The “subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get.” Beesley said.
” Block 50 F-16″ doe he give you the drag polar of the Block 50 F-16 with 4 AAMs?
Let us know when YOU understand that TWO of them are actualy NOT included into DRAG conputation (wingtips) because their drag is so nergligeable…
Should i say more than this???
What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets’ superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability.
STILL structuraly limited to 7.0, 7.5 and 9.0 Gs.
You can bring every single arguments about how maneuvrable it is according to a test pilot who NEVER actualy mention HIGH energy maneuvres appart for the 9.0 G version forgeting 9 G is the STRUCTURAL limit and other can easly over-ride this limit, up to 11 Gs.
While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor,
Most not all in particular the very high AoA obtained by the F-22 are out of reach of the F-35, naturaly, European 4th generation demonstrated AoAs between 70* to passed 100* AoA and 40 Kt negative speed.
although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases.
Of course NOT: TVC is mainly meant and USED on F-22 to compensate for the lack of pitch control at high AoA and rarefied atmoshpere.
Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor”, Beesley said.
ALMOST.
Block 50 F-16 is the best turning F-16 now?
This is new and more to it, there is no evidences that with 4 AAMs its turing abilities are so diminished as no one actualy mentions it…
AGAIN it doens’t mentions high-energy maneuvres either, involving F-35 structural limits, nor its wingload and TWR…
Really? What systems except symple missile detectors do offer Europeans for spherical coverage?
THIS.
Since the event of SAMIR on the Mirage 2000 all AdA/MN aircraft HAVE a 360X360* IR detection system, SPECTRA adds EM and LASER to it.
http://www.sagem-ds.com/pdf/en/D649.pdf
Because DAS is more than a MLD, you know. What are those systems in the pipeline, more capable than DAS?
I know DASS perhaps better than you do, i also know of its VMC limitations and this is what you are fooled by.
Adding a visualisation to an IR system of this generation doesn’t make it more advanced in terms of detection capabilties in adverse weather.
Which is the field where French companies have been working and got ahead of the US, in particular in the field of multi-band systems and pixel-powered systems where BTW French DGA programmes manages a world’s first last year…
Name a few, please. Also be so kind to name one of those “REAL” systems that is “ahead” US. Either operational or in tests.
I’m looking for the Doc but i have to remind YOU that F-35 systems were partly developed by European companies in particular BAe systems which, if they are good can hardly claim being better than SAGEM and Thales in this field.
Me too. 4.5 gen planes shoud carry the ~ 6 A-A missiles on pylons. But most of all, EF, Rafale, Grippen shoud also carry 3 EFT in order to be something else than symple point defense fighters. With those, they barelly go over 1M with A/B…
Sorry my friend you’re talking OUT of ignorance here.
A Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon actualy supercruise with AAMs and tanks, F-35 doesn’t supercruise AT ALL.
A Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon actualy fly at M 2.0 which is a M 0.4 kinetic advantage over F-35.
A Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon actualy aren’t structuraly G limited the way F-35 is…
A Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon actualy have an operational ceilling 10.000 higher.
You’re mostly uninformed i’m afraid.
What do you base such a bold claim on??? Hopefully, not the word of Carlos Kopp!:eek:
Please READ my posts.
I ONLY use official datas…
flex297 & LordAssap,
All I can do is cry at your ignorance.
SURE! I have been given many devilish names trying to explain that DESIGNED Max Mach of 1.6 meant M 1.6 and NOT M 2.2 as some people were trying to demonstrate to us.
Of course being French and sometimes not collaborative in my ways meant i was “proven wrong” untill L-M themself told another story…
Does the F-35 supercruise?
No, neither the F135 or F136 engines were designed to supercruise.
http://www.jsf.mil/contact/con_faqs.htm
SAME FOR SUPERCRUISE…
These datas are available to veryone including L-M stament of non-supercruise.
