pfcemIs there a source to confirm this for the F-35 in particular?
It is not particular to the F-35/F135 but a well known fact of all jet/turbine engines since their inception.
***
The EJ200 engine has a peace-time rating of 60/90 kN and a wartime-rating of >70/>100 kN for the cost of much lower service intervalls.
The present F135 is tweaked to a max of ~180 kN already when the F119 offers ~156 kN. The life-time cost in mind most of the F119s/F135s will deliver less than the claimed max ratings in peace-time operations.
Where do you make this crap up?
Here is a clue (since you are so clueless) the thrust ratings for US engines are numbers which the engines MUST meet in order to be accepted by the DOD/USAF/USN/USMC (think KPP THRESHOLD). Just to give one example, the F-35B’s F135-PW-600 is rated at 39,400 lbs hover thrust but has already demonstrated 40,550 lbs (2.9% over).
***
55-65% rpm is quite common for idle, the Pegasus being a notable exception.
I’ve always seen the power of an a/c engine expressed as % rpm, overal pressure ratio or Px thrust never as a percentage of throttle movement.
Those are the constants, not position of the throttle.
Robert is correct – % throttle setting is not typically used (% max rpm or power being most common) but when it is used, 0% throttle = idle rpm/power & 100% = max dry/military rpm/power.
pfcemGAU-8 (30x173x44) is 425 gm @ 988 m/s = 207,000 joules
Gsh (30x165x40) are 390 gm @ 860 m/s = 144,000 joules
***
Let’s just wait up until he realizes that Bk27 is a revolver cannon, not a Gatling 🙂
Try reading what I posted about the Bk27 before continuing to make such a fool of yourself.
***
I believe he already knew/knows its a revolver & I was thinking why is it the only non-American gun in his list, but I’ll give him the benifit of the doubt. My question was was why doesn’t he buy into the BK27’s performance and why did he say it fires 1800rpm and not 1700rpm when its obious to everyone with a clue that it actually fires 1700rpm.
His reply(s) will be interesting as always…
Try reading what I posted about the Bk27 before continuing to make such a fool of yourself.
Again, I was giving the Bk27 the ‘benefit of the doubt’ & putting it into the best possible light using 1800 rds/min even though (as I posted) there are just as many sources which say it is 1700 rds/min & assuming it achieves instantaneous full ROF. If I were to have instead used the (I believe) more likely 1700 rds/min & a less than instantaneous (but stil very fast) ‘spool up’ to full ROF its 0.5 & 1 sec burst would be ‘just’ ~13 & ~27 rounds respectively instead of the ~15 & ~30 rounds I posted.
***
It’s the only non-american gun becuase the Giat-30-M791 performs even better.
No, it is the only non-rotary/gatling gun because the Bk27 is the revolver cannon that revolver cannon fans most commony sight when making thier case for the revolver cannon’s supposed superiority over the rotary/gatling.
But since YOU brought up the Giat-30-M791, it fires ~20 rounds in a 0.5 sec burst & ~40 rounds in a 1 sec burst (at max ROF).
pfcemTHEN FIND IT! My life does not revolve around keeping tabs on crap around this forum. You clearly seem to know where it is.:rolleyes:
My life does not revolve around reposting everything which has already been posted here.
The engine housing will be larger than the actual compressor assembly. This is why it’s likely that a good amount of it is hidden, if in fact, is is towed in towards the center of the aircraft.
That makes no sense.
***
Good luck with that. The first one to bring pfcem to provide some evidence for his clams wins a medal. 😎
The evidence has already been provided by others on this point. And I have given more evidence to my positions than anyone else has (I hve just spoted reposted it all over & over & over & over).
***
You seem to not have grasped the purpose of this forum. If a poster claims something and presents it as fact, then he is to provide evidence to support that, not the others.
You fail to graps that it is redundant to repost that which has already been posted.
Of course, he can talk whatever BS he wants but then he needs to put it in the way of the claims being solely his opinion, nothing more. Pfcem consistently presents his personal biased opinions dressed up as “facts”.
I am not the one talking BS or using dressed up as “facts”.
