Dare2pfcem
Others already have. It it pathetic that ignoranuses like you demand it be done AGAIN by someone else.
Curious to know when.
It is funny to see how much people are actually pretending and how little they can show.
SHOW us the famous F-35 indeniable M 1.6 KPP quotation from L-M please.
So far all you have been doing is to deny the difference between DESIGNED MAXIMUM MACH and KPP, does it spells the same and does it means the SAME?
No, so please i’m interested to SEE this famous M 1.6 KPP because all of you have failed to demonstrate it so far.
Dare2Let me give you a practical example, since it’s obviously a waste of time trying to argue the point with you.
What is the airspeed of an aircraft traveling M1.2 at sea level?
What is the airspeed of an aircraft traveling M1.2 at 40,000′?
Remember the speed of sound at sea level is ~760mph, and at 40k is ~660mph.
Forget the mp/h please. According to Metz own school book it is not a valida data, i give it to you AGAIN: 340.941 m/s at sea level.
According to which standard do YOU want the airspeed?
Basicaly you give TWO out of three datas needed to compute the Mach, missing the altitude, giving non-standard datas (mp/h) and you come to tell us we’re wasting your time?
Suits you, for the time being YOU explain to US please how you can figure M 2.421 with 1.600 mp/h without using ICAO standards or knowing altitude AND weather conditions of the test, and no it’s not 11 km but 45.000 ft.
It is UNDENIABLE fact that the KPP THRESHOLD dash speed of the F-35 is Mach 1.6. That means it MUST be able to go AT LEAST Mach 1.6.
NO mister, there is NOWHERE mention of a KPP for M 1.6 and quiet the opposite if you read <> 1.200 mph it is also giving you the same Designed Mach above or below depending on altitude.
The Maximum Mach for all version is a designed LIMIT not a KPP.
Designed Mach doesn’t MEAN KPP even in American, thanks for the photo though, now i will keep asking for the F-16 configurations of the tests and so far we had different stories than those told to us previously.
Thanks.
Dare2Lockheed Wins $494M for F-22 Production
(Oct 30)
Pentagon Contract Announcements
(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued October 29, 2009)
Lockheed Martin Corp., of Fort Worth, Texas was awarded a $474,200,000 contract which will provide for the issuance of full production of four F-22 Lot 10 air vehicles, alternate mission equipment, production engineering support and work in process through Aug. 11, 2009 for 16 shipsets of raw material aircraft fuselage titanium.
478 AESG/PK, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio is the contracting activity (FA8611-09-C-2900,P00007).
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/109510/lockheed-wins-%24494m-for-f_22-production.html
I wanteed to please someone and his sun.
I hope you don’t mind.
Dare2What are you smoking?
I dont. Sorry.
Did you even both to read the article you linked to? The YF-35 met the 9 g requirement by increasing the wing area.
We are not talking about YF-35 but the latest variant, (CTOL), (STOVL) and (CV) two of which are not meeting this goal.
Among the more visible changes to the final Lockheed Martin-led 230-5 design iteration is an enlarged main wing to meet a higher 9g stress requirement. The size of the wing on the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) and conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) versions has been increased from 38.3m² (412ft²) to 42.7m², while the wing on the US Navy’s carrier variant (CV) has grown from 55.7m² to 57.6m².
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/11/10/58045/jsf-changes-revealed.html
Since then only the STOVL F-35B has been in any danger of missing any flight performance requirements & that was resolved through a two year weight reduction program.
I’m afraid it is nowhere near as simple as that.
The F-35 airframe is NOT structurally limited.
Their Maximum Structural loads were reduced.
About two-thirds of the weight savings can be reached by directly taking mass off the airframe, says Rear Adm Steven Enewold,
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2004/07/27/185020/lockheed-martin-closes-in-on-jsf-weight-fix.html
And as a matter of fact; in all version, wingskin is thinner, wingspar and beams are less numerous, i don’t know what you understand by Maximum Structural Loads but from a 9 g version with a standard of 1.6 if you take metal of it, it have to show somewhere.
It remains a full 9 g airframe.
So are T1 Typhoon with a lower Maximum Strructural Load than the international standard (1.5 vs 1.6).
In fact its 9 g flight envelope it likely to be similar to, if not larger than, the F-16.
I doubt so.
The F-35C is only ‘soft’ limited to 7.5 g (just as the F/A-18) in order to save stress/fatigue on the airframe to compensate for the harsh life of carrier operations but CAN ‘at the flip of a switch’ take full advantage of its full 9g flight envelope.
