LmRaptorThis may come as a shocker but their audience isn’t the public, it’s the militaries that are going to buy it. And they get the real numbers.
That’s a point that seems all to elusive these days – I find it comical at how insistent the press are that they should get answers to such questions – mabye it’s time they fell from their high horses.
LmRaptorHere is Beesley’s quote: “Comparisons to the F-22 Raptor are unfair as “supersonically, the Raptor is in a class by itself. It lives there,” Beesley explained. “In many ways the Raptor is the first true supersonic fighter,” Beesley added, referring to that aircrafts’ much publicized and unique supersonic cruise capability. “
LmRaptorI disagree. Beesley mentions nothing about ‘fully loaded F-22’, he mentions simply F-22 and I am sure he would not skip such important detail. That’s something you have just invented..
Besides that, he specifically says that F-35 (and thus F-16C B50 as well) come very close to F-22 at ‘higher speed portions of the flight envelope’. If what you stated was correct, then F-16 could actually be superior to F-22 at lower speeds. I am not saying it is but that would be the logical conclusion from your and Beesley’s claims..
:rolleyes: Lol Flex I’m not talking about Beesley’s quote! It’s been said by numerous pilots from front line fighter pilots such as Michael Shower to Paul Metz and the test pilot crowd. If you had followed the program from the prototype in 1997 enough you would have picked up the statements directly stating this – but that is not my fault – nor is it my job to drag up the quotes found in code one/the stealth fighter website/the media reports found in the FTD site/or the fencecheck stuff that got removed. Additionally in one of the FTD reports on the F-35 – Beesley or another test pilot was asked to compare the jet to the F-22 in supersonic regime and he said something along the lines of you can’t really compare it to the F-22 which was made for that environment – and is superior. I can’t be ar$ed to find the quote itself for you – if someone else does fair enough but it’s in one of the recent press releases.
I also want to say as a sidenote, I must admit I find you a bit hypocritical Flex. Not that I really care or that you really care :). But telling others that you’re skeptical of using LM test pilots as gospel since they are expected to tow the party line – while you use the same quote to make numerous digs at the F-22 without using your critical faculties. That for me is cheap, and while I can understand you and your frustrations by being swamped with LM fanboys – who make silly statements and claim things like Beesley’s statement equates to the F-35 having top end maneuverability. But honestly you come across innately as bad as them on the other end of the spectrum.
LmRaptorI think you have a decent understanding of what you are talking about – but you are getting confused to a degree or there may be a lot lost in translation. Basically hysteresis is an effect that you don’t really want experience. It’s not an effect that equates to the benefits you have laid out – this is basically what it is: it is the “strange” delay of flow attachment over the wing with respect to AoA after the flow has seperated. This means that a wing can be hysteric i.e. “stalled” at the same AoA it would also be producing maximum lift if the flow was attached prior to its change in AoA.
What I think your source’s are trying to say is that the increase in lift generated by the vortices interacting with the wing are alleviating the negative affects of encountering hysteresis. This would be very true and useful for the low speed low altitude regime – but much less important for high speed supersonic performance as you just don’t reach those AoAs up high and at those speeds if you are a sensible pilot (in an older jet) or if you have an FCS (in a newer jet).
LmRaptorDAS is very useful CommanderJB – especially when you’re not working in tandem with AWACs or other supporting assets. Pop up threats are the biggest realistic threats to Eurocanards and F-35 due to the probable tactics employed by these systems.
LmRaptorCan you elaborate on what your trying to say about hysteresis?
LmRaptorLord – please take this on board – I think it will help. Honestly you could be a very good contributor to a forum if you were a bit more organised with your responses. You have bookmarked and compiled some fantastic sources. If you stopped going off on tangents to the topics discussed – and everyone is to blame for that to a degree but you are one of the worst – it would be a lot more digestable for most.
Cheers
Dan
LmRaptorAnd ber a sitting duck because its lower performances will have degraded further when their opponent will be at the RIGHT ceilling.
Whats are known advantages for F-22, higher cruising speed and ceiling are ALSO valid advantages for more performant aircrafts over F-35.
Im not disputing that lol – I don’t need a techie fan to illustrate this to me – I study the subject as part of a masters degree at one of the better institutions for the subject.
