超级军网请教一个进气道的问题，肥电飞那么慢，用bump真的合适吗
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/28 23:27:17
肥电三型， 哪个都飞不太快，除了极速，都在跨音速转悠，这种速度下进气道入口怎么可能会有超音速流场下的锥形流呢？没有锥型流的鼓包挤边界层的能力肯定不咋地吧？如果在鼓包上打孔，还会比CARET强吗？
按这个思路，只有J20最合适，其他的都是凑热闹的。不过也听说过CARET在高M数下要好于BUMP，凌乱啊，还请各位CDer赐教，帮在下理一理。肥电三型， 哪个都飞不太快，除了极速，都在跨音速转悠，这种速度下进气道入口怎么可能会有超音速流场下的锥形流呢？没有锥型流的鼓包挤边界层的能力肯定不咋地吧？如果在鼓包上打孔，还会比CARET强吗？
按这个思路，只有J20最合适，其他的都是凑热闹的。不过也听说过CARET在高M数下要好于BUMP，凌乱啊，还请各位CDer赐教，帮在下理一理。
按这个思路，只有J20最合适，其他的都是凑热闹的。不过也听说过CARET在高M数下要好于BUMP，凌乱啊，还请各位CDer赐教，帮在下理一理。肥电三型， 哪个都飞不太快，除了极速，都在跨音速转悠，这种速度下进气道入口怎么可能会有超音速流场下的锥形流呢？没有锥型流的鼓包挤边界层的能力肯定不咋地吧？如果在鼓包上打孔，还会比CARET强吗？
按这个思路，只有J20最合适，其他的都是凑热闹的。不过也听说过CARET在高M数下要好于BUMP，凌乱啊，还请各位CDer赐教，帮在下理一理。
枭龙的速度跟肥电差不多
一直以来，大家的印象是DSI最好用在低速机上。
当然歼20才改变了大家的印象。
当然歼20才改变了大家的印象。
航空器设计其实是个舍弃与保留的过程，因为超音速空气动力理论与亚音速空气动力理论的相违背的，往往只能偏重其一
很多英文论坛上也都提到过这一问题，为什么F35能以M1.2做超音速巡航，但极速却只有M1.6？
各国专业的或非专业的人员夸夸其谈，其中不乏洛马自己人，也有专黑洛马的波音人，很多人将DSI进气道归结为主要原因之一，而又将使用DSI进气道的原因归结为其结构简单，因此能节省成本，并缩小维护工时，以便战时大量建造，并大量出动。
关于DSI进气道，洛马主办的航空类杂志《CODE ONE》中有这样一段介绍，个人觉得还不错。洛马有能飞M2的DSI进气道技术，但国防部对JSF的要求是亚、跨音速能力，所以就没用这技术。
The unassuming fuselage bump at each inlet on the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter performs miracles that only aeronautical engineers can fully appreciate. At high aircraft speeds through supersonic, the bumps work with forward-swept inlet cowls to redirect unwanted boundary layer airflow away from the inlets, essentially doing the job of heavier, more complex, and more costly approaches used by current fighters.
DSI Flight Tests
The overall inlet design, called a diverterless supersonic inlet or DSI, moved from concept to reality when it was installed and flown on a Block 30 F-16 in a highly successful demonstration program. The flight test program consisted of twelve flights flown in nine days in December 1996. The first flight on 11 December addressed initial envelope clearance and functional checks. Subsequent flights addressed performance characteristics of the unique inlet design in both level and maneuvering flight. Rapid throttle transients during these flights confirmed the compatibility between the inlet and engine.
The flight tests covered the entire F-16 flight envelope and achieved a maximum speed of Mach 2.0. The modified aircraft demonstrated flying qualities similar to a normal production F-16 at all angles of attack and at all angles of sideslip. Lockheed Martin test pilots performed two inflight engine restarts and 164 successful afterburner lights, with no failures. Fifty-two afterburner lights were performed during hard maneuvers. No engine stalls or anomalies occurred during the test flights.
The new inlet showed slightly better subsonic specific excess power than a production inlet and that verified the overall system benefits of eliminating the diverter. Test pilots remarked that military power settings and thrust characteristics were very similar to standard production F-16 aircraft with the same General Electric F110-GE-129 engine. Considering the overall goal of the flight test program was to demonstrate the viability of this advanced inlet technology, the results were excellent.