***
The nozzles are perfectly in-line with the topside cowls (which have a smaller circumference indicative of the size of the c-face). The bottom (larger) cowls have the nozzles offset…why? because the engine is canted within the bottom cowl itself.
The ‘top’ & ‘bottom’ circumference is the same (the bottom edge of the wing/fuselage structure does not line up vertically with the center of the nacelles/cowlings/engines) & canted up to the point of the front end of the engine. No matter how you try to spin it the engines are contained within the nacelles/cowlings & at the front of the engines the inside & bottome edges of the nacelles/cowlings & the intakes mouths are directly in line – the only thing hiding an significant portion of the engine faces from direct view through the intakes is that the intakes mouths are not as ‘tall’ (vertical distance) as the engine faces.
In the other pic note the beautiful & DEEP curve on that MLG bay door…and guess where it feeds…
The are neither deep nor do they ‘feed’ anywhere.
pfcemWhich plane can withstand a hit a 30 mm shell?
That depends entirely on where & how many 30mm shells.
Even though i have doubts about F-35’s cost-efficiency, as an fighter it has decent capabilities.
The ‘cost-efficiency’ of the F-35 once it reached rull rate production will greatly exceed anything else & its fighter capabilities are 2nd only to the F-22 (by the 2020s it may drop to 3rd behind the F-22 & T-50/PAK FA or less likely 4th behind them & the J-XX).
pfcemLink?
Posted earlier in THIS TREAD. Do try to keep up.
“More or less” doesn’t cut it. It’s off-angle with the center of the intake. That’s my only reason for questions at this point.
The inside & bottom edges of the engines & intakes are in line, but the intakes mouths are wider (horizontally) & shorter (vertically) than the engines.
pfcemYou’re the one that said you don’t buy it, my question was why don’t you? Or why just get to the point and save arguments, why not just say it fires 1700 rpm in the first place? If you do a simple calculation of; 60 x 29, it comes to 1740, now round that up to the nearest hundred which will be 700. So thats around 28-29 rds/sec, which with all do respect, isn’t that far from the 30 mark.
I said I don’t buy a revover cannon having instant full rate of fire. I assume it to be very quick (full rate by perhaps the 3rd round) but NOT instantaneous. Whether it is 28, 29 or 30 rounds in a 1 sec burst that is still well short of the M61A1’s (my calculation) 78 rounds.
***
Except, as you mention, he considers the spin up time for the -A1 to be 0.4 seconds, so in a 0.5 second burst only 10 rounds would be fired at full rate. His numbers are entirely consistent, so I’ll go with his expertise unless you can provide a source to support your assertion about the spool up rate.
And just as I explained even using his incorrect spool up time it would require a gun which at full ROF fires 1 round every 1/100th of a sec (aka 100 rounds/sec) manages only 8 rounds in the 1st 40/100ths. I have already provided the sources for the M61A1 spool up time of ~1/3 sec.
For wartime use, this doesn’t matter much, particularly for air to air shooting with short bursts which is the primary role of the Flanker’s GSh-301, for example. To trade off service life against weight (and we are talking a considerable weight saving in most cases) is very much a sensible compromise in this regard. For strafing the GAU-8 remains the benchmark though, as I have already acknowledged. Also, the variant of the Gatling used in Russian CIWS mounts (AO-18) is fitted with heavier barrels and a water cooling system, so it will last considerably longer than its airborne counterpart.
I was just pointing out the fact. One of the ways Russia achieves such performance with its guns (& engines) is NOT building them to last anywhere near as long as the US does.
Actually, my take would be that it’s 1700 rpm. However, consider throw weight and the Mauser looks pretty good despite this.
It makes no difference to me whether it is 1700 or 1800 rds/min, either way it only fires ~1/2 as many rounds in a 0.5 sec burst (& <1/3 as many in a 1 sec burst) as the M61A1.
My initial comment was simply to point out that it DOES NOT take seconds for rotary/gatling guns to spool up to full ROF but fractions of a sec & even with comparatively long spool up times, rotary/gatling guns put out A LOT of rounds in a short period of time.
pfcemWhile I’d say there’s some chance the photo is real, and that a pretty whack blocker will be used on later models, I’d say that I’m still going to remain skeptical.