Is that so?
The concept of cousin parts has been maintained – the 7g-stressed F-35B may have thinner, lighter bulkheads than the carrier-capable F-35C or 9g-capable F-35A, but the difference is not visible, says Williams. There are also cousin parts in the systems: the electro-hydrostatic actuators on the power-by-wire flight controls are different sizes – the STOVL actuators were downsized to reduce weight, while the CV’s are bigger to provide higher control rates for low-speed approach – but they are all manufactured by the same supplier using the same process, he says.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/06/27/207393/jsf-special-future-fighter.html#FIPageTop
There MAY be something about the F-35B’s STOLV system which limits g cabability but I have not seen any explanation as such.
There are a lot of documentation you havent seen yet.
They have been inspected & cleared (with flight restrictions) for 8,000 flight hours but obviously there are problems with having done that.
And if this is not related to Maximum Structural Loads what do you think is?
This is an issue the F-35 may have if/when it too reaches or exceed its designed flight hour life & for safety early production aircraft may be limited unil flight testing has been completed but by FOC any pilot switching from a F-15, F-16 or F/A-18 to the F-35 will not have to worry about breaking their aircraft performing any maneuver they do with their previous ride.
Not now, but over a long period of time and numerous flight cycles this sort of things shows.
Designed Max Structural Load is directly linked to aircraft lifespan through flight cycles which often happens to be even more demanding than thaught.
This also mean that the International standard for 1.6 above 9 g and 6000 flight hours CAN show itself barely enough to avoid issues such as those seen on the F-15 fleet.
Similarly, the design team has spent a long time looking at high angle-of-attack (alpha) flow characteristics to see if the F-35 might be susceptible to the vertical tail buffet issues encountered by the F/A-18 and F/A-22. “It’s a good thing we did that,” says Burbage, adding that the windtunnel tests show the F-35 chine does indeed generate a strong vortex at high alpha, and that flight tests would have revealed a distinct tail buffet. Structural reinforcement is being designed into the aircraft’s F-35 vertical fins as a result of the tests says Burbage. He adds: “We are bound to have enough of our own problems without repeating those of others.”
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2003/11/25/174243/weighty-matters.html#FIPageTop
As foir the aerodynamic issue here it is.
Dare2You have failed to understand what I explained to you ealier.
You don’t need to explain i desagree with your definition.
Based upon an athmospheric standard as a base value.
With variable airspeed dependent on air pressure or temperature to be phycicaly correct, with constant occurence upon its own scale of compressibility related flight regimes.
You hardly can get less constant than this; the curent Mach value at standard atmosphere according to 1976 ICAO is 340.941 m/s at sea level.
Btw unless you know the altitude of the test you only can use this ICAO standard to define the Mach at any altitude.
Mach is not a “constant” value for a given airspeed – it is dependent on one thing – local ambient temperature.
It is based on a standard atmosphere giving you an altitude scale as well (that you keep ignoring) from sea level.
The air density depends on both the temperature and the pressure through the equation of state and also decreases with increasing altitude.
Aerodynamic forces directly depend on the air density.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/atmos.html
Which is why i was asking for a Mach value instead of mph which means little in terms of aerospacial and are also not allowing for a relation to the atmospheric standard i was mentioning, airspeed are giving in kt or ft/s or m/s.
I corrected myself and some poster in the subject of air temperature in this equation sometimes, however i doubt that this request would have made a difference here, you just failed to see what my request was about and still insist there is NO athmospheirc standard for Mach, which is false.
Airspeed in the Mach equation is constant however
So is the Mach value as i presented it, whatever the airspeed, at standard atmosphere at sea level which is what i meant.
and IS NOT related to air pressure.
Not physicaly but in the context of this standard atmosphere it was, even if mentioning it was wrong.
In fact according to the laws of physics it is technicaly correct to say temperature instead of air pressure, but they are still directly related and are defined by that standard.
So when comparing aircraft knowing the F-22 can do 1600mph if its true is a perfect figure of merit for comparison to other aircraft.
Not without an altitude or a temperature if you prefer, my examples was showing it clearly.
If the F-22 is capable of 1600mph then that is a constant V value – and converted to m/s it becomes 711 m/s!
At which altitude do you convert this to Mach?
F-22 M = 711/SQRT(1.4*287*T) where T is dependent on altitude. For 11 km up that value is +-M2.42.
