it is said:

“And in an e-mail to Danger Room, Lockheed spokesman John Kent basically said the Pentagon tester was all wrong about the plane’s vulnerability.”

so basically, they know the results of the tests, and they say that guys who made them are wrong?

so, what you’re telling us is that when a test went wrong they said:

“no, a bullet shouldn’t come to that part, it’s a wrong test to do”

is that it?

No, the LM rep knows the results of the tests & that said results were in fact quite positive. The ‘tester’ is ignoring the vast majority of the results & emphasizing ONE area where the results were not as good.

A rather insulting remark!

Yes, I know. The truth hurts.

Look very good at this vid, at around 01.20 pfcem!!
Anyone can see the MLG deploy out in a vertically position, it may rotate just a little in the horisontal , but not much.. 20′ off vertically.

Of course they come out vertically, they have rotated from their stoed position to landing position before you are able to see them. I used to think it more likely that the wheels stoed vertically (that big ‘hole’ in the side of the intake) but look closely at the MLG arms – they stoe horizontally & at that position (height) there does not appear to be room above for the wheels if they remain vertical. My problem before with the horizontal wheel theory was it did not look as though there was room for them to rotate but in more recent pics there is a bulge in/on the door that can be seen more clearly which (to me) appears to provide the room for the wheels to rotate.

Note I am still not 100% convince either way but I am leaning more (>75%) towards horizontal (or something near horizontal) wheels.

***

Looking at the pics and other information thrown up , I do not think the complete engine fan is fully and directly exposed as its not alligned directly but it is possible and quite likely that some portion of fan engine may remain partially exposed.

Nobody is saying the complete engine face is directly exposed. But clearly >50% of it is.

***

Its not a straight line.

Yes it is. There is a striaght line (along the horizontal & vertical of level flight) from the intake to >50% of the engine face.

There definitely is some curving inside.

Nobody has said otherwise but that curving does not block hardly any of the engine face.

I seriously doubt the whole compressor face is visible.

Nobody is saying the complete engine face is directly exposed. But clearly >50% of it is.

Whatever visible parts should be taken care of by that blocker.

That is the whole point, the engine face is to be ‘shielded from radar’ by a radar blocker, not by some impossible nonalignment & s-duct.

***

I’m convinced the intakes curve up into the body, not only that, but that the curve itself contains multiple s-ducts which completely obfuscate the compressor face.

Your being ‘convinced’ of something impossible will not change reality.

***

I still don’t believe it’s the comp-face:

Then what is it?

***

6 months later and you are still talking about the compressor face?

Because there are those still wishing that reality was different.

***

This picture was taken in front of the nose, but in the video at 2:36, you can see directly into the air intakes, but no compressor is visible! It looks like the cameraman stands much closer, even besides the cockpit, so is the picture a fake again?

Its called light.

***

If they pay such attention to detail such as the cannon muzzle cover, you can bet they’ve got an effective & integrated comp-face/engine solution.

It is called a radar blocker & is not fitted to the current prototype airframes.

If that is the c-face, still less is visible than on the YF-23- hence shows a more efficient use of space.

It is. The engine face & more than twice of it is visible than is visible on the YF-23 (who’s engines ARE out of line with the intakes – only ~1/2 horizontally & ~1/4 vertically are in line with the intakes).

***

Have you ever been in front of a Super Hornet?
I have, and i can tell you that “he engine face on the SH can be seen from most frontal angles as there is no attempt taken to hide it whatsoever”.
The same exact phrase aplies to the X-32, and strangely enough on both designs the radar blocker works quite well (at least we are told so). Now i have seen at least fourt diferent Russian designs for something that in the west is called a “radar blocker”, and simple logic says if the T-50 doesnt have an Serpentine duct, it has a… radar blocker.

Exactly. But the problem is that there are those who wish to disbelieve reality & for everyone to think the engines & intakes are not in line, & that there is some s-duct.

Each BK-27 round weighs almost 3 times as much however,

2.6 times to be more precice. It could be 10 times more (which is what the WWII Bofors 40mmL70 AA shell was) & it would mean d…s… if it never hits the target.

and in a short burst the Gatling gun will not achieve this tight density either. Dispersion would likely be lower…

A 0.5 sec burst is a short burst & with the M61A1 ~1/3 of that time is at full rate.

***

Whenever we talk about these guns that fire at such high rates, it’s easy to visualize the result as resembling something like a shotgun pattern.

But it isn’t. Shotgun patterns are pretty much two dimensional with no significant length. Modern gun patterns look more like a three dimensional cylinder with the length representing the burst duration and the pattern width the dispersion….

Nice explination, aircraft gunnery is a 4 dimensional problem, 3 dimensions of space + time.

At full ROF the time difference between each projectile from a M61A1 is just 1/100th sec (100 rnds/sec) where as the time difference between each projectile from a Bk 27 is 3.53/100th sec (28.3 rnds/sec).

***

I think this is a battle of two philosophies. US designs have relied on maximum fire rate and projectile density from WWII (six .50cal). Russians or Germans rather used heavier calibers (20/30mm cannons combined with a twin 12.7mm for aiming).

Correct except for that the twin 12.7mm were NOT used for aiming, their ballistics were too different from the cannon to be of any use for that.