Now please would the geniuses pretending F-35 will out-turn a 9 G+ aircrafts while being STRUCTURALY limited to 7.0, 7.5 and 9.0 G explain HOW exactly they are going to get it to perform this stunt?
Here is what the F-16 was DESIGNED for, PURE turning performances at 20.000 and 40.000 ft by LWF REQUIEREMENTS; there are NO such requierements for F-35 but an expectation (quiet logical) that it will do better in A2A configuration when the F-16 will have ALL its ordonances hanging from under its wings.
As for its areodynamics i think i can READ the interogation on; “OMG! We got vertices we dont actualy know how they get there and what they do!!!”.
Did you know that L-M had to partly REDESIGN and change the fins forward beam material to a less stealthy one in order to make sure this aerodynmamic bashing wouldn’t be causing the structural strain and failures they already experience with F-18 and F-22?
I got no evidences the aircraft is BAD (as aurcov said) but like John Boyd on the FX programme, i can claim i have never designed an aircraft before but even if i try and fcuk-up i can do better….
What i KNOW for sure is that F-35 wings doesn’t generate vortex LIFT, that its leading edge is actualy NOT as swept as that of F-16, meaning a lower CRITICAL Mach as well.
Here F-22 vortex lift demonstrated…
I ALSO know that vortex lift propagates OUTWARD which is WHY the F-35 strakes doesn’t since its wings doesn’t generate vortex lift…
All of which indicates a F-35 design OPTIMISED for subsonic/low-level operation which BTW is ALSO the case for the inlets and engine.
Please before calling me name, try to prove me wrong with proper argumentation, i’m the one getting banned for “insulting” people or disruptive behavior but there is a little hitch about this methink….
The point is that many said that “stealth will compromise aerodynamics” and other BS…
IT DOES: Without TVC F-22 is limited to 29* AoA, had suffered from several structural failures have also seen several redesigns due to aerodynamic strain in the areas where this problem was realy critical. i.e. lateral panels, vertical fins and canopy (although the latest is hardy related to a stealth feature aerodynamicaly).
Yes US aircrafts looks the buziness but since F-18 they ALL encountered the same aerodynamic problems and these are perfectly documented.
This is WHY aircraft politico-industrial as well as developement history is so important, DETAILS are disclosed then which are not to be seen once the aircraft is in service, appart when several decades later, these problems creeps-up and aircframes fails in flight with catastrophic conscequences….
US designers are technologicaly advanced, a lot less when it come to pure aerodynamic, this i think is due to the advantages tghey enjoyed on the engine dpt since they didnt need to compensate for lower thrust with cleaner aerodynamics, ASK Mig, SAAB and Dassault, they know what it means…
[ATTACH]168388[/ATTACH]
A multiple shock inlet is good for speeds up to Mach 3, becomes less efficient though at above M2.5. SR-71 show solutions for such Mach numbers, but also the drawbacks. The shocks are quite sensitive and any disruption might cause a massive engine problem.
@Schorsch:
My most grateful thanks for bringing the debate to this level.
[ATTACH]168388[/ATTACH]
A multiple shock inlet is good for speeds up to Mach 3, becomes less efficient though at above M2.5. SR-71 show solutions for such Mach numbers, but also the drawbacks. The shocks are quite sensitive and any disruption might cause a massive engine problem.
@Schorsch:
My most grateful thanks for bringing the debate to this level.
Here, CRITICAL Mach explained (roughly).
I got more specific datas to show on curent European progresses, i actualy corrected this chart for the ECO…
First the result of SNECMA work on the demonstrator ECO published at F’borough in 2007.
Doc above is dated from i think 2004 or so…
They managed to fill the technologic gap they had to US manufacturers about 20 years ago in the turbine temperature dpt down to a few degrees, thanks mostly to M88, ECO and other associated programmes wit ht he help of ONERA and others…
Then a typical F-16 drag polar… Source: Nellis AFB Flight Test Centre.
Sign In