Fighter Inlet Design Basics
Tactical aircraft pose a formidable challenge for inlet designers. A fighter inlet must provide an engine with high-quality airflow over a wide range of speeds, altitudes, and maneuvering conditions while accommodating the full range of engine airflow from idle to maximum military or afterburning power. The inlet designer must also consider the constraints imposed by configuration features, such as nose landing gears, weapon bays, equipment access panels, and forebody shaping. The design must produce the lowest drag, lowest weight, lowest cost, and highest propulsion performance. It must also meet stringent low observable requirements.
Historically, inlet complexity is a function of top speed for fighter aircraft. Higher Mach numbers require more sophisticated devices for compressing supersonic airflow to slow it down to subsonic levels before it reaches the face of the engine. (Jet engines are not designed to handle the shock waves associated with supersonic airflow.)
These compression schemes involve the conversion of the kinetic energy of the supersonic airstream into total pressure on the compressor face of the engine. Speeds over Mach 2 generally require more elaborate compression schemes. The F-15 inlet, for example, contains a series of movable compression ramps and doors controlled by software and elaborate mechanical systems. The ramps move to adjust the external and internal shape of the inlet to provide the optimum airflow to the engine at various aircraft speeds and angles of attack. Doors and ducting allow excess airflow to bypass the inlet.
Inlet designs for fighter aircraft must also account for a layer of low-energy air that forms on the surface of the fuselage at subsonic and supersonic speeds. (These layers also form on the inlet compression surfaces.) This layer of slow moving, turbulent air, called a boundary layer, can create chaos when disturbed by the shock waves created by the inlet. The result can be unwanted airflow distortions at the engine face. If the shock wave/boundary layer interaction is severe enough, the engine will stall. The boundary layer thickens with increased speed and increased forebody distance, the length from the nose of the airplane to the inlet itself.
Designers of supersonic aircraft deal with this boundary layer phenomenon by redirecting the layer before it reaches the engine and placing the inlet away from the boundary layer in the freestream, where airflow is unaffected by the boundary layer phenomenon. On the F-16, a structure called a diverter provides a 3.3-inch gap between the fuselage and the upper lip of the inlet. The size of the gap equates to the thickness of the boundary layer at the maximum speed of the F-16. Other fighters remove boundary layer airflow with combinations of splitter plates and bleed systems. The latter redirect the unwanted airflow through small holes in the compression ramps to bleed ducts within the inlet. The DSI bump functions as a compression surface and creates a pressure distribution that prevents the majority of the boundary layer air from entering the inlet at speeds up to Mach 2. In essence, the DSI does away with complex and heavy mechanical systems.
DSI Origins
The DSI traces its roots to work done by Lockheed Martin engineers in the early 1990s as part of an independent research and development project called the Advanced Propulsion Integration project. The concept was developed and refined with Lockheed Martin-proprietary computer modeling tools made possible by advances in Computational Fluid Dynamics, or CFD. CFD is the science of determining a numerical solution to the governing equations of fluid flow and advancing this solution through space or time to describe a complete flow field of interest—in this case, the flow field of a fighter forebody, inlet, and inlet duct.
CFD, considered a branch of fluid dynamics, provides a cost-effective means of simulating airflow. The development of more powerful computers has furthered CFD advances to the point that it has become the preferred means of evaluating aerodynamic designs.
Basic research of the inlet concept continued through the mid-1990s. Traditional wind tunnel testing of small plastic inlet models built with stereolithographic techniques augmented a CFD-based development process for the DSI. Engineers made enough technical advances during this period that two US patent applications were filed, one dealing with the overall design and the second dealing with the integration process of the new technology. (Both patents were granted in 1998.) The diverterless inlet designs built and tested with this combination of CFD and small-scale wind tunnel models formed a database of inlet configurations that would subsequently prove valuable to the Lockheed Martin JSF design.
Full-Scale Test Inlet
The DSI flight-tested on the F-16 in 1996 was designed on computer workstations using three-dimensional solid models. It was developed with minimal airframe impacts and maximum use of existing hardware to reduce design and manufacturing costs. The F-16’s modular inlet design allowed development of a DSI-equipped inlet module without significant impacts to the aircraft forebody or center fuselage. As with the existing inlet design, the new inlet module formed part of the forward fuselage extending from the inlet leading edge to the interface between the forward fuselage and center fuselage. The compression surface was attached to the existing forward fuselage below the cockpit without affecting the rest of the forebody or the chine. New duct lines were developed to form a transition from the new inlet aperture to the existing duct.
The upper surface of the F-16 inlet module forms the floor of the forward fuel tank. This fuel tank is located directly behind the pilot. The lower surface of the fuel tank floor forms the upper surface of the F-16 inlet duct. This fuel tank floor offered an ideal starting point for the structural layout of the new inlet module since it is an assembly that can be procured directly from the F-16 production line. The diverter support beam was also retained and, in combination with the fuel tank floor, formed the primary means of attaching the new inlet module to the forward fuselage.
