bloodshot, tell me, why do you think the instantaneous value is related with the service ceiling.

There are configurations that get better instantaneous value than the F-16, like the mirage series, int. value is basically the rate of how fast the energy is bleeding

Check again where is the max 1g for sustained height, between the sustained and inst. value

Cola, i did post another chart for the F-16A must be somewhere around, i deleted it since i got a new HD, but the image must be on the forum, if you intrapolate the value should be around 3.5g’s at 30000ft, close or same for 22’s value.

bloodshot, check the Cola’s graphic, check where is the 1g envelopment and check where is the practical ceiling for the 16.

Well, to put into a simple way, the second chart is the right comparation, while the first seems to be just made up or is just a badly done mixture of graphics

There are 2 basic EM charts for planes in general, the sustained and instantaneous chart, the sustained has lower values than the instantaneous one, so, for example a plane that could make an inst. 7 gs at X height could just do 3 gs at that heigh

The sustained value is what really matters, as you pointed out, to know at which height should be the practical ceiling.

But 5 instantaneous gs at 15000m is nothing extraordinary

I really don’t know if the F-15 g envelopment is done with fuel tanks, but it should be way more symmetric with the “F-22” line if would be a fair comparation.

If that would be the case, then we are just facing another case of nice comparations, like i said before, on exercises people compare loaded planes vs “loaded” planes, and draw their comparations of height performance.

If you want to compare instantaneous g- charts you will find most planes have almost the same performance, instantaneous g depends on starting conditions, and is not that critical on aerodynamics or engine’s performance (although are still important)

If the F-15 would have been with tanks, the graphic should most likely have a straight vertical line on the right end (for the F-15 line)

For height performance, what really matters is the sustained g envelopment, the F-16, for example, theoretically can do 1g instantaneous at 85000 ft but nobody is claiming it has such service ceiling.

For both, the F-22 and the F-16, the value of 3 g’s at 10000m is pretty close, so would not be surprising if both have the same max. practical service ceiling.

This is floating around the internet…..

Oh look, the awesome F22 should do 1g maneuver at 30000m… 5gs at M2 and 20000m , hahaha!

Come on, the chart is bull****…

Until now, i have not seen neither proper equipment for the pilots to do 5 gs at 20000m! which should basically kill you, with all these super performances the 22 should have a least 100 world’s records..

There is other value, comparing requirements and goals , and that give 3 sustained g’s at 10000 m..

I think the key here is the lack of suits for stratospheric missions.

Is obvious the plane was no meant for such very high altitude profile, while probably is cruising at 15000m with it thiny weapon load, while the F-15s were cruising at 8000-10000m with their ETs and a decent weapon load.

Other than that, the value of 3g’s for an height of 10000m (a very conventional value) is showing the Raptor is not that awesome as most of it supporters believe.

Add to that the fact that the F-22’s cost is still artificially high due to insanely low production numbers (the cost is/was still dropping)

Well, the Raptor is under production right now, is not like they would start the production from nothing, the deal with that new order was to produce them while the line is running , so there is not a real argument there

I think the new F35s will have a moderate cost, what will be interesting is how the 35 will be bashed because will end with a similar cost of the “cheap” Raptor…but the reallity could be that the real cost of the raptor was higher, but at that time i guess thousands of books have already printed the cheaper raptor “fact”…

why drag this back up?

Sorry i just was performing my first thread resurrection :D…..no seriously, just happens that i was looking for a info about something in the naval section, and this thread just popped out 🙂

Were inflight RCS tests done for the X32/35 program?

The 32 in general is bashed for it “ugly” appearance….something that i find childish, anyway is probably that in some JSF parameters the 32 performed better, would be interesting to know more about that program, what i know is that the 35 won the contract because it successul VTOL system, but regarding g- envelopment, acceleration, AoA, etc, i know very little, remember that, for example the 32 had better wing area, and higher leading edge aspect ratio

Wonder if the exhaust’s pallets were a simpler design/solution than the LM one

One question, how can we compare the internal volume of the weapon’s bay, i mean, between the 35 and 32, for me it seems the 32 had a larger bay, but i’m not sure