However Metz WOULD know what his ground speed is. Do you really think a test pilot wouldn’t know how fast he’s going? Are you really that stupid or are you just trying be an a$$?

Well actualy my friend you should start to understand something yourself.

If it is groundspeed you are refering to, he wouldn’t even bother transfering it into mp/h and stick to kt anyway, in the event that HE had to so some navigation involving computing groundspeed HE would have had to use the knot.

Mph/ is for tourists; as a US (westerners graduated from Edward uses the same datas/procedures) test-pilot he would use standard and procedures according to his profession not that of truck drivers.

These diverse speeds are expressed in kt, ft/s or m/s there is no point trying to imply that a test pilot will have the time to amuse himself with translating these into touristic measurements while in flight.

I know these guys are brains but the less they use it the better job they can do of what they do and there is a lot to do during tests and while you’re at it try to find us any aerospacial company calibratring their equipement in mp/h.

The Mp/h measures are given by PM who try to impress the public but does a pretty bad job of informing those of us who uses these standards for one reason or another.

Reason for procedures and standard to exist.

But you will get the idea, why short range AAMs are designed to pull up to 60 g f.e.

I agree with that, where i loose track of your reasoning is in the choice of AIM-9X as example for a 70 g turn (still laboratory capabilties).

The 50 g+ family of AAM is well known for their common characteristics.

The all employ TVC AND a much larger lift/control surfaces than the others.

There is no secret there:

You want to pull g even with an IR AAM you will need lift, the exeption to the design is MBDA ASRAAM which body is conceived with a certain amount of assymetry built-in, so as to provide with a given amount of lift.

It doesn’t put in in the same ballpark than IRIS-T, PYTHON 5 or MICA though.

BVR AAMs are generaly limited to a much lower 30/40 g envelop.

Secondly i’d like to recommend it to those like me not intimately familiar with aircraft design and conciderations for a better understanding.

Yep! That’s what is greatly needed because when i read some stuff writen by self-proclamed “specialists” and “advanced” writers on the subject of our aircrafts (Gripen/Typhoon/Rafale) i start caughing uncontrolably.

Looks and sounds like the 1800s revisited, the funniest thing is that NASA themself explored the configurations with different prototypes (X-31/32) but never a fully integrated solution.

Still, the results of researches they conducted after that in the 90s are speaking for themself, Saab, Dassault chosed the best formula. No context.

Stick to the point. Paul Metz can not read 1600 mph in a cockpit of a F-22!

I WAS sticking to the point.

I think other values are given for PR purposes and this one in particular to be theorical not demonstrated.

bubbles97 Quote:
That’s the problem with this forum. You have trolls like Sens and Cola who insist on flame baiting and hijacking threads.

Does having a different opinion make someoe a “troll”?

Now, what i see are people coming up with datas and figures which are drifting away from, reality, not corresponding with any aerospacial standards and still failing to make their point stick.

We have been asking for industrial standard definitions of the words Design Maximum Mach and are told they are KPP which we know well they are not.

How sould i call this?

Now Boeing themself were giving 1200 mp/h as a speed data for their F/A-18 sometime ago.

Things must be changing with time, in any case the Maximum Designed Mach is the value that matters for structural limits, because of the effects of compressibility among other things.

Aircraft Characteristics
Designed to reduce life-cycle costs, the F/A-18 is available in two models and possesses the following characteristics.

Seating capacity/crew options:
Model F/A-18C: one-seat (pilot-only)
Model F/A-18D: two-seats (one for the pilot and one for the weapons/sensor officer [WSO])
Dimensions: length 56 ft (17.1 m), wing span 40 ft (12.3 m), height 15.3 ft (4.7 m)
Propulsion: two F404-GE-402 engines, each with 18,000 pounds of thrust
Top speed: Mach 1.8
Combat radius: 500+ nm (900+ km)
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18/index.htm

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/RAAF-Kills-Over-the-Shoulder-with-ASRAAM-05323/

I’m aware of MBDA own statement and you should have to look at it too, please.

03/05/2009
WORLD FIRST FOR THE RAAF WITH ASRAAM
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/siteFO_publications.php?page=1&lang=EN&sel_rub=

As i was saying, not there YET and it is only 5 month ago.

= The problem is that no one is anywhere near to demonstrate a viable solution for firing an AAM behind the shooter otherwise than with a link-16 which negates the idea of stalth and in LOAL mode (Naturaly).

I like those Americans and their sense of humor. The much claimed Paul Metz did use ordinary mph and not kn or km/h like all test-pilots in the West or East.