The US philosophy emphasizes high ROF (& ballistics) to maximize the chances of a hit/the number of hits with projectiles that in numbers are effective. The ‘European’ philosophy emphasizes greater per projectile lethality at the expense of ROF (fewer hits achieved but fewer hits required to get the job done).

Expecting a Warthog jock trained with GAU-8/A to defend or prefer the Russian or Euro concept would be a bit stretched, I suppose. But that doesn’t mean he is either right or wrong – it’s just a personal preference..

Any intellectually honest person can see & defend the relative merits (strengths/weaknesses) of either/both. Preference ultimately comes down to which strengths/weaknesses one feels is more/less important (or some emotional or other such intangible factors).

C/o Enisey (СПАСИБО!!)

Thanks for posting more images which so clearly show that I am right & you are wrong.

Sorry mods, I could not resist. 😮

*

I do say, aside from the disproportionality small wings & tail surfaces (both horizontal & vertical) which just do not ‘look’ right to me [unlike most I am able to recognize how the aircraft obtains lift, stability & control authority to compensate] she is a rather pretty bird.

On another note, see the ‘bulge’ on the MLG doors where I am now pretty well convinced make space for the gear to be stoed horizontally.

Also note how the even ever so slight difference in camera angle between the two nacells/cowlings/intakes makes such a difference in appearance. 🙂

As you claimed it before no issue for the F-35A selected by Australia. The F135-PW-100 can be run by lower ratings to achieve the lower life-cycle cost from that. 😉

No it will not. The F135-PW-100 is meeting or exceeding its requirements. Of course one COULD (since the F135-PW-100 has such excess power) run it at lower power in the hope of getting even better life-cycle cost but in reality such a comparatively small amount of an engine’s life is spent at or near max power that the potential benefits are not as great as you want everyone to believe.

***

P&W was not forbidden to increase the thrust of the F100, but all the gains from that were used to improve reliability.

Yes it was. In fact that was THE biggest issue between P&W & the DOD. P&W wanted to built more powerful variants of the F100 but the DO did not want more power, just more reliable engines with the same thrust.

But just as I posted, when P&W was finally allowed to increase the thrust of the F100, it gave us the F100-PW-229 with thrust rating similar to the F110-GE-129.

***

Do you want to kid me? Where have I said that throttle percentage is commonly used? Oh nowhere you yet repeat it the third time! Why?

No, you have a serious comprehension problem. I never said you said throttle % is commonly used. But contrary to what you keep saying 0% throttle is idle & 100% throttle is max dry/military power even for the Tornado.

I’m not denying that RPM & throttle % aren’t linear, but in your anger to play the smart guy you entirely missed the point.

I am not the one missing the point.

And as already posted this is not true for the Tornado for example where throttle settings are expressed in degrees not percentage and there is no AB1, AB2… either. You have the min RH and max RH setting in an analogue range in between.

You have a serious comprehension problem. Try again…

As already posted % throttle is not very commonly used but when it is, 0% throttle is idle & 100% throttle is max dry/military with afterburner ‘throttle/power’ given as AB1, AB2, AB3…

What else, everything else wouldn’t make sense.

But it is not correct. RMP & power are not linearly correlated.

That’s actually what I explained in my first reply to jj concerning that topic.

So why are to denying the fact then?

***

The F135-PW-600 is very special because it works as a very high-bypath engine in that configuration. Without the related details such benchmark data are just an indicator to get the desired result and showed a margin of 2,9% from the already tweaked lift-system. A more critical view will translate that into a 2,9% margin in weight-rise possible or the same weight in less favorable atmospheric conditions. 😉

In terms of the US DOD demand that an engine meet or exceed its official rating for acceptance (& that US engine manufactures commonly exceed them by a small % to be sure they do) is nothing special about the F135-PW-600 it was just the example I used as I had the actual public numbers.

By the way see the thrust-ratings of the first F100-PW-100 compared to the lower ones of the later F100-PW-220 about that, despite the benchmark claims of the first one. 😎

P&W was forbidden from increasing the thust of the F100, the F100-PW-220 was all about improved reliability. When it finally was allowed to increase the thrust of the F100 it gave us the F100-PW-229.

Certainly not for all jet engines. On the Tornado for example throttle settings are described as degrees, not as percentage that’s the reason why I asked. Might be that the US is using the common standard of percentage.

Yes for ALL jet/turbine engines! As already posted % throttle is not very commonly used but when it is, 0% throttle is idle & 100% throttle is max dry/military with afterburner ‘throttle/power’ given as AB1, AB2, AB3…

That’s certainly correct that the RPM % is usually the given indicator of thrust, but that article about the F-35 spoke about the throttle setting in percent and if it is as you say and idle would be 65% (just a guess) then the 40% throttle setting would equal a RPM of 79%.

Assuming a linear corrilation between throttle & RPM…

But the important fact is that 0% throttle is idle power, not zero power (aka engine off) & 100% throttle is max dry/military power, not max afterburner power.

Pfcem, your feeble mind obviously cannot imagine things in a 3-dimensional manner. I think I could explain this to a 10 year old better than you.

You have that backwards. I am the one ‘seeing’ this in a 3-dimensional manner – as well as putting into perspective the effects of camera angle/POV.