And of course the 11 km (which is is also an aeronautic standard) known, but how did you get this figure?
At 50.000 ft a Rafale would do M 2.247 if it wasn’t limited to Mach 2.0 DASH looking at its airspeed limit of 1 290 kt.
Your figure is for an altitude of 50.000 ft according to 1976 ICAO standard.
Dare2I forgot nothing – you failed to understand.
Thank you i’m sure you are going to enlight us.
Mach is not a constant number and airspeed or velocity of the aircraft is not a variable either.
I gave the Edward AFB definition of the Mach. = “The ratio of true airspeed to the local speed of sound”.
And also the fact that it is a design point weither airspeed is not in the case of Maximum designed Mach.
Mach is a constant or as explained in the book it is “dimentionless”; it is alaso a value on itself as expressed by the effects of compressibility, only airspeed variates depending on atmospheric pressure; this gives you a corrected and true airspeeds based on this constant value or values.
Mach is the ratio of the aircrafts velocity – in this case 1600mph
Which means nothing on itself, without athmospheric pressure or altitude with standard atmosphere at sea level you canot tell the airspeed and please would it be too much for you to translate on actual aerospacial measures?
– to the local speed of sound – the value which is a variable.
Due to a variable air pressure, not that of Mach itself still being based on standard atmospheric at sea level and linked to compressibility effects, those things, a standard and the effects of Mach.
The fact that the local speed of sound is a variable makes the Mach number a variable value and not constant.
NO Mach in itself is a measure based upon this standard and known phenomenons related to it, particulary important point in aerodynamic and structural design.
The Mach number M allows us to define flight regimes in which compressibility effects vary.
NASA. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mach.html
It is airspeed which is the variable, Mach 1 is still mach 1 regardless of the resulting airspeed, it is the appearence of compressibility which physicaly define regimes, subsonic, transonic and supersonic.
Mach value in airspeed might change but not Mach as a value itself it is based upon a standard atmospheric value, this is how you end up with corrected and true airspeeds and not corrected and true Machs.
Dare2Sorry but what are you talking about?!?!?!?!
It should be clear like cristal.
We’re given us miles, as far as i am concerned the international standards are kt.
As for the Max Mach it is a designed feature just in case you forgot.
Vitesse maximale : Mach 1,8 (1 290 noeuds)
= M 2.247 (for a Mach 1.8 Operatioanly limited aircraft with M 2.0 dash).Celing? Plafond : 50 000 pieds
Official figures from our MinDef.
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/decouverte/equipements/aeronefs/rafale_m
In otherwords, without the EFT, the F-16 would run out of gas trying to keep up. The F-16 had to use afterburner, while the F-35 was climbing in dry power.
And just HOW relevant is that since it was designed to enter combat at this weight?
What you are trying to impose upon a class of aircraft is a tactical doctrine of another.
Use them in their context at equal combat weight and f-16 is still more performant, your PoV on how long it will be is irrelevant; at the time it was conceived it was good enough for the role envisaged.
We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
You’re welcome to sustain your claim because according to you, all official datas are given for granted including ingress and egress Machs and ceilings but Maximum design Mach is not a valid data and remain a KPP.
The F-35 with combat load, handles/accelerates like an F-16 that’s clean.
Not with a similar TRW in air combat configuration no. sorry, it will however do much better in A2G.
According to all aerodynamic laws it won’t work in A2A, what you are refering to is the mention of “F-16-like” handling, not turning performances in A2A.
Figures speaks for themself, weight, thrust, wingload, please explain the data gremlin otherwise than with some now famous alien aerodynamic progresses, we know what F-35 is designed like, not a mid-supersonic design.
An F-16 with 50% fuel wouldn’t be able to fight for long.
That’s NOT what it was designed to do, it was designed to do it with tanks that can be jettisoned when combat starts, this is how it is conceived you’re looking at time on station rather than true combat capabilties at designed combat weight.
The Mach number was assigned to the airspeed(i.e. at altitude M1 is roughly 660mph), therefore 1600mph is ~M2.42. Nothing more, nothing less is trying to be put out here.
No sorry boy, this 45000 ft altitude NOT “altitude”, at 15000 ft it is still altitude and shows only a bit above M 2.2 and we still don’t know if it is theorical or one of the limits it won’t go beyhond without causing damages.
