Dare2pfcem
Boy, there are forums you know for those who wants to learn on the subject of aviation…
No, ONLY THE F-35B!!! The F-35A & F-35C remain 9 g airframes. Here is a clue, the F-35B & F-35C where ‘sited’ (as per Department of the Navy policy) as 7.5 g BEFORE the weight reduction program…
And what exactly does reducing the amount of metal of an airframe results on?
Yeah, lower structural loads.
the 7g-stressed F-35B may have thinner, lighter bulkheads than the carrier-capable F-35C or 9g-capable F-35A,
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/06/27/207393/jsf-special-future-fighter.html
Only ONE variant is stressed to 9.0 g.
F-35 deputy program manager J.D. McFarlan revealed the reason for the spoilers at the AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference in Denver yesterday (August 4). Wing drop can occur at transonic speed as a fighter approaches high turn rates, he says. One wing sets up a shock at a slightly different location to the other wing. This produces a lift gradient, one wing drops and the aircraft rolls in the turn.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:0b0deaf6-9d68-48f1-82c9-f67414e42786
The C is getting more complex and puts on weight while being less capable in turning performances transonic speed though they still try to sort the wing drop problem today.
Now i’m sorry but you write so much fictional things it’s getting my goldfish all dizzy, so i’l skip your posts for the stake of keeping the samity of this forum, no need to READ you or even copy/paste your laughable and uninformed assumptions.
My 14 years old nefew knows more only by collecting Airfix model kits, at least he can READ the instructions. 😀
Dare2Then while you’re at it feel free to explain the definition of supercruise, how the USAF understands it.
So nicely asking with loads of coutesy and maneers, something i kept posting repeatedly:
Stabelised Cruise point is reached when your stabelised cruising speed (whatever it is) is reached with your Specific Range (SR) defined in terms of Nautical Airmiles per Pounds of Fuel used at its highest.
Range Factor (RF) is your Specific Range multiplied by gross weight.
In non-afterburner operation a change of 1% in drag is going to result in a change of 1% in fuel flow.
Now your problem is to figure at which Mach your aircraft will be flying, at the closest to your best fuel flow in order to reach your stabelised cruise point, THIS is what CRUISE means. = Range Factor = RANGE = ENDURENCE.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander as they say.
You can try to enrole and join the Flight Test Center in a few years if you can make it and BTW Gooses are one of he main examples of nature when it comes to the subject of CRUISE.
I’ve explicitly said on a continual basis that the throttle isn’t on the firewall, and have asked for sources showing that it indeed was, to achieve the speeds mentioned.
At M 1.75 and how exactly would you explain this, let me gues by NO it is a KPP, in reality it can fly at M 1.85 in full Mil? :diablo:
It’s not that the USAF is all of a sudden discovering previously unknown raw performance,
Yes they DID actually because F-22 happened to reach higher Machs than that they expected only it didn’t do it supercruising but in full Mil power which is yet another matter as it reduces range.
but there’s a BIG difference between what’s known, and what’s permitted to be publicly released.
What was i saying.
And when are you going to shift from Sci-Fi back to reality exactly?
It’s all very well to ignore what makes the standards which makes the designs which results in performances, then call people whatever name suits you including inpolite or unmannered…
It wont make you comprehend why F-22 is not necessarly cruising at M 1.75 and certainly not why it is much unlikely that it would go any faster in Dry power, however much you believe this “inclassified” thing of yours for convenience.
For astute fellows like yourselves, I’d think that you’d understand that vanilla fact sheets that are public domain, do not represent the end all be all with regards to performance potential.
They also happen to be more representative of REAL operational values than your Sci-fi stories.
That’s why getting a composite picture from multiple sources gives much more insight as to the true limits.
I got MORE sources on F-22 on my H-D alone than you ever bothered to READ, so when you will start assuming that you don’t know instead of the opposite and get a little cusious about it then you’ll have a chance to distinguish between hearsay and reality.
Dare2Some benefited from this, some did not.
Had the treatment on a 180 kt sircraft, can’t imagine 750 but i suppose one get acoustumed to anything… 😀
Dare2You can look to the response right before this for that. You may want to look of the definition of manners, condescension, and meglomania, while we’re hitting the dictionaries.
EX.CU.SE ME! 😎
If you’re using your Oxford to comprehend what CRUISE means in USAF jargon you’re not going to improve your knowlege base even with the Queen’s english and all her buttler’s manners.
Furthermore i do NOT lack maners when i just point out something you don’t like, but it is your lot, not that of others.
It sounds more like p@n#$ envy to me.
Now that’s charriot riders language, not manners, boy. :diablo:
And according to YOU, which engine is designed for maximum fuel effisciency with the throttle on the firewall?
Dare2Yes, I would, indeed.
Don’t call him back, we had enough of this sticky youknowhat… :diablo:
BTW our mecanics on the ground calls this video innacurate as they know the Rafale vs F-22 gun only fights were INFORMAL not the planified training missions.
As for myself spoted the fault when he started mentioning pilots flight hours in the Rafale…
Now we have our sources, funnily everyone starts to talks and the usual “informer” is nowhere to be seen, did anyone got the memo, errrrrrrrrrr sorry a PM?
