dark light

LmRaptor

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 832 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Someone Besides Hot Dogs's F-35 Cyber News Thread #5 #2339126
    LmRaptor
    Participant
    in reply to: Someone Besides Hot Dogs's F-35 Cyber News Thread #5 #2339201
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    Set up the equations and see for yourself.

    F=ma

    F= Thrust – Drag in level flight in newtons
    m = mass of aircraft in kg (using empty weight)
    a = acceleration in metres per second

    a = (T – D)/m

    F-35A

    Thrust: 43000lb ~ 191219N
    Mass: 13300kg

    Typhoon

    Thrust: 40000lb ~ 177879N
    Mass: 11000kg

    F-16blk50

    Thrust: 29000lb ~ 128962N
    Mass: 8267kg

    F/A-18C

    Thrust: 35500lb ~ 157867N
    Mass: 10400kg

    With this data it is easy to come up with a fairly basic acceleration performance metric. Drag is the only unknown in the acceleration equation. Therefore in excel it is possible to produce a spreadsheet where for a given reference drag (the drag the reference aircraft experiences), a competitors drag can be solved for. This is of course assuming at the reference drag, both aircraft have the same acceleration ‘ability’. This can be done for a whole range of reference drags – from zero drag (when the aircraft is on the on the ground) up till its max speed condition – where total thrust = total drag. This can be graphed (see below) to help compare aircraft level flight acceleration.

    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/405/unledbf.png/

    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/405/unledbf.png/

    In this graph I have compared, Typhoon (reference jet) to F-35, F-16blk50 and F/A-18C. Typhoon, being the reference aircraft at any drag state (horizontal axis) requires 100% of that drag for that given acceleration. Comparing F-35 to Typhoon at any given drag state the Typhoon is experiencing (on the horizontal axis), requires X % on the vertical axis of that drag (seen on the horizontal axis) to match the Typhoon for acceleration. Therefore if the Typhoon is undergoing 50,000N of drag (h-axis) – the F-35 needs to be flying with 74% of 50,000N drag to have equal acceleration to the Typhoon. This plot combined with ‘engineering judgement’ can help as a quantitative performance metric for comparing fighters. At 50,000N ~ 11000lb of drag – F-35/Typhoon requires about 11,000lb of thrust or 1/4 of the power available to them to fly straight and level. If the pilot of an F-35 or Typhoon at this condition spooled up to max thrust – do you think that in that instant the F-35 is experiencing 74% of the drag the Typhoon is? It needs to be experiencing this amount to achieve the same degree of acceleration as the Typhoon. Thats where you need to use your ‘engineering judgement’. At the same state, the F-16 needs to be flying with 66% of the drag of a Typhoon to hit the same acceleration factor. I would upload the spreadsheet but im not sure where to.

    in reply to: Air Action Over Libya (Merged) #2316140
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    Any news on F-22 deployments? The question was asked during the recent Pentagon press conference shown on Sky News. The response was inconclusive.

    in reply to: Air Action Over Libya (Merged) #2316550
    LmRaptor
    Participant
    in reply to: Air Action Over Libya (Merged) #2316586
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    Typhoons departing from RAF Coningsby

    in reply to: Air Action Over Libya (Merged) #2316589
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    Typhoon and Tornado are only now being deployed to southern Italy.

    in reply to: Air Action Over Libya (Merged) #2316655
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    Apparently they are being flown directly from the UK in a long round trip.

    in reply to: Air Action Over Libya (Merged) #2316670
    LmRaptor
    Participant
    in reply to: Air Action Over Libya (Merged) #2316679
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    including 2 B-2s

    in reply to: Air Action Over Libya (Merged) #2317841
    LmRaptor
    Participant
    in reply to: Air Action Over Libya (Merged) #2317852
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    French fighters over libyan airspace currently. According to BBC

    in reply to: Air Action Over Libya (Merged) #2318943
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    Cameron has confirmed Typhoon will be involved, possibly later today.

    in reply to: Saab JAS 39 Gripen Info # 2 #2356152
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    What you guys really need to understand is the dynamic performance of the engines and the intake systems. As madrat was saying unless you know this evaluating drag at supersonic speeds using static/sea level thrust is absolutely pointless. There are big design variations in inlet pressure for similar performing engines due to decisions made my the engineers. That however doesn’t translate into being able to calculate the relative drags of the two airframes and therefore there respective accelerations etc. You would need a scaling algorithm. After my design project last year with airbus and rolls royce on relatively simple inlet designs for 30000~50000 lbf engines and seeing the actual data – you would realise you can’t compare things the way you are doing.

    Also its good to see that you realise drag still increases after the transonic cd rise – because of the velocity squared parameter being a non linear increase in drag.

    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 4 #2360856
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    -10% for a static margin isn’t all that fantastic. The EF is said to have -35% subsonic, neutral around Mach 1.4.

    Do you have a source for this?

    in reply to: counter stealth: the way forward for Europe? #2360879
    LmRaptor
    Participant

    your engine thrust a constant number with speed?

    No as I have said I scaled the thrusts for both altitude and speed by looking at parametric data for advanced military turbofans in the 30000lb thrust class at in static sea level conditions. I am aware that the data in the public domain is likely referring to uninstalled values of thrust.

    The results show that there is a cross over from the F-16s superior T/W ratio to the F-35As superior T/D ratio, in terms of being the most relevant aspect affecting the acceleration factor a = (T-D)/W, as the speed increases. This holds true for the assumption that the clean F-16 is ~70% less draggy than the F-35A at a given altitude and speed in 1g level flight. If the F-16s drag is more than 70% it widens the operational range where the F-35A has an acceleration advantage. At 70% it is fairly limited.

    It can be verified by a thrust/drag ratio of the two jets.

    F-35 vs. F-16
    43000/X = 29000/(0.7*X)

    0.7*43000*X = 29000*X

    30100X>29000X

    The actual value is 0.674 meaning the F-16 needs lower than 67.4% of the drag of the F-35 to achieve a better T/D ratio in a given condition. From looking at the jets I don’t think a clean F-16 experiences less than 67.4% of the F-35s drag. I believe the margin is quite a bit more favourable to the F-35 which means there will be conditions where the F-35 does indeed out accelerate the F-16 and some where it doesn’t. So I can completely understand what the pilots are telling us.

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 832 total)