I don’t know what those limits are because they’re classified (if you were paying attention to his remarks). Something >M2.42 though.
Well that’s VERY convenient but you see since they are not giving Operatinoal figures you can be sure that we all know what these limits are, not operational limits and that M 2.42 is a little fantasist to say the least.
ls1 miata
Umm, WTF? Pilots are trained observers. Test pilots are especially trained observers. They are more than qualified to make statements about the aircraft that they fly (especially when it concerns speed).
True but when i listen to some US pilots i am always asking myself what standard they apply when they speak during an interview (that of their book or the general public PR speach).
Sometime they say stuff, untrained people have some hard time not interpreting.
Dare2The F-16 had to carry an EFT to have enough fuel to keep up with the F-35.
Of course, what a FAIR comparison, do you remember the LWF requierements and if yes why do you even think of comparing them with the F-16 with a drop tank?
I awlays saw the chasing Falcons with two tanks…
Come on.
Much like some F-22 brochures say M1.5 SC and M1.8 top speed?:rolleyes::cool:
NO i dont believe them either i got the USAF factsheet for standard, but NASA Mach 2.0 and 1.6 S/C looks like a standard for operational use to me.
The eyeball-out perf beyhond VNE and with the engine way into the red temp doesn’t suit me, i try to be realistic.
M1.6 was a minimum KPP for the F-35, and there have been slides/brochures stating M1.8+ as well.
NO it wasn’t and it never was question of Mach 1.6 in requeried specs.
First Supersonic Dash was requiered, the only figure given at the time was of M 1.5.
As the datas given on L-M own documentation says, this is NO KPP but Max Mach which designate another limit, check on official jargons you will see that it is a design feature given with real specs.
brochures stating M1.8+ as well.
Never seen one and i would like to see one.
The best we’ve seen is someone taking US miles for kts and ending up with the Mach 1.8 figure vs the M 1.6 data provided on the same document.
Translates mp/h into kt (or the other way around) and do your math with altitudes…
In the subsonic region, the F-16 lacks the thrust to exceed the F-35. In the supersonic region, it lacks the fuel. Add on external stores, and it’s no contest.
NOT with its original AIM-9 only design NO, it would out accelerate and out-turn F-35 with two AIM mounted internaly, expecially with only the 50% internal fuel it was designed to fight with; with the same TWR a Viper is a better aerodynamic plaform, it accelerates faster, turns tighter.
Compare them at their respective designed combat weight you will see for yourself; for F-16 its 50% internal fuel and two AIM-9, sounds low but it is what it was designed for, anything else is no fair comparison.
He didn’t mention a Mach.
That’s the WHOLE point.
Mach is a constant value, airspeed a variable depending on athmospheric pressure.
“The ratio of true airspeed to the local speed of sound”.
The Mach gives you the strutcural limit NOT the airspeed limit. :rolleyes:
He mentioned a specific airspeed that the F-22 would do, which at altitude works out to M2.42.
CAN be lower too and this is of no interest (depending on the meaning of “altitude”), if it is one designed limit bar the operational limit for its service life, you can push the thing to hell and break it in 24 hours, a M 53 can develop 110 kN+, only for a few hours, stick that on a Mirage 2000 reset the FCS it does M 2.5 until it or the engine melts. Yes it CAN.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mach.html
He also mentioned that the actual top speed was classified, meaning that it’s not any lower than 1600mph,
If he knows what i know and what you don’t (no offence meant) i have doubt that you know what he means even more that we end up with the same Mach limit.
and being that he mentioned 1600mph, that’s obviously not the top speed
Yeah sure, ahem i would like you to elaborate technicaly please, so what limits are these?.
Dare2It wasn’t an F-16/79. It was F-16s with -229 and -132 motors in afterburner, and throughout the subsonic range.
In which configuration?
and the F-35’s max speed isn’t M1.6.
We keep hearing this and reading something else:
It is officialy.
At leat two sources at L-M Say so more to the point it is here question of KPPs we know from definition vs designed Maximum Mach now everyone had a different PoV.
The test pilot who have a “feel “, some high level of knowlege of the aircraft and its design.
The structural designer who knows which designed Mach the structure is stressed for.
The Aerodynamicist who knows at which Mach the inlets are going to show their limit and where its in the Mach scale that its wing profile is going to be the less dragy.
One you have read and heared from all sides, you can have a rough idea of F-35 maximum Operational Mach because where we are it is the primary customers, the Forces or DoD who is asking for something, like durability.
