F22 top speed @ sea level

[rolemodel]

Do you think the f22 has the f16 beat top speed wise at sea level. I believe the f16 is still the king at sea level at mach 1.3.

[uclass]

I don't know but apparently a Tornado will own anything at that altitude speed-wise.

[haavarla]

Uhmm.. With or without any ordinance?

Plug on those ext DT on and misiles and see the speed drop sharply.

[sferrin]

I don't know but apparently a Tornado will own anything at that altitude speed-wise.

The F-104 owns the record. Elements in the USAF had planned to beat it with the F-16 but the idea got squashed by the higher ups.

[uclass]

Uhmm.. With or without any ordinance?

Plug on those ect DT on and misiles and see the speed drop sharply.

All I know is that I heard a story from an F-111 pilot who was doing 750knots at low altitude during Desert Storm and a GR1 passed him with 'at least' an extra 100knots on him. It was a genuine 1000mph plane at 200ft. Not a particular good plane by any other measure though. I think the cancelled TSR2 was supposedly capable of Mach 1.4.

The F-104 does hold the official record at Mach 1.3 (988mph) but it was using water/ethyl alcohol injection.

[neurotech]

I'm pretty sure the F-22 doesn't have the record down low because skin heating would be a problem and can damage the RAM panels and then require an expensive repair. Even Chuck Yeager would have a tough time explaining that kind of damage to a $250m jet.

The standard F-16 is red-lined at 800kts, and the GCAS (& Terrain DB system) in newer F-16 have operational limits above 800kts.

Could a GR1 do 900kts at 200ft AGL in combat (eg. exceed normal limits) ? Probably. Remember the F-111 and GR1 have good Terrain Following Radar, whereas the F-104 didn't and required an incredibly skilled pilot on flat terrain to get the record.

The F-22 doesn't have TFR implemented as its primarily an A/A fighter. The F-35 does have Synthetic Aperture Radar in the roadmap, but TFR would be an additional capability beyond SAR. The maximum speed is probably under 800kts down low due to airframe and engine heating problems. The F-35 AF-2 jet that had an engine issue, had previously flown at over 700kts during testing.

[darkvarkguy]

I know I'm biased but I can't see a Tornado being faster than a -111. The -111 is bigger and heavier but has WAY more thrust and is WAY more aerodynamic than the Tornado. Many -111 drivers have told me the fastest they've gone is around 1.3 on the deck but due to gravitational and aero drag limitations at that level, 1.3 is pretty much as fast as any fighter will go.

[uclass]

I think both planes have scared a lot of nesting birds during their time.

[neurotech]

I know I'm biased but I can't see a Tornado being faster than a -111. The -111 is bigger and heavier but has WAY more thrust and is WAY more aerodynamic than the Tornado. Many -111 drivers have told me the fastest they've gone is around 1.3 on the deck but due to gravitational and aero drag limitations at that level, 1.3 is pretty much as fast as any fighter will go.

The TF30 engines used in the F111 don't exactly have a stellar service record, more notably in the F-14A. I'm under the impression from F-14A pilots that flying at high Q can cause engine intake, turbine and engine bay overtemp problems. The MiG-25 needs new engines after flying at high speed, and redlines at under 750kts on the deck.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

the difference is the the design point of the F-111 (and thus the intake design point as well) was high Q low alt. The engines did stellar in the -111 compared to the -14A. And much of the issue with the TF30 in the Grumman was the rapid throttle movement associated with fighter maneuvering.

[neurotech]

the difference is the the design point of the F-111 (and thus the intake design point as well) was high Q low alt. The engines did stellar in the -111 compared to the -14A. And much of the issue with the TF30 in the Grumman was the rapid throttle movement associated with fighter maneuvering.

That is true about the rapid throttle movements in the F-14As. I am questioning the premise F-111 is faster than a Tornado down low, based on rated thrust of the engines on paper that don't factor in that when in combat aircraft will exceed normal operating limits to survive.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

a J 79 produces more thrust as high Q than does an F414, which one is rated higher at uninstalled static sea level? you can't use rated thrust numbers to determine specific performance points. the F110-GE-100 comes to mind. WAY higher rated thrust than F100-PW-220, but performed poorly at low alt and high mach. the design of the F-111 is as low drag as anything this side of the Blackbird.

[Corsair1963]

I don't know but apparently a Tornado will own anything at that altitude speed-wise.

I think the GE-110 Powered F-14B/D Tomcat was just about as fast as anything flying in it's day...........

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

have read two unrelated reports of them accelerating through 1.35M and going fast enough to rip off Mx panels.

[neurotech]

have read two unrelated reports of them accelerating through 1.35M and going fast enough to rip off Mx panels.

Which aircraft? F-14B or F-22?

Standard F414s don't have the thrust or the airflow to get to M1.35+ on the deck, along with other aerodynamic considerations.