Sens, they would ALL use the same values and standards based on the US School of test-flying because most of them graduate there, these values are standard, including kt, ft, ft/s, m/s, g, milibars etc, only Russians are using meters and km/h.

Edwards Air Force Base handbook is what i use for looking at these standards.
http://www.edwards.af.mil/

Maybe that most Americans did not even knew the correct value of kn 1852 m/h or which way a km versus a mile is calculated or a mile versus a nautical mile or kt.

Reason for the PR to use US miles instead of knots,

Speeds are shown in Mach or in kt IAS in the Western world.

As we said…

You obviously don’t know what DAS is.

I know perfectly what DAS is and i am asking you again to demonstrate to us the HOB 360* AAM capability you speak of.

Please.

The seeker on the AIM-9X is slaved to the outboard IR sensors surrounding the aircraft. The missile itself has a 360 degree off-bore capability (up, down, left, right, behind…doesn’t matter).

AIM-9X Block II is still in testing and this capability still VERY theorical.

Good luck out-maneuvering a missile pulling 70-80g’s. It just isn’t going to happen.

Good luck finding a 70-80 g capable AAM in US inventory.

maneuverability really is irrelevant.

Not if you don’t have enough gs on the aircraft for a succesful avoidance of an incoming AAM.

They work BOTH way and AIM-9X is not by far the most maneuvrant of them either.

BTW how are you going to “kill” an incoming AAM with superior range to that of your own?

Who cares if the B and C models can’t do 9g’s? The missile does the maneuvering anyways. With the F-35, maneuverability is irrelevant.

We were told this before or in this case that guns were irrelevant.

Infortunately, is appears that the current AAM technology request the AAM to pull <> 3 time the number of g of your target to get a hit out of its NEZ.

With 40 to 50 g bvr missiles guess what the difference will be between a 7.0 g aircraft and a 9 g one?

And i suppose that it will never get into a gunfight either?

Good God man. The ‘latest’ F-35 (A, B & C) design comes FROM the X-35. THE VERY ARTICLE YOU LINKED TO STATED THAT THE 9 g REQUIREMENT WAS MET BY INCREASING THE WING AREA!

Ahem, you really think the latest design review had anything to do with X-35?

Far from it you should read more about it and follow the design reviews.

Yes it is.

No it is not and you fail to demonstrate otherwise.

You are confusing weight reduction with structural waekening.

I am afraid it is you who fail to understand what reducing bulkhead thickness, spars, beans numbers and skin thicknes have for result in the overal strength of a structure.

As a matter of FACT Burgage says clearly that the 7.0 g version have thinner bulkhead which resuls in a lower Maximum Structural Load.

In fact MUCH of the ‘overweight’ issues were due to less expensive (but heavier) materials being used in order to reduce cost.

Please retract this lie before i show the evidence of it.

With all the time & cost resulting from that, it probably would have been less costly to have just used the higher cost (but lighter) materials to begin with

You missed the bit where the fin beams material had to be downgraded from composite to titanium due to aerodynamic battering of the fins.

I undertrand quite clearly. THE ‘latest’ production F-35 (A, B & C) airframe is STILL a full 9 g airframe.

No they are not, they are 7.0, 7.5 and 9.0 with lower Maximum Structural Load than was planned.

What does that have to do with the fact that THE ‘latest’ production F-35 (A, B & C) airframe is STILL a full 9 g airframe?

They are NOT, these were the latest after the design review, period.

Doubt all you want.

Granted.

But the point is that THE ‘latest’ production F-35 (A, B & C) airframe is STILL a full 9 g airframe so the F-35B being limited to anything less than that is NOT becasue of a ‘weak’ airframe.

NO it is not BOY. READ again, cope with facts and dates and find anything indicating there have been a redesign since.

You missed the point completely. The Maximum Structural Loads of current USAF F-15C are compromised by having already exceeded their designed 4000 flight hour life. When they were new, they did not have the compromised Maximum Structural Loads they have now.

You visibly have NO idea what Maximum Structural Loads are.

Just for those interested they are design points validated by structural tests simulating aerodynamic loads, the International standard is 1.6 over 9 g before structural failure.

But that is due to fatigue, not a ‘weak’ airframe.

Fatigue is directly linked to Maximum Structural load, the higher it is, the lower tha fatigue for the same amount of stress.

As foir the aerodynamic issue here it is.

WHICH WAS FOUND DURING WIND TUNNEL TESTING AND CORRECTED EVEN BEFORE FLIGHT TESTING!

Actually NO it was not “corrected” the fin main baem was strengthened, the aerodynamic issue remains.

Try again later.