The inlet module consisted of 300 parts, which included 113 machined parts and eighty-three formed skin panels. The bump, more accurately termed a fixed, three-dimensional compression surface, was formed from graphite epoxy at LM Aeronautics facilities in Palmdale, California. Most of the substructure consists of aluminum. The inlet module was built and installed at LM Aeronautics facilities in Fort Worth, where the flight tests took place.
LM Aeronautics JSF Design Adopts DSI
The DSI concept was introduced into the JAST/JSF program as a trade study item in mid-1994. It was compared with a traditional "caret" style inlet. The trade studies involved additional CFD, testing, and weight and cost analyses. The new inlet earned its way into the JSF design after proving to be thirty percent lighter and showing lower production and maintenance costs over traditional inlets while still meeting all performance requirements.
The flight tests on the F-16 validated the aerodynamic properties of the inlet, which will be validated further on the upcoming flights of the Lockheed Martin JSF demonstrator aircraft in 2000. The flight test also proved that the analytical performance and inlet flow stability predictions from the CFD analysis matched operations in the real world. The JSF program further refined the production version of the DSI design using these CFD tools.
The DSI inlet used on the JSF has evolved through several design iterations. The shaft-driven lift fan on the STOVL JSF required the use of a bifurcated duct with one inlet on each side. The initial version was essentially the same design used on the lower surface of the F-16 rotated up onto either side of the JSF forward fuselage.
This design had a cowl that was symmetrical about the centerline of the bump. This version of the inlet appears on the X-35 demonstrator aircraft. Later CFD analysis and testing led to refinements of the design to improve its performance at high angles of attack by shifting the upper and lower cowl lips to take advantage of the side-mounted location and to improve high angle-of-attack performance. This later version has been fully tested in the wind tunnel and will be used on the EMD and on production aircraft.
很多英文论坛上也都提到过这一问题，为什么F35能以M1.2做超音速巡航，但极速却只有M1.6？
各国专业的或非专业的人员夸夸其谈，其中不乏洛马自己人，也有专黑洛马的波音人，很多人将DSI进气道归结为主要原因之一，而又将使用DSI进气道的原因归结为其结构简单，因此能节省成本，并缩小维护工时，以便战时大量建造，并大量出动。
关于DSI进气道，洛马主办的航空类杂志《CODE ONE》中有这样一段介绍，个人觉得还不错。洛马有能飞M2的DSI进气道技术，但国防部对JSF的要求是亚、跨音速能力，所以就没用这技术。
The unassuming fuselage bump at each inlet on the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter performs miracles that only aeronautical engineers can fully appreciate. At high aircraft speeds through supersonic, the bumps work with forward-swept inlet cowls to redirect unwanted boundary layer airflow away from the inlets, essentially doing the job of heavier, more complex, and more costly approaches used by current fighters.
DSI Flight Tests
The overall inlet design, called a diverterless supersonic inlet or DSI, moved from concept to reality when it was installed and flown on a Block 30 F-16 in a highly successful demonstration program. The flight test program consisted of twelve flights flown in nine days in December 1996. The first flight on 11 December addressed initial envelope clearance and functional checks. Subsequent flights addressed performance characteristics of the unique inlet design in both level and maneuvering flight. Rapid throttle transients during these flights confirmed the compatibility between the inlet and engine.
The flight tests covered the entire F-16 flight envelope and achieved a maximum speed of Mach 2.0. The modified aircraft demonstrated flying qualities similar to a normal production F-16 at all angles of attack and at all angles of sideslip. Lockheed Martin test pilots performed two inflight engine restarts and 164 successful afterburner lights, with no failures. Fifty-two afterburner lights were performed during hard maneuvers. No engine stalls or anomalies occurred during the test flights.
The new inlet showed slightly better subsonic specific excess power than a production inlet and that verified the overall system benefits of eliminating the diverter. Test pilots remarked that military power settings and thrust characteristics were very similar to standard production F-16 aircraft with the same General Electric F110-GE-129 engine. Considering the overall goal of the flight test program was to demonstrate the viability of this advanced inlet technology, the results were excellent.
Fighter Inlet Design Basics
Tactical aircraft pose a formidable challenge for inlet designers. A fighter inlet must provide an engine with high-quality airflow over a wide range of speeds, altitudes, and maneuvering conditions while accommodating the full range of engine airflow from idle to maximum military or afterburning power. The inlet designer must also consider the constraints imposed by configuration features, such as nose landing gears, weapon bays, equipment access panels, and forebody shaping. The design must produce the lowest drag, lowest weight, lowest cost, and highest propulsion performance. It must also meet stringent low observable requirements.