Dare2But as I said, it all comes down to whether you really want to talk about planes or just have urgent need to make your toy win at all cost in style *my F-22 does M1.78 and your Typhoon only M1.3+, your Typhoon $ucks.*
He is still looking for the definition of the word cruise.
😀
Dare2Thanks for once again demonstating that you are a troll.
Am I? :diablo:
I was confirming that US fighters are built to at least 1.5, not contraciding.
Well in the case of F-35 it IS and BTW 1.5 doesn’t let you pull 11.0 without a lot of damages to the aircraft.
The trolls are not those you say they are. 😉
No YOU are wrong about the F-35C. Just like the F/A-18, it is fully 9 g capable but the USN has a policy of limiting them to 7.5 g so as to increase their service life/reduce their maintenance costs.
No actually, its structural load was also reduced for the same reasons of weight saving and it also suffer from wingdrop issues which means integration of spoilers to try to sort it out.
More weight, less performances AGAIN..
The pilot has the ability to exceed the 7.5 g soft limit & utilize the aircraft’s full 9 g flight envelope during times of war or emergency that call for it.
“War emergency” is NOT what i am taking about, i am talking about NORMAL operation with a structural load suffiscient for keeping the airframe within its lifespan, not overstres it.
But we already know that you NOT comprehend the word LIMITS and its meaning.
And ‘current generation’ WVR AAMs have NEZs that extend to most of the entire frontal hemisphere. Full sphere NEZ is a goal of ‘next generation’ AAMs. Even ‘current generation’ WVR AAMs do not require the pilot to point the nose of their aircraft at the target.
So WHAT? It doesn’t change the laws of pyisics, if it can’t pull enough g like many AIM-120 before it it will miss the target.
Think Python IV only with a bigger circle…
Think UFOs is you wish to get an AIM-120 to turn like a Python and btw it is NOT a 50 g-class AAM and F-35 is FAR from being able to go around a Typhoon or a Rafale in a turning fight.
Have nice phantasms. :diablo:
Dare2http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/12/f-22-undefeated-at-al-dhafra-2.html
Note that photos & videos from the exercise show the F-22s flew many (if not all) sorties with two 600 gal external tanks (obviously to hide their true radar signature from ‘prying eyes’) yet were still UNDEFEATED even in WVR engagements.
Oh that’s certainly VERY accurate…
Talking about pilots “with thousand of hours in their aircraft” when the most experienced 1/7 pilots have less than 500 in the Rafale and many of them actually half this number… 😎
Dare2Originally Posted by pfcem
Wrong. In the avionics, sensors, engines, et cetera of the F-22 & F-35 too are at least a half a generation ahead of those of current 4.5 generation fighters. Of course improved/upgraded varients of 4.5 generation fighters are getting newer systems edging them ever closer to (at least in SOME areas) 5th generation systems…
LOL! That’s a nice legend, actually even the Mirage 2000 mk2/9 have the same IT Core system architecture than F-35, using interferometric ECMs as well.
Rafale F-3 systems are actully newer than those fitted on the F-22 and of the same generation than that of F-35.
RBE2 AESA is newer than AN/APG/81, IR systems in Europe are of a generation above, with multicoulor and multi-bandwidth systems.
F-35 is YEARS late, this doesn’t makes the technologies used in it newer or more advanced.
Looks like reality and fiction are clashing here… :rolleyes:
Dare2More than that. Dassault Avation is owned 50.55% by Groupe Industriel Marcel Dassault (owned by the Dassault family), 46.32% by EADS, & 3.13% by other private investors. EADS is owned 11.69% by the French state, via 3 separate shareholdings, & 5.5% by the Spanish state. Proportionately, Dassault is therefore only 7.96% government-owned, & of that, 2.55% is Spanish & only 5.41% French.
If you got your figuresd right (i think you might) they still are majoritary and btw none of the non Dassault shareholders have any input in the military busines.
Dare2Does anyone have link to the NAO last major projects review please?
Cheers.
Dare2And as I said what good is one more ‘g’ when your opponent has HMS and a HOBS AAM.
As a thumb tule an AAM needs to pull 3 times the amount of g of the target in the end game to score a kill, 11.0 g would save your live, 7.0 g would kill you HMS and a HOBS AAM or not.
Dare2I thought you wanted to be my wingman…:rolleyes:
Can’t help the crabs getting to your hair if you don’t spray DTT, i didn’t call them did I?
Did i say anything to arthuro or the one talking about me in another forum?
NO, they are yaping at me calling me name accusing me of this and that and complain when they got their mouth bloodied.
So please don’t blame the tiger in the cage if he bites them when they try to pull his ears.
Dare2Dare 2, you are tiring…stop ruining all the threads and stop attacking everyone. It Will allow everyone to breath.
Please SHOW ME ruining all the threads and attacking everyone.
Lache moi le MOU, maintenant et vas te faire soigner.
Dare2In the US, in a now declassified training program.
OK I think i have heared of this Mig (or rather these Migs), like the 15 and 23s the US intel did rather well (thanks for some help) to get their hands on them…
There is this video on youtube about the Mig-21 eval but the USAF.
Perhaps it is the same aircraft?
Sign In
