Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:30 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Edward Hahn) Organization: The MITRE Corporation References: 1 2 3
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1999.596@ohare.Chicago.COM>, email@example.com wrote: >firstname.lastname@example.org (Edward Hahn) wrote: >> As for the Concorde, remember, it's a pretty light plane, only carries >> 100 pax, carries lots of fuel in its delta wings, and has four engines >> to move it. The F-22, of course, only has two engines. Despite this, >> the Concorde can barely make it across the Atlantic, and sometimes has >> to stop in Boston on the westbound leg to refuel if headwinds or even >> minor delays occur. > >True enough as far as it goes, but it does sound like you're >underestimating the achievement. Concorde might have twice the number >of engines that the F-22 has, but its engines-to-pax ratio is a whole >lot better. And those passengers will be sitting in shirt-sleeve >comfort eating fancy foods, not strapped into a G-suit breathing O2 >through a mask and peeing through a tube. Besides, what's the F-22's >range in supersonic cruise? Could it cross the Atlantic at M=2 (without >refuelling)? True enough. :-) However, the F-22 cockpit is pressurized, and given a suitable accessions to mission readiness, I imagine that a F-22 pilot could eat in shirt sleeves without the oxygen mask (although they won't ever fit a proper lav system on board). Unfortunately, I believe the F-22 pilots have a different mission in mind, thus necessitating the lack of a smoked salmon appetizer, etc. (I have no idea what the F-22's unrefueled range in super-cruise is. However, I note that the L-M website still claims that the F-22 is "the first aircraft" to possess supercruise capability.) BTW, engines-to-pax ratio is an interesting figure-of-merit... :-) ed ---- Ed Hahn / email@example.com / +1 703 883-5988 The above statement is solely an opinion of the author, and does not express a position or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really.