Historically, inlet complexity is a function of top speed for fighter aircraft. Higher Mach numbers require more sophisticated devices for compressing supersonic airflow to slow it down to subsonic levels before it reaches the face of the engine. (Jet engines are not designed to handle the shock waves associated with supersonic airflow.)
These compression schemes involve the conversion of the kinetic energy of the supersonic airstream into total pressure on the compressor face of the engine. Speeds over Mach 2 generally require more elaborate compression schemes. The F-15 inlet, for example, contains a series of movable compression ramps and doors controlled by software and elaborate mechanical systems. The ramps move to adjust the external and internal shape of the inlet to provide the optimum airflow to the engine at various aircraft speeds and angles of attack. Doors and ducting allow excess airflow to bypass the inlet.
Inlet designs for fighter aircraft must also account for a layer of low-energy air that forms on the surface of the fuselage at subsonic and supersonic speeds. (These layers also form on the inlet compression surfaces.) This layer of slow moving, turbulent air, called a boundary layer, can create chaos when disturbed by the shock waves created by the inlet. The result can be unwanted airflow distortions at the engine face. If the shock wave/boundary layer interaction is severe enough, the engine will stall. The boundary layer thickens with increased speed and increased forebody distance, the length from the nose of the airplane to the inlet itself.
Designers of supersonic aircraft deal with this boundary layer phenomenon by redirecting the layer before it reaches the engine and placing the inlet away from the boundary layer in the freestream, where airflow is unaffected by the boundary layer phenomenon. On the F-16, a structure called a diverter provides a 3.3-inch gap between the fuselage and the upper lip of the inlet. The size of the gap equates to the thickness of the boundary layer at the maximum speed of the F-16. Other fighters remove boundary layer airflow with combinations of splitter plates and bleed systems. The latter redirect the unwanted airflow through small holes in the compression ramps to bleed ducts within the inlet. The DSI bump functions as a compression surface and creates a pressure distribution that prevents the majority of the boundary layer air from entering the inlet at speeds up to Mach 2. In essence, the DSI does away with complex and heavy mechanical systems.
DSI Origins
The DSI traces its roots to work done by Lockheed Martin engineers in the early 1990s as part of an independent research and development project called the Advanced Propulsion Integration project. The concept was developed and refined with Lockheed Martin-proprietary computer modeling tools made possible by advances in Computational Fluid Dynamics, or CFD. CFD is the science of determining a numerical solution to the governing equations of fluid flow and advancing this solution through space or time to describe a complete flow field of interest—in this case, the flow field of a fighter forebody, inlet, and inlet duct.
CFD, considered a branch of fluid dynamics, provides a cost-effective means of simulating airflow. The development of more powerful computers has furthered CFD advances to the point that it has become the preferred means of evaluating aerodynamic designs.
Basic research of the inlet concept continued through the mid-1990s. Traditional wind tunnel testing of small plastic inlet models built with stereolithographic techniques augmented a CFD-based development process for the DSI. Engineers made enough technical advances during this period that two US patent applications were filed, one dealing with the overall design and the second dealing with the integration process of the new technology. (Both patents were granted in 1998.) The diverterless inlet designs built and tested with this combination of CFD and small-scale wind tunnel models formed a database of inlet configurations that would subsequently prove valuable to the Lockheed Martin JSF design.
Full-Scale Test Inlet
The DSI flight-tested on the F-16 in 1996 was designed on computer workstations using three-dimensional solid models. It was developed with minimal airframe impacts and maximum use of existing hardware to reduce design and manufacturing costs. The F-16’s modular inlet design allowed development of a DSI-equipped inlet module without significant impacts to the aircraft forebody or center fuselage. As with the existing inlet design, the new inlet module formed part of the forward fuselage extending from the inlet leading edge to the interface between the forward fuselage and center fuselage. The compression surface was attached to the existing forward fuselage below the cockpit without affecting the rest of the forebody or the chine. New duct lines were developed to form a transition from the new inlet aperture to the existing duct.
The upper surface of the F-16 inlet module forms the floor of the forward fuel tank. This fuel tank is located directly behind the pilot. The lower surface of the fuel tank floor forms the upper surface of the F-16 inlet duct. This fuel tank floor offered an ideal starting point for the structural layout of the new inlet module since it is an assembly that can be procured directly from the F-16 production line. The diverter support beam was also retained and, in combination with the fuel tank floor, formed the primary means of attaching the new inlet module to the forward fuselage.
