OK, I’ll bite, what is the combat radius of the Rafale with that load, then?
And how is that relevant to the F-35?

OK, what is the maximum g-load under such conditions?
And, again, how is that relevant to the F-35?

Yawn… How is that relevant to the F-35, please, remind me..

I’d love to have your problems, dude.. Is THAT it?

Picard’s figures for the Rafale are pulled from thin air, since none of it is confirmed or referenced anywhere else. His analysis of aerodynamics is rather naive with some fundamental misunderstandangs, to put it politely. If he is willing to pull out nonsense from thin air, it affects his credibility and makes his aviation analysis highly questionable.

Since day one i always thought IR was the weak point in T-50 ‘s design. I think with cowlings + the aerosol system (in a way similar and yet very different from YF-23’s solution) will get them there.

I believe I saw a diagram where it appears to have a ring of injectors near the base of the nozzle. But since I can’t read Russian I didn’t get to read about how it’s exactly supposed to work. Does someone want to translate? Do they pump refrigerated air through those injectors for cooling, or something else? I’d imagine that there’d be a bit of a drag penalty since it increases boundary layer back there.

For those railing on single engine issues, what’s the accident rate of the F-16C Block 50/52 compared to, say, F/A-18E/Fs? How many of those are due to engine problems?

Here is the statement from another pilot that debunked previous conclusions:

Lt.Col. Mike Showers debunked nothing from Paul Metz. Metz stated that the F-22 will climb at supersonic speed, he didn’t say it was vertical. That was a beginner’s mistake made by some fanboy on f-16.net. In fact both Showers and Metz agreed that the F-22 can gain altitude without using the Rutowski climb profile.

He says that fully loaded F-22 (fuel and weapons) would brake every time to climb record!
…
He claims that he would break every time to climb record that way with fully loaded F-22

Also, don’t put words in Showers’ mouth. His statement is this.

unofficially according to the engineers I would have ended up around 65+ thousand feet on that day and broke every time to climb record we could think of for category & weight class — and oh by the way, that wasn’t a Streak Eagle or Flanker stripped down bare with weight removed, no external stores for combat configuration, etc., that was in a stock, off the line F-22, full of gas, combat configured with the internal weapons bay full – as an Eagle guy previous I was absolutely astonished, I hope someday we go after the official records because this jet will likely crush most of them.

Showers said that he believes the F-22 would likely beat official records, he never stated that it would be done with full fuel load, or that those records would be in the Streak Eagle or P-42 weight class. He was astonished by the F-22’s climb compared to a similarly loaded F-15, his analogy to the Streak Eagle and P-42 is that the F-22 can achieve impressive climb without modifications, he did not state that the F-22 in that configuration would beat those particular records.

As for the initial acceleration from runway to subsonic, the Streak Eagle’s immense thrust-to-weight will offset the aerodynamic advantages of the F-22. Only near the transsonic and supersonic will things begin to shift in favor of the Raptor. And for airshow performance, weight does matter. For the same g that you pull, higher weight means greater stresses. That being said, I believe structurally, the F-22 is supposed to be rated for 9 g even in full fuel load. The F-22’s airshow is done with full fuel due to the potential need to divert to a nearby airbase if something goes wrong.

Last I heard, 710 was testing izd.129 (which allegedly is the izd.30 low-pressure compressor). Any updates on what it’s testing now?

You are wrong. For supersonic aircraft, this angle is very important.
Braking flow in the intake passage with the “oblique” and “direct jumps”. The angle of the air intake is selected depending on the estimated airspeed.

Estimated speed of flight of F-22 M = 1.5

[ATTACH=CONFIG]244579[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]244578[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]244580[/ATTACH]

Wow, you’re mistaken. There you go again with your side view angles. You do realize that the F-22’s intake (and the T-50’s, for that matter) is swept in 3 axes. So your 2D theta-beta-M oblique shock relations aren’t accurate. And even then, you didn’t even measure angle of the free stream with respect to the cowl lip? Go review your basic compressible flow.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]245761[/ATTACH]

Because the T-50 and F-22 are dimensionally similar. I’ve provided frontal views of both the F-22 and T-50 side by side, both are from official sources (from USAF, and from Sukhoi patent, respectively), and their frontal areas are almost the same. You’ll also noticed that I said frontal area, not cross-sectional area being similar. That being said the tandem weapon bays of the T-50 means that theoretically, it’s Amax should be lower than the F-22, which translates to better fineness ratio, which is beneficial for form and wave drag. I’ve even pointed this out in my earlier post. I’ve also noted that while the F-22 has larger vertical stabs, the T-50’s larger reference wing area, separate nacelles, and SRAAM protrusions mean that their overall wetted area may be quite similar. The T-50’s smaller all moving stabs has added benefit of providing excellent directional control and allows the aircraft to be directionally unstable (though the mounting and actuators for such all moving surfaces are generally heavier).