All I am saying is the F-35 will be able to fly at 50 kft. It won’t have the performance level the EF or the Rafale will have up there as there is no doubting the EF/Rafale will have superior top end KE + PE performance. And despite what the general public think – there is still a lot of dynamic performance gain over what we saw in the 80s – mabye not so much in terms of absolute performance gains.
Which is a good case for the fact that the EF will form the core of the RAFs Air Superiority missions and not the F-35 – which is not an aircraft optimised for Air Superiority/Dominance role. There will be cases where the F-35s LO in the forward sector trumps the EF and Rafale despite their performance advantages – but with well flown EF/Rafale who can exploit the lower aspect VLO – then the EF/Rafale should come out top. Therefore in more dynamic situations of 4 F-35 vs 4 EF – the F-35s VLO advantages shrink. This is not the case with the F-22 – which combines top end performance with all aspect VLO and a price tag that is out of this world.
LmRaptorThe point Assap is – almost any aircraft can break their operational ceiling with optimised climb profiles. The F-35 has a The F-22 was officially limited to 50kft during its equivalent SDD – now its flying well above 60kft – you don’t always need official data to utilise your critical faculties. It is apparent from looking at the stats – the F-35 with F135 will have sufficient L/D ratio to support flight up in 50kft region.
LmRaptorFlex with regard to the clean F-16 with full internal fuel – its subsonic acceleration is relatively close to that of a fully loaded F-22 at lower altitudes obviously. At supersonic speeds the F-22 starts to blow the F-16 away acceleration wise, and it gets worse the higher they go. The EF will probably have similar subsonic and supersonic acceleration – to the Raptor – but not with the drop tanks it needs to get the same range. Additionally – the higher up they go the more it favours the F-22.
LmRaptorLol Assap I hope you don’t believe the F-35 is limited to 30,000 ft – there is no reason to believe it can’t reach 50,000 ft. It is optimised for 30,000 ft operations – and it will feel much more at home in that region but to believe its not capable of reaching 50kft or higher shows your critical faculties are failing you.
LmRaptorLol Assap I hope you don’t believe the Eurocanards are capable of sustained AoAs of 70 deg – something the F-22 is capable of. Their instantaneous AoAs performance might be there or even greater – when not FCS limited – but their sustained performance and operational performance will be in and around the 30 deg mark. If the F-22 had no TVC it would have similar AoA performance to the Eurocanards.
LmRaptorI was reading APA earlier today and came across that very article – its a very interesting read and it supports the original F-35 design philosophy of lower aspect affordable stealth (LO) – to come after the (VLO) B-2 and F-22 had paved the way against the top end threats. Additionally the F-22 incorporated the VLO with top end potential and kinematic energy, making it the most survivable platform in the US inventory – hence the higher price. The claims APA make about the superiority of the AN/ALR-94 and the claim that ARM tactics to defeat SAMs are in their twighlight years are interesting. The Radar & AN/ALR-94 claim hightlights the fact that against RF threats – especially top end ones – the F-22 will have superior SA.
LmRaptorI was reading APA earlier today and came across that very article – its a very interesting read and it supports the original F-35 design philosophy of lower aspect affordable stealth (LO) – to come after the (VLO) B-2 and F-22 had paved the way against the top end threats. Additionally the F-22 incorporated the VLO with top end potential and kinematic energy, making it the most survivable platform in the US inventory – hence the higher price. The claims APA make about the superiority of the AN/ALR-94 and the claim that ARM tactics to defeat SAMs are in their twighlight years are interesting. The Radar & AN/ALR-94 claim hightlights the fact that against RF threats – especially top end ones – the F-22 will have superior SA.
LmRaptorI don’t pay much attention to James Stevenson – his work is full of factual errors aswell as contradictions – his one chart shows the F-22 capable of supercruising at Mach 1.5 at 50kft – his next says it can’t do Mach 1.5 any higher than 45kft – he uses reference wing area as a a metric of measuring performance – yet the F-22s highest lift generating surfaces don’t even fall under its reference wing area – his thrust values are likely to be wrong – and he fails to understand dynamic TWR. He is not privy to any real data – he is an analyst with an agenda – one that over-simplifies things far to much – I wonder if he has any technical qualifications. If pilots are correct and their statements are true the F-22 should be supercruising at Mach 1.5+ at over 50000 ft.
Sign In
