Cola1973Just ask the Brits how a low penetration strategy worked during desert storm.
and that was nearly 20 years ago. Low level penetration is a cold war relic.You either need stealth or escort jamming so you can stay at high or medium alt and take advantage of weapon range.
Well, coalition forces lost six Tornados indeed, but they busted an airfield, no US plane dared to approach within 50 kilometers.
Where were F117s and other US hightech, then?
It may be good to learn the parameters of that particular action and what Iraqis actually have fielded there, before making such ridiculous claims.
Cola1973Common, stop this!
It may be true that pfcem voices opinions rather strongly. That these are in contradiction to what many seam to think does not by default mean that he is wrong in everything and it is not a reason to make fun of him.
Well the trouble is, pfcem calls Sec.Def.Gates “an idiot“, too?! (apologies to mr.Gates)
AZll this bad news is realted to finances and delay, there are no such negative comments on capability yet.
Unfortunately, not so.
Just check recent self-sealing valves (and fire susceptibility) issue.
The plane had to be significantly redesigned twice, so far.
That points to serious construction problems, which may or may not be solved, but we’ll never know whether it was KPP that got adjusted to the airframe, or the airframe fulfilled original KPPs, once it gets operational…
Cola1973What is the use of a Su-35BM or Rafale without weapons?
This is common “argument”, but really isn’t an argument.
Su47 carries internal weapons and has canards f.e.
We’re discussing canard/tail difference, not internal vs. external carriage (which isn’t as dramatic as popularly portrayed either).
At the same weight with weapons the F-22 is more aerodynamically efficient than any 4th generations with weapons.
Well, that depends on what “aerodynamically efficient” is?
Is it drag area, drag coeff, drag induced by lift, or what?
The F-22 with tailplanes also was designed to have less drag see this aspect.
The X-36 has a wide space from wing to canard but the F-22 does not affect the wing.
At same TWR the F-22 supercruises the F-15 can that proves you is more aerodynamically effcient
Yes well, you’re making a common mistake here.
Top speed in level flight is unrelated to T/W ratio, but total installed thrust at that moment and the drag.
This is because plane’s weight is supported by wings, not engines and engines need to overcome the drag, primarily.
So, F15 has ~15t of dry thrust at SL, compared to ~25t in F22.
At altitude, F15’s thrust drops off dramatically, compared to F22’s and the gap widens even further.
Cola1973The F-22 is aerodynamically efficient and it carries no external clutter in the form of weapon pylons, missiles or fuel tanks.
The F-15 does carry a lot of external clutter and same is the Su-35BM or the Eurofighter and Rafale.
the amount fo drag produced by the weapons pylons will degrade greatly the performance.
Well, this is largely a speculation.
F22 is as aerodynamically efficient, as the the airframe’s LO features allow.
We’re discussing airframe drag here, not weapons influence.
Anyway, we know that common (not Silent Eagle) F15’s top speed with 4 MRAAMs is ~M2.4 (out of ~M2.5) and with additional pair of Mk84s on wing pylons ~M2.2 and all that with ~0.68 times SL thrust of an F22, which looses thrust less than F15, with altitude increase.
Cola1973The F-22 is no F-15, first its drag is minimal…
No, it’s not.
Compare it to Sears–Haack body.
F22’s drag is significantly reduced, but in comparison with F117.
…this multiplies its thrust and lift.
Not quite.
For two similar wings, the draggier is usually a more lifting one (due larger thickness), thus providing more lift.
and even at the same TWR and wing loading the F-15 will be drag burdened while the F-22 won`t, the F-22 in that fact has more lift and thrust available.
Well, I’m pretty sure if you stick a pair of F119s into F15, you might well get ready for a light jump.
Cola1973em745,
“alpha limit” is an angular value, at which the wing stalls and is dependent on wing’s camber configuration.
Today we have FCS’ which make transition to post-stall flight (more/less) seamless, thus “extending” the envelope, but only artificially.
In such “extended” flight, you can’t pull g, roll, or pretty much anything else required for aerial combat, but fly (more/less) straight and so is used to provide a buffer for FCS and ensure carefree handling, not fighting.
A skillful pilot could do that very same thing on servo controls, theoretically.
You can’t compare F18’s and F16’s LERX with Tomcat’s wing glove.
The function is different.
Now, as for F18EF producing more lift than eurocanards at 40° alpha, you’re heavily speculating here and are, very likely, completely wrong.
From what is publicly released, all planes involved, use wings as major lift contributors, in which case low AR deltas might actually still be (at least, partially) non-stalled at ~40°, while F18’s high AR wing (F18) is long stalled, thus leaving the plane hanging on whatever alternative means of lift (body, engine, etc…), it manages to provide.
Wings are important. This is why planes have them and claiming the plane is able to exercise control authority on all three axes with stalled wings, is well…to put it mildly…wrong.
Cola1973EF: low aspect, 52°, canard, ~30° AoA
F-18: high aspect, ~27° wing sweep, LERX, ~40° AoA
BTW #1, the F-16’s low-ish 25° has more to do with its intake geometry/placement than anything.