Note that I didn’t make any definitive statement about drag for either aircraft. In fact, if anything I believe the T-50 is overall more aerodynamically advanced than the F-22, precisely for the reasons I listed above (and before this post). I simply find certain poster’s attempts to amp up the T-50’s speed performance based on laughable metrics such as “it looks sleeker” or simply using side view nose angle to be ridiculous.

You just said that the tunnel on the Flanker and T-50 produce more drag.
I countered it with compairing the F-15C and the Flanker, where the Flanker tunnel does not seem to hold it back in sub speed, transonic speed or higher mach speed.
My point being, the drag effect from the tunnel is very small and there is other aerodynamics parts that have a greater impact between the two.

You do realize that lift and drag aren’t constant in your maneuver envelope right? L/D changes with your lift and AOA. The Su-27 can have better L/D than the F-15 in high G turning conditions, but in cruise and dash, the F-15C even with -220 engines accelerates quite a bit faster than a Flanker. I recommend picking up a book on aircraft flight performance.

T-50 is Mach 3+ and closer to 80k ceiling class fighter.

:stupid: :stupid: :stupid: :stupid: :stupid: :stupid:

JSR’s delusion is unstoppable.

The nose-cone and the maximum speed of the aircraft 😉

[ATTACH=CONFIG]244561[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]244562[/ATTACH]

Wow, great. Nose angles for max speed. In which case the Su-34 must go 2700 km/h. :eagerness:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]244563[/ATTACH]

But thats not whats being argued! The argument is, and was, that the F-35 cant do High AOA under normal circumstances, and under control. The argument at 1st was that we had no video proof that the F-35 could Do high alpha. I proved that wrong.
Then the goal post moved to “Well, its only falling” I proved that wrong. A few people are purposely trying to hang up the argument on the purpose of the test, ignoring the fact that in order to get there then pilot has to command the plane. This is why these discussions get so ugly. The pro-F-35 crowd is fed up with intellectually dishonest individuals *Looks at toocool*.
And please lets not start name calling and making this ugly. You have no clue about my profession. Youve never had to use force on bad guys, or shoot them or fight them hand to hand, or deal with a riot. Dealing with criminals requires, a level of intelligence that people with multiple degrees cant comprehend.

Wasn’t it you trying to argue that the F-35 was doing a J-turn? No videos have demonstrated that happening so far. That’s not to say that the F-35 can’t be effective at high AOA. It seems that software updates since the January 2015 flight test report have made the F-35 very effective in that arena. That said, there’s also a difference between high AOA control, and maintaining high AOA in level flight. Somehow you seemed to have comically failed to distinguish between the two. High AOA simply means the aircraft attitude is at a high angle relative to its velocity vector, and that vector can be pointed in any direction. For testing it’s not necessary to always have it level.

Your profession has nothing to do with your understanding of aviation or aircraft, and so far you’ve demonstrated a rather blatant lack of understanding of even the basics of aviation. Funny how you accuse people of ignoring evidence, yet you yourself readily throw out and dismiss whatever evidence you don’t like.

Back to the F-35, the report suggests that it fights more like an F-18 classic Hornet rather than an F-16, i.e. more on high AOA rather than energy, which is consistent with other pilot reports coming out. I believe the best analogy for the F-35 is that it flies like an F-18 with better acceleration, which would make it quite dangerous in dogfighting, just like the Hornet. Does it have the best aerodynamics? No, it probably can’t maintain energy like an air-to-air configured F-16 or Eurocanard, or the F-22 and T-50. But the F-35 won’t be any less dangerous in a dogfight due to it’s AOA capabilities and nose pointing, as well as HOBS missiles. It and the F-18 probably has some of the best high AOA capabilities among Western fighters short of the F-22, and a smart F-35 pilot will fly to his aircraft’s strengths and be very effective.

A pilot’s testimony is not more “evidence” than eyewitness report about an alien abduction.
Especially with LM’s well established history of ordering both test and frontline pilots what to say exactly about the aircraft and what not.

I find this rather hilarious. So is the Janurary 2015 report highlighting the F-35’s troubles during its dogfighting exercises also not evidence? And what about pilot accounts of other aircraft like F-22, Rafale, Flankers? As if operational pilots are somehow coerced by LM to say what they want even if their national security is at stake? And somehow of any of the many pilots that have flown the F-35 who have dissenting opinion are silenced? But no wait, LM corruption so stronk! :rolleyes: This bordering on conspiracist. Your arguments remind me of creationists blathering “were you there?” to dismiss anything they don’t like to hear.