The inlet module consisted of 300 parts, which included 113 machined parts and eighty-three formed skin panels. The bump, more accurately termed a fixed, three-dimensional compression surface, was formed from graphite epoxy at LM Aeronautics facilities in Palmdale, California. Most of the substructure consists of aluminum. The inlet module was built and installed at LM Aeronautics facilities in Fort Worth, where the flight tests took place.
LM Aeronautics JSF Design Adopts DSI
The DSI concept was introduced into the JAST/JSF program as a trade study item in mid-1994. It was compared with a traditional "caret" style inlet. The trade studies involved additional CFD, testing, and weight and cost analyses. The new inlet earned its way into the JSF design after proving to be thirty percent lighter and showing lower production and maintenance costs over traditional inlets while still meeting all performance requirements.
The flight tests on the F-16 validated the aerodynamic properties of the inlet, which will be validated further on the upcoming flights of the Lockheed Martin JSF demonstrator aircraft in 2000. The flight test also proved that the analytical performance and inlet flow stability predictions from the CFD analysis matched operations in the real world. The JSF program further refined the production version of the DSI design using these CFD tools.
The DSI inlet used on the JSF has evolved through several design iterations. The shaft-driven lift fan on the STOVL JSF required the use of a bifurcated duct with one inlet on each side. The initial version was essentially the same design used on the lower surface of the F-16 rotated up onto either side of the JSF forward fuselage.
This design had a cowl that was symmetrical about the centerline of the bump. This version of the inlet appears on the X-35 demonstrator aircraft. Later CFD analysis and testing led to refinements of the design to improve its performance at high angles of attack by shifting the upper and lower cowl lips to take advantage of the side-mounted location and to improve high angle-of-attack performance. This later version has been fully tested in the wind tunnel and will be used on the EMD and on production aircraft.
看F-35包线图就知道了，30000英尺右端是1.6，60000英尺右端还是1.6，是平的下来一条线。
而看三代机的包线，那个所谓极速只是在大约50000英尺实现的一个峰值，实际上很多三代机在30000英尺的极速还不如F-35。
我个人觉得F-35在50000英尺应该可以达到1.8甚至2，但是飞控限制住了。
与其学过去把那些只有某个高度才能飞出来的纯理论速度称作极速，F-35这种整个实战高度中都能发挥出来的极速才更有意义。
而看三代机的包线，那个所谓极速只是在大约50000英尺实现的一个峰值，实际上很多三代机在30000英尺的极速还不如F-35。
我个人觉得F-35在50000英尺应该可以达到1.8甚至2，但是飞控限制住了。
与其学过去把那些只有某个高度才能飞出来的纯理论速度称作极速，F-35这种整个实战高度中都能发挥出来的极速才更有意义。
虽然都是DSI，但杯罩不同，适应最佳速度范围不同..
butongla 发表于 2014-5-9 01:11
一直以来，大家的印象是DSI最好用在低速机上。
当然歼20才改变了大家的印象。
说的好像你知道J20的极速似的
一直以来，大家的印象是DSI最好用在低速机上。
当然歼20才改变了大家的印象。
说的好像你知道J20的极速似的
F35不开加力都可以飞1.2马赫，比现在的SU27，歼十之流强多了
隔夜茶 发表于 2014-5-9 07:28
F35不开加力都可以飞1.2马赫，比现在的SU27，歼十之流强多了
那是维持1.2M吧。如果能不开加力加速到1.2M，那超巡速度就不会是1.2M了
F35不开加力都可以飞1.2马赫，比现在的SU27，歼十之流强多了
那是维持1.2M吧。如果能不开加力加速到1.2M，那超巡速度就不会是1.2M了
奇多圈 发表于 2014-5-9 00:57
枭龙的速度跟肥电差不多
严谨的说应该是高空极速差不多，肥电跨音速段飞机枭龙恐怕得挂俩副油箱开加力才能跟的上，当初F16都得这么干才能跟的上肥电伴飞
奇多圈 发表于 2014-5-9 00:57
枭龙的速度跟肥电差不多
严谨的说应该是高空极速差不多，肥电跨音速段飞机枭龙恐怕得挂俩副油箱开加力才能跟的上，当初F16都得这么干才能跟的上肥电伴飞
你因果弄反了，不是因为用了BUMP才速度不高，而是本身就不要求高速，所以采用BUMP，而且美帝不是没有高速的BUMP设计
百臂巨人 发表于 2014-5-9 03:35
看F-35包线图就知道了，30000英尺右端是1.6，60000英尺右端还是1.6，是平的下来一条线。
而看三代机的包线 ...
