http://in.biz.yahoo.com/090112/203/6zas4.html

Looks like the Gripen didn’t make the cut.

only one news story in the world for that big deal?:confused:

Really, so you believe the F-15C is more aerodynamic than a F-22A??? Also, as long as we are discussing apples and oranges. Why, is the F-104 (i.e. man in rocket) with less than half the weight of a F-4 and the same engine I mite add. Is no faster than the Brick of the F-4??? 😉

Hmf…two engines an more power? the weight has not much to do with maxspeed. aerodynamics and power has. Yes f-15C is more aerodynamic..
and mig-21 etc..legency fighters are..
F-117 is the worst ever..

My point yet again was “what source” states that the F-35 has “Bad Aero”????

As for 40,000 lb can’t make a modern jet go faster than Mach 1.6. Well, I would consider that to be a “oxymoron”! As the F-4 for example could fly over MACH 2.2 on under 36,000 lbs of thrust.

there y got it! old fashion logic. Couldnt desribe it better my self 😀
F-4 has alot better aero than F-35..and thats a design with two engines.

Cross section isn’t the MAIN factor for supersonic DRAG.

This is and is called CRITICAL Mach…

SO, resulting from all the ABOVE mentioned basics:

A typical Drag Polar From Nellis AFB Flight Test Centre and from another source for F-16 below (where it shows the definition of the word “Clean” in the case of aircrafts with wingtip mounted AAMs)…

WHY would Rafale wingtip mounted AAMs not being LOW/0 drag (because of their potision) when that of other aircraft are?

A good illustration of HOW the shockwave actualy propagates at different RATES over the airframe, the root of the word “supercruise” are there, an aircraft in ONLY fully supersonic when ALL its airframe is OUT of its transonic zone…

F-35 wing is optimised for high subsonic speeds:

Supercritical profile with a <> 0.011% drag penalty over a laminary for the SAME thickness ratio.

Sweep angle of <> 33* (vs 48*).

Delta wingplans have a markedly lower supersonic drag….

And THIS is why:

From the Critical Mach point to Max Drag polar point to end of supersonic zone point, this is what happens over a wing surface.

Note that the Mach values given are ONLY fully variables; valid for a given Thickness ratio, sweep angle and wing profile…

Something ELSE, F-35 elevators are actualy LIFTING surfaces at 0 G which is of course NOT the case for the instable delta canards, meaning in MOST cases they will have a LOWER induced Cd (from lift).

This FACT means: To compute the effect of drag resulting by LIFT one should take into account the LARGE elevator surfaces of F-35.

Weither the canards are of course FULLY part of DRAG control (FCS) sequencies in the entire flight envelop involving 0* (floating) AoAs simply because they only counter pitch-up moments in subsonic and can also be used to reduce TRIM drag in supersonic.

God knows i’m trying to be and stay educational in my posts…

Lordassap, your data is quite nice reading…but you just got lost in all that data…

In aerodynamics, the product of some reference area (such as cross-sectional area, total surface area, or similar) and the drag coefficient is called drag area. Cp*A=drag

And what source can you provide that state the F-35 has “Bad Aero”? Funny, the F-15 and F-22 both have even larger crossections! Yet, the former can reach a top speed of MACH 2.5 and the latter can Super Cruise at MACH 1.7 for extent periods. :diablo:

do you have one on harrier, f-16? a singlejet that its replacing?
bad aero thingie..
So youre saying that 40000lb+ cant make a modern jet go faster than 1.6 mach?
Putt that amount of thust in any other singlejet att it will go double that speed…:)

The JASDF will likely get the F-35 and possibly the F-22…………..The Typhoon would be a long shot.

Japan wants a A2A optimised multirole, a airsupiority fighter. Eurofigher is next after F-22. So if the US not selling F-22, will make EADS a winner. The next after that would be a upgraded F-15, then f-35.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html
Not good news in the F-35 fanclub..

shouldnt we do polls instead? 🙂