# Who wins the race



## Thorlifter (Jun 26, 2013)

The contestants: F14, F15, F16, F18, and F22. Yes, I know there were a million different versions of each, let's just say whatever the fastest version of each......

Let's say they are all flying at 300mph at 5000 ft, dead even. 1 - 2 - 3 - GO and they punch it. Who is winning after 1 mile? Who is winning after 5 miles?

Then.......Same planes, same speed, same altitude. They all punch it and go vertical. Who makes it to 25,000ft first? 50,000ft?

Other than FAST, I don't know anything about jets so this is really being asked by a nube!!! My guess is the F-15 would win them all as I've always heard it was a hot rod in the air.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 26, 2013)

F-22. Thrust to weight ratio is phenomenal.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 26, 2013)

F-14D = Mach 2.3; 1,544 mph (2,485 kph) - RoC 45,000 ft.min. (229 m.s.)
F-15C = Mach 2.5; 1,650 mph (2,665 kph) - RoC 50,000 ft.min. (254 m.s.)
F-16C = Mach 2.0; 1,500 mph (2,410 kph) - RoC 50,000 ft.min. (254 m.s.)
F-18C/D = Mach 1.8; 1,190 mph (1,915 kph) - RoC 50,000 ft.min. (254 m.s.)
F-22B = Mach 2.25; 1,500 mph (2,410 kph) - RoC 40,000 ft.min. (200 m.s.)
and for a little fun:
A-10A = Mach 0.58; 439 mph (706 kph) - RoC 6,000 ft.min. (30 m.s.)

All speeds are at altitude, the F-22 max speed is *estimated* according to the Air Force...lol


----------



## Thorlifter (Jun 26, 2013)

Great info GG. Good, fun, and simple without over complicating things and perfect for my old, slow mind to comprehend. LOL


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 26, 2013)

Works for me too, Thor!

The older I get, the more I appreciate simple!


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 27, 2013)

F-22 classified. Two 40,000lb+ thrust engines in afterburner at 43.5klbs empty + conservatively 10klbs fuel you are looking at 1.5/1 thrust ratio. F-15 with two 25,000lb thrust P&W engines in afterburner at 28klbs empty + 10klbs fuel you are looking at a 1.31/1 thrust ratio.

I will concede all day long that numbers can be manipulated. But F-22 can supercruise at ~Mach 1.7 without afterburner. So looking at top speed is silly. An F-106 can exceed the speed of sound. But the transonic acceleration from Mach 1 to Mach 1.5+ is almost 90+ seconds. And all at full afterburner.

I say F-22 all day long and with reserves to actually do something once at altitude compared to other platforms.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 27, 2013)

And when it comes to climb, the F-22 will beat them all as well. The first demo I saw with the F-22 blew me away. He came down the runway, put the nose straight up and _accelerated_ in a straight vertical climb to 10,000, then it looked like it just flopped to the horizontal like a toy (thrust vectoring). I drooled and got a semi at the same time.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 27, 2013)




----------



## Thorlifter (Jun 27, 2013)

LOL @ Eric!!!!


----------



## razor1uk (Jun 28, 2013)

F22 + Power x Altitude = Semi 
Apparently those spectators around Eric, gave him extra room to shoot his film while the women there, didn't know where not to look at his telephoto lens ...Allegedly.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 30, 2013)

I gotta go with the F-22. You don't spend that kind of money on second best.

Jeff.


----------



## F-16 (Aug 4, 2013)

Do not know about the F-22, it seems to be all classified or not? The MiG-25/31 is also very fast (one of the fastest planes out there and can climb up to the atmosphere between space and earth). I also think the Sukhoi T-50 Pak-Fa will outperform the F-22 on many areas.


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 4, 2013)

The expenditure of money doesn't always confer 1st place, but it does make jobs, and in particular, investors pockets happy, and usually solves some new would be R&D issues while creating new issues, and avenues for developments for existing and new retrofits/systems.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 4, 2013)

F-16 said:


> ...The MiG-25/31 is also very fast (one of the fastest planes out there and can climb up to the atmosphere between space and earth)...


MiG-25 can't be all that fast, it never could catch an SR-71


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 4, 2013)

True, but the 71 was never its (the 25's) envisaged main target, the cancelled (X)B-70 was, so other post war allied high altitude heavy bombers became the focus. I believe. 
In a ways like Polaris and Trident, the SAC other military forces against one another back then, in those days with the threat of the big read button, you could say the 25 did its job as an interceptor by helping in making MAD not happen too.

Also the apparent top speed of the 25 was in the low M 3+'s if the engines were oversped, where as it is hinted that the bird might get close to M 4 or more. Even if the 25's airframe and aerodynamics seem to be able to be faster than 3.3; its engines were its limiting factors, semi-opposite to the birds limits; crew fatigue and the afterburner en/re-lighting fuel (TER or is it TEL etc) amounts were.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 12, 2013)

Throw the F-22 in there, and it's kind of like throwing an F1 car against a bunch of li'l boy street racers: they may be fast, but the F-22 is FAST. Of the other aircraft, I think the F-16 starts running out of speed because it's got a fixed-geometry inlet, and the inlet losses start becoming significant at about M=1.6. Comparing static thrust / weight ratios is not necessarily a good plan, as the different engine/inlet/nozzle combinations may have different thrust vs Mach number relationships. However, at a guess, it would be F-15, F-14, F-18, F-16, with the F-16 losing because of it's inlet.

Incidentally, the F-22 is not the first military aircraft to be able to cruise supersonically without afterburners: I've read that the F-14 and F-104 both demonstrated the capability. However, the F-14 and F-104 could not supercruise with a meaningful warload, as they carried their weapons externally, and neither could go from M < 1 to M > 1 in level flight without afterburner. I've read the Lightning could demonstrated supercruise, and I suspect that the F-15 and MiG-25 could, too, although I've not read they've done so.


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 13, 2013)

Lightning? do you mean the English Electric/BAe one, or the F-35 Lightning II? As for the being able to in a clear config' its is more likely with the more powerful ones like the 15 and 25, although perhaps less likely for the 25 - its engines are mostly afterburners with turbojets added to them to feed the burners and make generate power for the radar.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 13, 2013)

The English Electric one.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 13, 2013)

The YF-12 (from the Archangel program) would have been an interesting warbird had they pursued it's development. With max speed of M3.35 @ 80,000 feet and a loadout of 3 AIM-47 missiles (capable of launch @ M3.2), I think the MiG-25 would have been in trouble...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> The YF-12 (from the Archangel program) would have been an interesting warbird had they pursued it's development. With max speed of M3.35 @ 80,000 feet and a loadout of 3 AIM-47 missiles (capable of launch @ M3.2), I think the MiG-25 would have been in trouble...


Actually the YF-12 was a bomber interceptor and an off the shelf offer to the USAF after the F-108 was cancelled. These aircraft came from the same thought process as the Avro Arrow. Things changed when the former Soviet Union put most of its nuclear offensive weapons into ballistic missiles.


----------