BTW #2, whatever happened to alpha limits only being good for airshows? (Directed at the pro-canard crowd in general.)
I’ve asked if you could provide a data on those alphas, but in context and you haven’t.
LERX is LERX. It’s not a wing,
Again, those numbers of yours are likely reversed.
In a nonstalled flight, F18’s alpha limit is likely to be somewhere between 25° and 30°, while Eurocanards, M2000 and F22 (unrealated to canard), may go up to 35°.
BTW1: No, but that’s different story…
BTW2: Alpha limit is alpha limit. It’s not good or bad…it’s just what it is, a limit.
Maybe because they’re BETTER than canards at increasing AoA limits and in adding to overall lift?
LERX’ vortex isn’t there for adding lift, in the first place.
Examine where do F16’s and F18’s LERX’ blow.
Cola1973In fact the F-14 won`t need higher AoA with the swept forward wings at landing because it has enough lift but with the wings swept back you will need higher AoA in order to get the same lift.
True, but this is now the opposite of with what you said in post #281.
Cola1973IF your statement was true them explain why a F-14 will have a low sweep when it touches down?
To reduce approach alpha, i.e. increase lift coefficient for the same alpha.
The Delta produces a vortex that well used can allow for extra lift but have you see why the Tu-144 uses a canard when landing?
And by the way the Vortices are produced in a double delta wing which basicly are a delta with a LERX, a Cranked delta wing will have even better lift and AoA handling, in order to have better lift in a highly sweep wing canards or compound wings are used.
You’re mixing things here, a bit.
LERX’ vortex and wing’s leading edge vortex, are two separate things and are used for different purposes.
You can’t equalize them, just for both being a vortex.
This is why I asked why bringing LERX here…
Cola1973Please do not misunderstand me, canards are okay they do improve wing flow and AoA behavior, but the Mirage III for example has a delta wing, this was improved with a canard in the Kfir, the delta wing has the disadvantage of being easy to stall at relatively low AoA, the canard improve the low pressure flow above the delta wing, making it to have better AoA handling.
Ok, this isn’t directly related to the topic, but now you’ve been plain wrong.
Delta wings have higher alpha limit than higher aspected short chord wings, like F16’s f.e.
F22 got diamond wing (low AR, long chord wing) not only to increase it’s alpha limit, but to enhance maneuverability in post stall regime, due mild stall characteristics (M2000), compared to high AR wings (A10).
Why keep bringing LERX into this discussion?
What does the LERX has to do with canards?
(Those NASA drawings of yours should be taken with caution, since those aren’t particularly accurate and may cause confusion)
Cola1973I’m not saying the Typhoon can’t carry all that. I’d just like to see where it says that 750nm combat radius is with that particular load out.
Kid, don’t troll/LOL
It says AG attack and I’ve shown you the list of AG configurations, all of which are significantly heavier than anything F35C can carry internally.
Now, if I was you, I could go ahead and troll about EF doing this on internal fuel only, since the text nowhere says, that EF uses tanks for those ranges, does it?
Anyway, all this is immaterial since you lost the argument as early as on mission profile, so even if we assume the EF somehow carried similar loadout (it’s not possible to arm EF so poorly, though) to F35C, it’ll outrange F35 by even a larger margin, with tanks.
Just let me remind you of your original claim and I’d like to see actual proof to support your argument.
For the time being, it seems F35A with tanks can’t outrange EF even with 2 tanks only, which is rather funny since EF isn’t known for having long legs.
Cola1973I’d love to see the source for 8 AAMs and 4 A/G weapons, and achieving that range.
LOL…
http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.php
http://www.airpower.at/flugzeuge/eurofighter/technik-daten.htm
Weapon loadouts…
http://www.eurofighter.com/et_sr_mc_sw.asp
That’s 18nm further on internal fuel, than the Typhoon on internal fuel, and 2 EFTs.
LOL, Wrightwing. Just as I thought and wrote in my previous post.
Reread attack profile paragraph of my last post, although I don’t imagine it’ll make much difference since you obviously didn’t understand it, the first time…
I mean, this is getting funny, watching you trying to “interpret” the figures for us. 😀
Seriously man, you don’t have a clue…
Cola1973The Typhoon’s combat radius is ~750nm with 2 tanks, so it’s close.
Wrightwing, EF’s AG radius is 750nm, BUT on a high-LOW-high profile and full weapon loadout (6-8 AAMs and 2-4 AG weapons plus 2 tanks).
F35C computer game’s radius is 768nm, BUT for a high-HIGH-high profile and 2 AMRAAMs and 2 JDAMs.
EF is M1.3 capable in QRA (2 tanks) configuration, on dry power alone.
You don’t even have an idea, of what you’re talking about, do you?
What matters in your little world, is that F35C’s (F35A’s imaginary friend) figure is 18nm larger than EF’s, doesn’t it?? 😀 …seriously, go learn anything about planes. 😉
Cola1973Check out slide 13
LOL Wrightwing, so how did you figure, F35 has longer range on internal fuel than EF with tanks, from this document? 😀
Cola1973More data from material you examined long ago and under copyright?
Wrightwing, cmon and be a sport…just leave this board.
Sign In