观察的真仔细 不过 这样才能看出真实的情况
看F-35包线图就知道了，30000英尺右端是1.6，60000英尺右端还是1.6，是平的下来一条线。
而看三代机的包线 ...
观察的真仔细 不过 这样才能看出真实的情况
严谨的说应该是高空极速差不多，肥电跨音速段飞机枭龙恐怕得挂俩副油箱开加力才能跟的上，当初F16都得 ...
不是22吗？怎么又变成35了？求出处
不是22吗？怎么又变成35了？求出处
北风呼噜 发表于 2014-5-9 09:01
不是22吗？怎么又变成35了？求出处
一直都是F35啊，F22的话，F16挂俩油箱无论如何都赶不上
不是22吗？怎么又变成35了？求出处
一直都是F35啊，F22的话，F16挂俩油箱无论如何都赶不上
北风呼噜 发表于 2014-5-9 09:01
不是22吗？怎么又变成35了？求出处
是35，22那种速度，三代机把加力燃烧室烧烂了也跟不上，F16在给F35伴飞的时候需要挂副油箱间歇开加力才能跟上正常飞行的F35
北风呼噜 发表于 2014-5-9 09:01
不是22吗？怎么又变成35了？求出处
是35，22那种速度，三代机把加力燃烧室烧烂了也跟不上，F16在给F35伴飞的时候需要挂副油箱间歇开加力才能跟上正常飞行的F35
13185884lccllg8cz4ukj6.jpg (62.9 KB, 下载次数: 0)
下载附件 保存到相册
一直都是F35啊，F22的话，F16挂俩油箱无论如何都赶不上
我看到的版本是22不开加力16就得靠加力才能跟上，再飞几分钟就得去加油。
挂俩大副油箱16还能飞到1.2？
我看到的版本是22不开加力16就得靠加力才能跟上，再飞几分钟就得去加油。
挂俩大副油箱16还能飞到1.2？
北风呼噜 发表于 2014-5-9 09:12
我看到的版本是22不开加力16就得靠加力才能跟上，再飞几分钟就得去加油。
挂俩大副油箱16还能飞到1.2 ...
不要小看F16，F16虽然极速不高，但是跨音速段加速能力在三代机里数一数二
我看到的版本是22不开加力16就得靠加力才能跟上，再飞几分钟就得去加油。
挂俩大副油箱16还能飞到1.2 ...
不要小看F16，F16虽然极速不高，但是跨音速段加速能力在三代机里数一数二
thomas1987 发表于 2014-5-9 09:15
不要小看F16，F16虽然极速不高，但是跨音速段加速能力在三代机里数一数二
没小看，那么大俩副油箱别说阻力不大，有没有包线图？
至于什么数一数二我表示呵呵
thomas1987 发表于 2014-5-9 09:15
不要小看F16，F16虽然极速不高，但是跨音速段加速能力在三代机里数一数二
没小看，那么大俩副油箱别说阻力不大，有没有包线图？
至于什么数一数二我表示呵呵
北风呼噜 发表于 2014-5-9 09:18
没小看，那么大俩副油箱别说阻力不大，有没有包线图？
上面我发了个图，上面F16还是轻载的， F35还内置了2吨武器，结果F16还得开加力跟上。。。要知道F16跨音速加速能力三代机里可是拔尖的
没小看，那么大俩副油箱别说阻力不大，有没有包线图？
上面我发了个图，上面F16还是轻载的， F35还内置了2吨武器，结果F16还得开加力跟上。。。要知道F16跨音速加速能力三代机里可是拔尖的
thomas1987 发表于 2014-5-9 09:23
上面我发了个图，上面F16还是轻载的， F35还内置了2吨武器，结果F16还得开加力跟上。。。要知道F16跨音速 ...
为啥每次你总是答非所问？
而且图里16明明是空载好不好，哪来的俩大油箱？
thomas1987 发表于 2014-5-9 09:23
上面我发了个图，上面F16还是轻载的， F35还内置了2吨武器，结果F16还得开加力跟上。。。要知道F16跨音速 ...
为啥每次你总是答非所问？
而且图里16明明是空载好不好，哪来的俩大油箱？
thomas1987 发表于 2014-5-9 09:23
上面我发了个图，上面F16还是轻载的， F35还内置了2吨武器，结果F16还得开加力跟上。。。要知道F16跨音速 ...
