You kind of answer your own question. A single quote says that supercruise must be 1.5+.
Let’s say I find another internet quote that says supercruise must now be Mach 2.0+. Would we then now class the F-22 as no longer being supercruise capable? Or just moving definitions around?
Not having a dig at you personally - but the logic seems a bit off. After all, you either take the definition that is used by the majority - or you opt for the arbitrary one-off definition quoted in an article a quarter of a century ago.
The term supercruise implies supersonic cruise. While dry thrust is cruising compared to afterburner performance - it also isn’t nearly as efficient as being able to pull the throttle back to a cruise setting and still maintaining a speed above the wave drag boundary.
If your definition of supercruise is that it can surpass the sound barrier on dry thrust alone, sure it supercruises. Is it useful in a tactical manner? Sure! Does it have parity with an airframe actually designed for such operation? Absolutely not.
I mean, honestly… look at the wording. “Super” “Cruise” - That is to cruise in supersonic conditions. The Eurofighter can only do this if you dictate that “cruise” simply means to maintain a steady speed (above the sound barrier) on dry thrust. The F-22 uses the term to simply explain that it is efficiently cruising above the sound barrier and on less than full mil thrust. This is an entirely different level of “supercruise” and puts it well above the Eurofighter in that regard. Putting the two aircraft on the same level in regard to supercruise is as much of a stretch as saying the Eurofighter is also a stealth fighter simply because they slapped RAM on the leading edge of the canards and wing.
They got that definition from somewhere, seeing as it quotes USAF personnel involved in the program, and by that point production F-22 already flew, I think it’s fair to say 1.5+ combat load is the Air Force’s definition of supercruise for a fighter at least
Find another quote direct from the USAF stating it as policy and I’ll agree with you. No argument.
Otherwise it is single quote that may or may not be accurate. After all, we’ve got Mr Floggy claiming that quotes about the Typhoon performance are ‘propaganda’ - so we’ve got to hold all aircraft to the same standard.
If you want more we can DM about it, but it’s not worth arguing in this thread because clearly Eurofighter GMBH has a very different perspective about what supercruise means.
With the USAF you know that a vehicle tagged as “supercruise capable” is going to be able to exceed mach 1.5 on dry thrust whereas with Eurofighter you know it can do maybe 1.5 on dry thrust.
In the case of the F-22 it is certainly propaganda (true or not), with the Eurofighter it is a marketing strategy and not just propaganda seeing as they’re trying to export it.
I’d rather take the definition that best matches the word and purpose or use-case of it.
If you want to say anything that can exceed the sound barrier on dry thrust is supercruise go for it, but it doesn’t make sense. The entire point of developing an aircraft capable of supercruise is to be as efficient as possible while maintaining a high speed tactical advantage. To do so, you’d want to be able to exceed the wave drag barrier (up to 1.5 mach for unoptimized airframes like F-22), maybe 1.4 mach for a more optimized airframe like Eurofighter… Additionally, you’d want to be able to do so while pulling the throttle back off mil thrust. This allows you to avoid temperature limits and shortening of the engine MTBO / lifespan.
If you can’t do that, then there is no real reason to market the capability otherwise unless you’re trying to appear as though there is parity with a better system.
Does that quote actually say you NEED to be of a certain speed or power state to be considered super cruising? No.
I’ll just repost this rather interesting screenshot from yesterday. Want to argue with everyone again about your definitions where mental gymnastics are something of a sport?
This isn’t an attack against you. The logic is sound, the USAF definition closely matches the basic terminology used. The logic that an aircraft supercruising is done most properly when it is surpassing the wave drag boundary and on less than mil thrust is sound.
That does not make your definition of it any less sound - if you want to say the Eurofighter is a supercruise capable aircraft… by all means, just do not compare it to the F-22 as there is no parity there.
Whatever throttle is the bare minimum required to sustain 1.5 mach - we know that full mil thrust allows the F-22 to fly up to 1.82 mach without the afterburner. This may vary from aircraft to aircraft but the F119 is optimized specifically for best SFC in those conditions.
I do not know what the Eurofighter’s cruise settings are, but the maximum dry thrust speed is hardly above the wave drag barrier which means that anything less will result in higher drag and thus slow it down further.
So according to MiG_23M definition of supercruise, only Concorde, F-22 and F-23 are/were supercruisers. The rest are crossed out from supercruisers. Including Rafale.
It’s quite funny, considering the generally accepted meaning of supercruise is simply the ability to passed by the sound barrier without using an afterburner. There’s no mention of efficiency or throttle position.
But who am I to understand anything, right?)))
I would hazard the “generally accepted” term is just the misconception wrought by the EuroCanards all claiming supercruise - which was usually a marketing term applied to the fighters when put up for export. The F-22 referred to the term first but did not elaborate, likely because of the secretive nature whilst still wanting to “flex”. It is after all propaganda.
Your first version of that post was correct, it is not the widely accepted definition of supercruise. As I said, it is the most in-line with the original term and the best use-case on a fighter.
I stopped arguing the fact that the Eurofighter can supercruise (by their own definition) over a thousand posts ago, just because staff is posting memes and breaking their own guidelines does not mean you can continue to slander me and throw a hissy fit after every valid point I make.
The definition of supercruise is very well established. You are more than welcome to form your own definition of that, however this topic has had more than enough off topic discussion of it here.
As of this point moving forward, any further posts derailing the topic on this subject will be removed. The core fundamental point that has been debated and concluded is the Typhoon can indeed super cruise and does so in game.
If you wish to discuss your opinion on supercruise further with specific users, you can do so via PM.
I suppose this means that, like the Eurofighter, the F-18 will be supercruising in-game?
320 miles in 20 minutes would imply 1.2 mach average speed… loitering there for an hour would imply 960 miles of supercruise range which to my knowledge exceeds that of the F-22 and Eurofighter considerably :)
