely, it’s a bit disingenuous to say simply “it can’t supercruise” when there really isn’t a scenario when any aircraft would want to supercruise for more than 100-200nm
It's a bit of a technicality but people forget that the f35 is like the only jet that can super cruise with a combat load
Yes, I have heard of this, but the point is sustaining the speed to constantly stay above Mach 1 even in combat, even maneuvering., without using too much fuel.
@@Aaron-wq3jz well, the F-22 can as well. but yes, not many aircraft can fly at supersonic speeds with 2, 2000lb bombs and 2 medium range AAMs, a targeting pod and ecm pod hanging off their wings; the F-35 has all internally and thus, flies "clean"
@@Millennium7HistoryTech i understand. I just believe that cruising 150nm at supersonic speeds should qualify as "super-cruise" as opposed to coasting. But to be exact, YOU are correct in that the F-35 cannot maintain supersonic speeds indefinitely. But to my point, if you can do it for 150nms....when would that ever be insufficient for the mission?
@@mikeck9946 bingo, not to mention all the internal fuel and the fuel efficient engine which would allow it to carry all that 600nm+
all aircraft need afterburner to get past Mach 1 once past Mach 1 they turn off the afterburner and then super cruise. the SR-71 uses the afterburner in supersonic flight as a ramjet. the Concorde was the first aircraft to super cruise in the world. it super cruises at Mach 2
Wrong
Turbine blades and aircraft skin melts at supersonic speed.
The term “super cruise” is misleading because even though some fighters can fly supersonic without afterburners, they still can’t maintain these speeds for very long and they’re still designed to cruise long distances at much slower speeds.
Everything you said here confuses me about F-35. It's only chance is beyond visual range combat, but it's missiles will have much less range because of it's low speed?
Yes
Usually your videos are great, but this one unfortunately contains glaring errors and promotes wrong concepts.
At 4:40 - Wave drag does not reach a peak around Mach 1!! It's only the drag coefficient that does. The coefficient drops after about Mach 1.1, but the drag itself (both skin friction and wave) keeps rising (in other words, the slope of the drop in CD is always at a rate lower than M^2). I have never come across a configuration, be it body only (bullets, tanks), BTT (aircraft) or STT (most missiles) that shows a drop in the drag itself as it goes past Mach 1(as opposed to its coefficient).
A simple empirical formula for the drop in wave drag coefficient is given in Raymer's "Aircraft design: a conceptual approach" (eq. 12.45 in the 9th edition). If you convert this to drag force you will see an increase. Likewise, a drag coefficient map for lots of different aircrafts is given in the same section of the book (fig. 12.34) and if converted for actual drag will show an obvious increase. I suggest you try it with the F-104 as that shows the highest drop in drag coefficient, yet still an increase in drag force. Similar data can be easily found for bullets and missiles, leading to the same conclusion.
The reason that aircrafts going between Mach 1.1 and 1.3 experience an increase in acceleration relative to Mach 1 is not due to a reduction in drag (there's no such thing), but due to increase in excess power. Excess power depends on both drag and thrust. In the aforementioned range the increase in drag is usually at a lower rate than the increase in (jet engine) thrust, so overall excess power increases and an aircraft will have a higher acceleration than at Mach 1.
This is true for jet engines, but not for rocket propulsion. The thrust of a rocket is independent of its speed, so for missiles the excess power always decreases with speed. Therefore the acceleration of a missile at a given thrust level is always dropping with speed. A missile launched at Mach 1.2 for example will therefore have to push against more drag than a missile launched at Mach 0.9, and will have less initial acceleration. However, since it started with higher speed it will end up with higher speed when the motor cuts out. So what you said at 12:05 is only half true - the benefit is only in giving the missile higher initial energy, not in avoiding going through Mach 1.
I am aware, it is not an error. I intentionally confused the coefficient with the force because this is a YT video and not a university lesson with a lot of equations. I tried to add the equations in the past, but it wasn't well received. The only diagram I show, shows the Cd and not D.
However your observation is correct, as it is explained in the video it seems that the total drag is falling.
About the missiles, I still have some doubts, because pilots themselves explain that they are trained to launch at supersonic speed, if possible, to avoid the missile going through "the hump". Also I am not so sure that the nozzle expansion doesn't have an effect in this respect.
If you could point me to some material I would be happy to go deeper into this.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech I was only able to reply now, so I hope you will still see this.
By nozzle expansion I assume you mean the rocket nozzle. The expansion is affected by combustion pressure, ambient pressure (altitude) and nozzle geometry alone. So at a given engine burn parameters the thrust is affected only by ambient pressure and is entirely independent of speed. I have experience in missile aerodynamic and in 6 DOF simulations of them. Thrust is always modeled in the way I explained. Here are some publicly available papers in support of this:
1. turano.io/projects/Launch_Systems.pdf. This discusses the aim-7 as an example. See fig 3.1 for the thrust profile. This is a duel phase solid propellant rocket motor and you can see that the thrust (in each phase) is constant. Also Note the thrust equation (eq. 3.8) - it depends only on combustion parameters, nozzle geometry and ambient pressure.
This paper also discusses the aerodynamics, and looking at the equations you can see that the drag is always rising with Mach (I know you said you know this, but as it's discussed in the paper I thought I'd mentioned it for anyone else who might be interested).
2. scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/vm40xv302. Another paper discussing the aim-7. Note fig. 3-10 - thrust is a constant (at each phase).
3. ijret.org/volumes/2015v04/i03/IJRET20150403016.pdf. This discusses aerodynamics only. Note that drag (fig 1, 2) is rising continuously and never drops past Mach 1.
So we have drag that keeps increasing with Mach, and thrust that is constant - therefore a missile will experience a continuous reduction in acceleration as it goes through and behind Mach 1 (ignoring change in mass - but that has nothing to do with Mach number). There is therefore no advantage in avoiding Mach 1, only in giving the missile more initial speed.
Supercruise is actually NOT IMPORTANT compared to other characteristics such as payload, range, maximum Gs and other characteristics. That is why most fighters do not supercruise at all or do not supercruise meaningfully with a useful combat. Supercruising is NOT NEW. Tje Concorde supercruises for 3.5 hours crossing the Atlantic. If fighter designers in the 60s, 70s and 80s wanted supercruise they could have had supercruise. However, doing so would require bigger engines, lower bypass engines with worse fuel efficiency, reduce subsonic range, a slimmer air frame with less payload capacity, lighter air frames capable of less G loading or whatever else. It was deemed that it is better to have the most compact and lightest engines which still allows the aircraft to reach its maximum design speed. And that means afterburning engines which is not capable of supersonic flight or barely able to sustain it on dry thrust. This is especially true of 3rd and 4th gen fighters worse external weapons significantly impact drag such that even if the compromises were made to allow for supercruise that capability goes away if you actually want to carry the weapons you need to fight with.
No love for English Electric?
I still don't understand how it works?
It's quute simple. It's when an airplane is designed to generate low drag and have powerful enough engines to overcome the sound barrier.
Having low mass means that even smaller engines can do the trick.
So only European deltas super cruise
F35 is for sale f22 for proper combat use