发动机升级了一代和武器内置是主要原因吧
上面我发了个图，上面F16还是轻载的， F35还内置了2吨武器，结果F16还得开加力跟上。。。要知道F16跨音速 ...
发动机升级了一代和武器内置是主要原因吧
北风呼噜 发表于 2014-5-9 09:29
为啥每次你总是答非所问？
而且图里16明明是空载好不好，哪来的俩大油箱？
你确定知道自己在问什么？
为啥每次你总是答非所问？
而且图里16明明是空载好不好，哪来的俩大油箱？
你确定知道自己在问什么？
天痕1 发表于 2014-5-9 09:31
发动机升级了一代和武器内置是主要原因吧
发动机推力表现好，而且飞机升力大，阻力小
发动机升级了一代和武器内置是主要原因吧
发动机推力表现好，而且飞机升力大，阻力小
你确定知道自己在问什么？
我的问题很直白啊，我问你要16挂俩油箱的包线图，你不停的强调16的跨音速加速性很好……我什么时候说不好了？
我的问题很直白啊，我问你要16挂俩油箱的包线图，你不停的强调16的跨音速加速性很好……我什么时候说不好了？
北风呼噜 发表于 2014-5-9 09:18
没小看，那么大俩副油箱别说阻力不大，有没有包线图？
至于什么数一数二我表示呵呵
你有什么资格呵呵？ F16的跨音速加速能力碾压苏27之流
没小看，那么大俩副油箱别说阻力不大，有没有包线图？
至于什么数一数二我表示呵呵
你有什么资格呵呵？ F16的跨音速加速能力碾压苏27之流
你有什么资格呵呵？ F16的跨音速加速能力碾压苏27之流
我为什么没资格呵呵？你脑子里就只有27？而且碾压27这种跨音速就限过载的东西很光彩？
我为什么没资格呵呵？你脑子里就只有27？而且碾压27这种跨音速就限过载的东西很光彩？
北风呼噜 发表于 2014-5-9 09:12
我看到的版本是22不开加力16就得靠加力才能跟上，再飞几分钟就得去加油。
挂俩大副油箱16还能飞到1.2 ...
有专门针对超音速设计的超音速副油箱，但至于F16有没有装备这种东西就不知道了。
我看到的版本是22不开加力16就得靠加力才能跟上，再飞几分钟就得去加油。
挂俩大副油箱16还能飞到1.2 ...
有专门针对超音速设计的超音速副油箱，但至于F16有没有装备这种东西就不知道了。
thomas1987 发表于 2014-5-9 09:15
不要小看F16，F16虽然极速不高，但是跨音速段加速能力在三代机里数一数二
你应该说不要小看PW的F100吧
不要小看F16，F16虽然极速不高，但是跨音速段加速能力在三代机里数一数二
你应该说不要小看PW的F100吧
北风呼噜 发表于 2014-5-9 09:29
为啥每次你总是答非所问？
而且图里16明明是空载好不好，哪来的俩大油箱？
要是没有副油箱，你应该直接看到他的进气道了，再仔细瞅瞅。。。
为啥每次你总是答非所问？
而且图里16明明是空载好不好，哪来的俩大油箱？
要是没有副油箱，你应该直接看到他的进气道了，再仔细瞅瞅。。。
北风呼噜 发表于 2014-5-9 09:37
我的问题很直白啊，我问你要16挂俩油箱的包线图，你不停的强调16的跨音速加速性很好……我什么时候说不好 ...
飞行器的飞行包线图一般都是“干净气动”时绘制的，你要带两个副油箱的还真找不好找。。。
我的问题很直白啊，我问你要16挂俩油箱的包线图，你不停的强调16的跨音速加速性很好……我什么时候说不好 ...
飞行器的飞行包线图一般都是“干净气动”时绘制的，你要带两个副油箱的还真找不好找。。。
xtal 发表于 2014-5-9 08:00
那是维持1.2M吧。如果能不开加力加速到1.2M，那超巡速度就不会是1.2M了
不开加力后燃器实现1.2马赫超音速巡航150英里（相当于240公里）的消息源自洛克希德·马丁公司副总裁、JSF项目负责人O’Bryan接受国防部半官方杂志《Air Force Magazine》采访时所述。原文中确实使用了“维持”一词。同时提到，在0.9至1马赫的跨音速区间，F35的机动能力及其牛逼。
The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
"Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.
The high speed also allows the F-35 to impart more energy to a weapon such as a bomb or missile, meaning the aircraft will be able to "throw" such munitions farther than they could go on their own energy alone.