The designer has already said that the current test aircraft is not fitted with the radar blocker intended for the production/service aircraft.
While it’s possible some of the fan can be seen from looking into the intake, I think the top view suggests that more of the engine would be closer to the center of the aircraft.
Pics like this make me skeptical.
Funny how that pic shows the inside edge of the engine nacelle/cowling to be more-or-less in line with the LEVCON root.
pfcemhttp://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/modern_fighter_gun_effectiveness.htm
According to this source you are embellishing M61 performance a bit. Also, consider projectile weight delivered (probably a better measure of destructive power than just the number of rounds fired) and gun weight (i.e. airframe impact). These typically work in favour of single barrel cannons.
With all due respect to Tony, he is incorrect. The M61A1 takes ‘just’ ~1/3 sec to spool up to full rate and FROM THAT POINT ALONE it fires 17 rounds in a 1/2 sec burst! And there is absolutely NO WAY it fires only 1 round during its ~1/3 sec spool up. Even if you accept his incorrect 0.4 sec you would then have to believe that it only fires 8 rounds in the 1st 0.4 sec & then fires 10 in the next 0.1 sec.
The Russian Gatling guns are indeed superior in some respects (weight, spool up time, rate of fire), with the GSh-6-30 being a diabolically powerful weapon. So powerful in fact, that vibration severely complicated aircraft mounted use in practise (hence the reduction to 4000 rpm). For this role the GAU-8 would therefore be the weapon of choice, if you were offered to select from these two for a naval CIWS the Russian gun would be a better solution, however.
Russian aircraft guns are designed & built for MUCH lower serrvice live than US aircraft guns. Much like Russian engines…their entire service life is only about as long as the Mean Time Between Overhaul (MTBO) of US conterparts.
***
Funny that, you don’t by the German specs of the BK-27 but seem ok with the American ones, anyone would have thought you were being biased. :rolleyes:
If those figures are official then why don’t you buy into them? If they aren’t official I’m sure you’re capable of contacting Rheinmetall Defence.
I gave the benefit of the doubt & used 1800 rpm [1800/60 = 30 rds/sec] (even though there are about as many sources which say 1700). If you have any reliable source that it is greater, please share.
pfcemNot to mention the fact that an Arleigh Burke derivative would have all but certainly have been fitted with the Mk 41 VLS and armed with SM-2s, ESSMs and maybe SM-3s. Assuming our Burke variant would have had the same 3 AN/SPG-62s mounted on it as the US’s does then this would give us the capability of engaging 3 targets at once, only a 50% improvement on the Type 42 they were supposed to be replacing. Compare that to the Sea Viper system which, theoretically due to the Aster missile’s active radar, could engage as many targets as the ship holds missiles all at the same time with up to 36 (not sure on this number, this program did say 36 but I’ve heard others saying only 12, more than 3 either way though) of those missile being directly controlled by Sampson.
AEGIS is able to track/engage hundreds of targets (more than 100 per SPY-1), illumination is only required for the final moments prior to missile impact with threat. SM-6 (modified AMRAAM seeker fitted to SM-2) is meant to suppliment, not replace the SM-2.
pfcemContrary to what revolver cannon fans would have you believe rotary (gatling) cannon DO NOT take that long to spool up. The M61A1 only takes ~1/3 of a second with the F-22’s M61A2 reducing that to ~1/4 sec & we are talking about guns that when up to full rate are throwing out 100 round per sec. The GAU-12 take ~0.4 sec to spool up & the GAU-8 takes ~0.7 sec. I have yet to see what the motor rating is on the F-35’s GAU-22 but it is probably fair to say that it should spool up to full rate rather quickly given it lower ROF of ‘just’ 3,000 rpm – my GUESS is similar to the M61A2.