Your comment on the drag race is funny, F-35 airfoil is optimised for the transonic regime but also drags a little more in supersonic, its critical Mach is lower than F-16 too.
Between the maximum obtainable in flight testing or theoricaly and what aircraft are limited to in operation there is a difference.
Some can relax their potential because they have the structural strength designed on them, some can’t.
Limitations are still there at the end of the time, i’d like to see it going a M 1.6 that easly, its aerodynamic is already optimised for lower Machs, just compare it to a clean F-16 with two AIM-9 on wingtips.
Now i wonder if you realise that some prototypes or preserie would already have been cleared for higher Machs than 1.6 or went supercuising during their first flight?
This places the range of speed L-M are planning to explore about where i expected it to be, it is not the theorical that matters it is the demonstrated and actually usable in Operation by every squadron qualified pilot.
Mr. Metz said that the top speed was classified(meaning higher than 1600mph), but that the F-22 would do 1600mph. I’m not sure how much more clarification is needed
What mach limit does he means?
Many aircraft have the potential to go faster, F-16, Mirage 2000, Rafale, ALL are digitaly Mach limited.
Their limits depends either on inlet/engines prerssure recovery limit, structural kinetic heating (Mirage 2000 could do M 2.5 with the thrust) or aerodynamic optimisation of the airframe.
Whatever these figures mean for you i know exactly what they are, we have the same.
Dare2It was obvious a 7 inch Mach 4 missile won’t make any measurable drag impact, but i am surprised the weight of a few of them, say ~0.5t still don’t cause the a/c to need a change of aspect to compensate/ get more lift and by that causing more drag. ?
On a 2nd thought this must be the answer! the a/c aspect was optimized with with a standard AA load for optimal performance. Just like a construction may be built with a negative load to off-set expected load.
Good question as always obligatory…
http://www.mach-flyg.com/utg80/80jas_uc.html
The aerodynamic advantages derived from the close coupled canard configuration, foremost its good vortex flow stability up to high angles of attack (AOA), that can be translated into a very high instantaneous turn rate, and which in conjunction with pivoting canards that are automatically trimmed to give optimal lift-to-drag (L/D) ratios for all cg positions, Mach and AOA, were not technically feasible for the Viggen generation of fighters. Only full span slotted flaps on the canards were present on the Viggen, for further improvement of its already excellent Short Take Off and Landing (STOL) characteristics).
As you might know, U. Claréus, project manager, JAS 39 Aerodynamics, Saab Aerospace, desribed SAAB way to achieve a minimum cg shift with external store.
One of them was the use of close-coupled canard…
Adopting negative stability means that the center of gravity (cg) can be placed well back behind the aerodynamic center, which in turn for a canard layout opens up a greater degree of freedom in arranging the installation of internal systems and engine in such a way that an optimal cross sectional area distribution and thus low supersonic wave drag at the selected Mach number value, can be achieved
The aerodynamic advantages derived from the close coupled canard configuration, foremost its good vortex flow stability up to high angles of attack (AOA), that can be translated into a very high instantaneous turn rate, and which in conjunction with pivoting canards that are automatically trimmed to give optimal lift-to-drag (L/D) ratios for all cg positions, Mach and AOA, were not technically feasible for the Viggen generation of fighters. Only full span slotted flaps on the canards were present on the Viggen, for further improvement of its already excellent Short Take Off and Landing (STOL) characteristics).
The cg range can be kept extremely small for all combinations of external stores and fuel conditions, being some 5 percent of MAC, for a mass variation of roughly 50 percent of maximum take off weight (MTOW).
Aerodynamic summary
The salient points in the Gripen aerodynamics are:
Digital fly-by-wire control system and relaxed, negative static stability in pitch (cg far aft) have made the disposition of the delta canard layout, internal as well as external, much easier, whereby:Optimal cros sectional area ruling, thus wave drag reduction, has been fully realized.
Main landing gear stowed in fuselage, therefore external stores close to cg, small cg-shift that improves flying qualities.
Wing far forward, enabling long tail cone, meaning base drag and local area distribution favourable, and efficient air brake location on tail cone with small transients when deployed.
The direct fall-out of relaxed static stability are:
· Higher trimmed lift.
· Reduced lift dependent drag.
· Reduced supersonic trim drag.Delta canard’s inherent good aerodynamics are:
· Stable detached leading edge vortex flow, high maximum lift coefficient.