There is a major extension of the fighter’s range if speed is kept around Mach.9, O’Bryan went on, but he asserted that F-35 transonic performance is exceptional and goes "through the [Mach 1] number fairly easily." The transonic area is "where you really operate."
那是维持1.2M吧。如果能不开加力加速到1.2M，那超巡速度就不会是1.2M了
不开加力后燃器实现1.2马赫超音速巡航150英里（相当于240公里）的消息源自洛克希德·马丁公司副总裁、JSF项目负责人O’Bryan接受国防部半官方杂志《Air Force Magazine》采访时所述。原文中确实使用了“维持”一词。同时提到，在0.9至1马赫的跨音速区间，F35的机动能力及其牛逼。
The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
"Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.
The high speed also allows the F-35 to impart more energy to a weapon such as a bomb or missile, meaning the aircraft will be able to "throw" such munitions farther than they could go on their own energy alone.
There is a major extension of the fighter’s range if speed is kept around Mach.9, O’Bryan went on, but he asserted that F-35 transonic performance is exceptional and goes "through the [Mach 1] number fairly easily." The transonic area is "where you really operate."
正是因为要求低，2马赫以下，对超大迎角机动要求不高才用bump，否则就用22那样的加莱特进气道了
隔夜茶 发表于 2014-5-9 07:28
F35不开加力都可以飞1.2马赫，比现在的SU27，歼十之流强多了
F35再好也是美国的，歼10再差也还是中国的~
F35不开加力都可以飞1.2马赫，比现在的SU27，歼十之流强多了
F35再好也是美国的，歼10再差也还是中国的~
xtal 发表于 2014-5-9 08:00
那是维持1.2M吧。如果能不开加力加速到1.2M，那超巡速度就不会是1.2M了
好像总有人有个误区，以为1.2,1.3马赫下的阻力比0.9或1马赫的要小，其实开加力加速到1.2马赫主要是为了缩短加速时间，单纯用不开加力的军用推力穿过跨音速区耗时太久，战术意义反而下降
那是维持1.2M吧。如果能不开加力加速到1.2M，那超巡速度就不会是1.2M了
好像总有人有个误区，以为1.2,1.3马赫下的阻力比0.9或1马赫的要小，其实开加力加速到1.2马赫主要是为了缩短加速时间，单纯用不开加力的军用推力穿过跨音速区耗时太久，战术意义反而下降
肥电飞的不算慢了吧，记得人家的极速是不低于1.6M（小龙就是1.6M），而且还是弹仓全满，如果三代机挂上相应的导弹和副油箱，那些极速2.3M左右的也要降到1.8M左右甚至更低，不比肥电好多少。。。
隔夜茶 发表于 2014-5-9 07:28
说的好像你知道J20的极速似的
至少我前面半句，是真的，足以告诉楼主他所需的信息。
至于极速，这个设计指标，不难看出的。不过看出来的也是个大概。
说的好像你知道J20的极速似的
至少我前面半句，是真的，足以告诉楼主他所需的信息。
至于极速，这个设计指标，不难看出的。不过看出来的也是个大概。
butongla 发表于 2014-5-9 01:11
一直以来，大家的印象是DSI最好用在低速机上。
当然歼20才改变了大家的印象。
兄弟歼20的最大表速已经测试了？有这等料还跟我等这些墙外的人一起混什么论坛啊？
一直以来，大家的印象是DSI最好用在低速机上。
当然歼20才改变了大家的印象。
兄弟歼20的最大表速已经测试了？有这等料还跟我等这些墙外的人一起混什么论坛啊？
1.附面层产生随速度高低增减，2.扫除附面层靠鼓包前半球面的压力梯度和上下唇(2肋进气)，与激波椎关系不大，进气道口激波面主要对来流起减速加压作用
1.附面层产生随速度高低增减，2.扫除附面层靠鼓包前半球面的压力梯度和上下唇(2肋进气)，与激波椎关系不大，进气道口激波面主要对来流起减速加压作用
是35，22那种速度，三代机把加力燃烧室烧烂了也跟不上，F16在给F35伴飞的时候需要挂副油箱间歇开加力才 ...
这伴飞机有2副油箱，这图都白贴了。
这伴飞机有2副油箱，这图都白贴了。
小猪甜甜1988 发表于 2014-5-9 10:42
正是因为要求低，2马赫以下，对超大迎角机动要求不高才用bump，否则就用22那样的加莱特进气道了
这莫非就是J-20没用加莱特的原因？
正是因为要求低，2马赫以下，对超大迎角机动要求不高才用bump，否则就用22那样的加莱特进气道了
这莫非就是J-20没用加莱特的原因？