Oh no, it is YOU who was/is showing lack of knowlegde.

Other than wavedrag, which is highly irrelevant to BFM maneuverability as it is likely to happen below M0,9, cross-section has NOTHING to do with airframe drag, period. I suggest reading the pdf you posted. Specifically, focus on the formulae in section 2.2.

Perhaps you could explain the difference between the F4J and F4K/M, why the K/M series are slower for instance?

MH17 report is to be published today, btw.

13:15 local time the report will be read..

All the while, on F-22 vs F-15 comparisons, fact that F-15 has variable inlets featuring both internal and external compression mechanisms, is ignored.

What are the internal and external compression mechanisms?

A big problem with a propellor is tip-speed. If that approaches the speed of sound then the efficiency drops dramatically.
One solution was to use wider chord (paddle) blades with a smaller diameter.

Sinse People here seems to know so much about F135. Then how many different AB settings does it have?

I assume variable from min to max. Fixed settings is ’50’s technology.

The bending moment you’re talking (downwards?) about I think would be in a static state (parked). When flying though, the lift on the wings causes a bending moment upwards. If you have more mass on the tips that could reduce the bending moment, so…
Up-rigging ailerons has been used in the past on large a/c to reduce fatigue, it was effectively pushing the wing (tips) down. I don’t know if they still use it though.
Apart from that, why would they put AMRAAM on the tips with promotional material? Poetic license I suppose, the sales department like to give things a spin..

Thats not it; A test flight’s purpose is designated by engineers, to test the aircraft who designed by engineers.

Man in the cockpit of tested aircraft is only tasked with flying the plane, and doing things as instructed by engineers. Flight data is recorded by instruments, and relayed to engineers. This is even worse for the man in the cockpit of the other aircraft, as he is probably not even instructed to the details of his role in the test flight.

In analogy, we have two cars, car#1 is making a turn, and following car#2 is purposely drifting while following. Then driver of car#1 comments “he oversteered all the way the turn, that means car#2 can’t turn as car#1”. And we would be laughing at it, as you can follow a vw beetle with a corvette, while drifting.

The very fact, pilot claiming test flight is about F-35 testing its kinematics vs F-16 is the proof of his lack of knowledge.

If such comparison was really wanted, F-16 flight test data is already available. F-35 would take-off, conduct maneuvers at incrementally changing various flight conditions and land. Comparison would be made *numerically* on the ground. “Hey F-16 can turn 19,65 deg/s, with 123 fps excess power. F-35 can turn 19,3 deg/s with 123 fps” It would not be in the lines of “hey go turn and burn with F-16.” and “how did it go, it was good yes?” Only a caveman would think test flight are made in such manners.

But thats ok. Its completely excusable for a pilot think such things, just as a engine technician is not expected to know how to design a jet engine.

@Robbiesmurf Since your very post obviously implied ME not answering to your “how afterburners work” question…

I was delibaretely not answering your question because you were polluting the several different threads by constantly asking highly irrelevant to the topic question “how afterburners work” and you were not asking it to learn from the answers, but to prove yourself (by asking a question that no one can answer, then answer it yourself); make us acknowledge your “extensive knowledege” about jet engines. You know, last “The truth about the F-22” thread ended just because of your futile attempt to prove your greatness; for that alone, I think you should have been banned.

And your answer to the question you asked was “Its a Temperature ratio, its a percentage blah blah” garbage.

Question was “how afterburner/engine generates thrust.” Me, and a dozen answered correctly in the lines of “it happens at nozzle with “pressure and velocity” change” etc. FalconDude even suspected and said “I believe your question is not complete“, but no, you were both too arrogant and too ignorant to notice your own mistake OR accept the answers of others.

Your answer was the answer to the question of thermodynamic equibilirium, not the dynamics on how *THRUST* is generated.

Even then, temperature does not matter inside engine beyond material properties. The correct value you are looking for is not T, but H, the enthalpy. What you are doing, (in actual engineering POV) is this:

You are assuming air is ideal gas in an isentropic process and use this form:

entaphy change dH = Cp*dT + V*dP*(1-(1/V(dV/dT))*T)

Then you are assuming coefficient of cubic thermal expansion=0, or pressure change is 0, Cp is constant, So your enthalphy change is proportional to T change. Then, if you assume 100% efficiency on an isentropic nozzle in all working conditions, and airspeed = 0, you can say T is proportional to thrust in terms of thermodynamics.

Since no one asked about thermodynamics, you are answering to a question that no one’s asked. That is by ignoring 7 of 9 terms of enthalphy equation and taking 8th as constant, making a dozen assumptions, all the while you are dismissing everyone’s comment as “wikipedia quotes” or simply “wrong”.

There is a difference between simplifying, and OVER-simplfying. Actual understanding of the subject tells you what you are doing is “simplifying” or going towards “way too inaccurate”. While you were trying to accuse me of “not understanding”, I didn’t answer at first, because I was exitedly waiting how you will humiliate yourself while you are trying to answer your own question, and your answer was “Temperature change, its a ratio, a percentage”. Well, thats what happens you try to be a smartass by reading a “how engines work” book directed at elementary school children. Since then, I am ignoring you on this subject; in case you haven’t noticed.

Oh, you have also dismissed because I’ve said pressure change inside engine due to isentropy, you said “NOO pressure is the same.” Why? because your book says so? No, pressure is the same at *steady state*, that is you are picking one condition that thermodynamic equibilirium is valid. when you change RPM, fuel ratio, afterburner, pressure inside the engine DO change. Pressure even changes when aircraft is climbing or cruising at exact same RPM. I ignored your post because I was not in the mood of explaining compressor map to you starting from “systems theory” to explain what “constant pressure process” is and going through entire turbomachinary course. Its simply not worth it.

Don’t mistake “ignoring someone” with inability to answer his comments.

At the risk of humiliating myself, I was under the impression that a gas turbine engine runs on a constant pressure combustion cycle. Is that correct?