· Positive trim lift on all lifting surfaces.
· Floating canard offers stable aircraft if EFCS fails.
· Good field performance (take off and landing), enhanced by special aerodynamic breaking mode.· Battle damage tolerance good, “overlapping” control surfaces.
· Potential for future adaptations, like steep approach, fuselage aiming.
· Low buffeting levels made even better with leading edge flaps.Spin recovery known to be acceptable for close coupled delta canard (not necessarily so for a long coupled canard configuration):
· Proven spin recovery capability for complete cg and AOR range.
· Nor risk of being trapped in a superstall, control authority exists.
Yes a lot on the cg at SAAB, NASA disclosed some very interesting reseaches with close-coupled which were proven to give a DYNAMIC instability too, which improved the matter at supersonic speed as well, DAMPING is also better.
On a 2nd thought this must be the answer! the a/c aspect was optimized with with a standard AA load for optimal performance. Just like a construction may be built with a negative load to off-set expected load.
Precisely.
WE know it’s a SAAB but it is no automobile my friend, it is a WAR machine.
Dare2From what i can understand, they lost it there.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/11/10/58045/jsf-changes-revealed.html
10/11/99
I believe this article to be accurate, from then on it is an endless story of discovery of issues and atempts to sort them out with a minimal amount of work creating yet more aerodynamic issues (deleting the LEX to gain weight and getting two good strake vortexes to beat the fins up because they can’t expend outward anymore is funny, get the fin heavier too).
I was wondering as a “newbie” where exactly was the gain slicing in the good parts instead of making the whole thing lighter, loosing a good aerodynamic to gain nothing but g limitations at the end.
Problem all these changes and the fact that they did find the aircraft overweight way too late at structural design stage, lead of a serie of decision i think were simply bad design management from the start, why not trying to design the previous shape lighter structuraly?
As a result, the aircraft missed one if not more KPPs (one or two more 9.0 g versions?) and ended-up being structuraly restricted instead of being able to meet all original or earlier requierements and give a 9 g version to everyone.
I don’t know if they can trust the pilots to restrain themself and not pull the hell out of their aircrafts because it’s what they need, in some case even to survive a fight.
If F-15 can break up in flight today, such Max structural load decision could have catastrophic consequences in the future and for those expecting yet another F-16, hang on you are getting yet another A-7, at least the NAVY and USN are.
Dare2To my understanding the JSF was originally supposed to be less complex than it is envisaged now, which might be part of the dilemma.
Well i am not too sure about this, systems such as EODAS, AN/APG-81, HMD were planned early enough in the programe definition and contracted given to companies such as BAe and Northrop Grumman.
I am not aware of any fundamental change since the first agreement on the winner of this competition.
The issues have started with numerous redesign and design reviews, weight targets, requierement changed then being adjusted (lowered) because they couldn’t be meet etc.
Issues on developement of systems occured later methink.
Dare2http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/presar.html
The main factor for drag is wing surface, with thicknes ratio and sweep angle giving you the Critical mach.
Wing surface is computed including its theorical surface within the fuselage because appart for fluid computing which is relatively recent in terms of simulation, it has been for a long time near impossible to compute the total drag of the fuselage.
Up to now the upper Mach limits of A2A configuration were given after thourough flight-testing and validation of safe separation of the weapons, these envelops includes Maximum Mach and Maximum firing Mach.
They are used the world over as known values for mission planning, in terms of playloads and TWR in combat configurations.
Dare2Being more draggy WITHOUT BVRAAMs can mean one of two things. Either it is even BETTER with BVRAAMs attached and all is well. Or that it is even WORSE without.
It’s not as if their drag coeficients were going through the roof without AAMs.
There is an element of increased drag due to the airframe being slightly less “clean” than with the AAMs attached but the difference is near negligable.
In fact in some configuration (wingtips) drag is computed as “cleaned”, the “void” left by an AAM in a recessed potition wouldn’t be much more important, the airframe boundary layer would only be a little less streamelined due to the appearence of compression and extention waves, (mostly in transonic) in these area.
In short, this is no big (drag) deal.
Dare2If they did not forsee these and the plan has slipped massively due to problems which were only unearthed by the initial tests. Then this would be bad news.
I think these issues have been well documented by the press.
The real bad news is that F-35 was supposed to be cheap and is comparatively way simpler as a design than F-22.
Ending up with more design and technical problems than F-22 is no good sign at all.
Sign In