M61A2 0.5 sec burst
0.00-0.25 sec: ~8 rounds (assuming ~1/3 of full rate)
0.25-0.50 sec: ~25 rounds
~33 rounds total
M61A1 0.5 sec burst
0.00-0.33 sec: ~11 rounds (assuming ~1/3 of full rate)
0.33-0.50 sec: ~17 rounds
~28 rounds total
GAU-22 0.5 sec burst
0.00-0.25 sec: ~4 rounds (assuming ~1/3 of full rate)
0.25-0.50 sec: ~12 rounds
~16 rounds total
BK27 0.5 sec burst (assuming instant full rate which I don’t buy)
~15 rounds
…
M61A2 1.0 sec burst
0.00-0.25 sec: ~8 rounds (assuming ~1/3 of full rate)
0.25-1.00 sec: ~75 rounds
~83 rounds total
M61A1 1.0 sec burst
0.00-0.33 sec: ~11 rounds (assuming ~1/3 of full rate)
0.33-1.00 sec: ~67 rounds
~78 rounds total
GAU-22 1.0 sec burst
0.00-0.25 sec: ~4 rounds (assuming ~1/3 of full rate)
0.25-1.00 sec: ~37 rounds
~41 rounds total
BK27 1.0 sec burst (assuming instant full rate which I don’t buy)
~30 rounds
pfcemBeing able to cruise @ Mach 1.0-1.1 (which many fighters can do clean) without afterburner is no big advantage over cruising @ Mach 0.9 but the greater drag & resulting fuel consumption really hurts. ESPECIALLY if it can only be done clean…
Prior to the USAF/DOD (not LM) chosing the term ‘supercruise’ to define the AFT/F-22 requirement/capability to cruise @ >Mach 1.5 without afterburner it was a scarcely known & even more scarcely used term. It was only AFTER the USAF/DOD (& LM) began using it in relation to the AFT/F-22 that others (playing ‘me too’) started making a big deal out of their ability to cruise @ >Mach 1.0 without afterburner.
You can cruise @ >Mach 1.0 without afterburner with engines with >1:1 bypass ratio, the F-35’s 0.57 in no way prevents it from doing so. Nor does its 35 deg wing sweep. The drag difference between 35 & 40 (or say 42 :)) deg is not as great as some would want everyone to believe – you do not need a 60 deg delta wing to go fast.
0% throttle means idle, 100% throttle means max dry with afterburner ‘throttle’ given as AB1, AB2, AB3 & so on.
pfcemSince the introduction of JDAM, CAS is just as likely to be answered by a B-52 or a F-16 as it is an A-10. The A-10 & like aircraft still have a niche to fill but for the ‘bulk’ of CAS the F-35 will do as well or better than any other aircraft.
pfcemStop the crap with *wanting to see it that way* and other fanboy related BS. If I WANTED to see something, then I certainly would not waste my time here discussing anything.
If I say they look off line, then they look off line to me. And I don’t need a parrot going after me and telling me what I want or do not want.
ARE WE CLEAR ON THAT ????
It is not fanboy related BS. You ‘see’ them off line because you WANT to see them off line in spite of all that you have been shown proving that they are in line.
***
Look at the pics above, you want the engines to be like the T-10M-10 when that’s clearly not the case.
Quite the opposite. Those pics CLEARLY show just how much alike they are. Start with the Flanker, rotate the intake mouths 90 deg so that they are wider (horizontally) & shorter (vertically), move the nacelles/cowlings up flush with the wing, reshape the intakes into a parallelogram, toe the engines (out front to back) a few deg & you more or less (not EXACTLY of course) have the basic intake/engine layout of the T-50/PAK FA.
Of course you can’t see the intakes from above- use the LEVCON root as a reference point…
And the inside edge of the engines are almost directly in line with the LEVCON root.
You haven’t mentioned that ‘oval’ shape in the intake visible in at least 2 pics- doesn’t it fit in with your rabidly absurd arguments?…but I guess clutching a photoshop of a photoshop negates all our reasoning, huh?
Yes I have. Remember, the intake mouths are wider than the engines…
Maybe not having slept in 20 years has had an understandably detrimental effect on your judgement, perception of reality & quite possibly your sanity, nevertheless you’re setting yourself up for (another) huge fall, buddy.
You are the one with the judgement, perception of reality & quite possibly sanity issues not me.
Look at Paralay’s drawings again (http://paralay.iboards.ru/download/file.php?style=12&id=10831&t=1 & http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=185404&d=1275930689). They show almost exactly (~80%) as if drawn to what I have posted.
pfcemFrom the top, they certainly don’t look in line, at all.
Only to those who want to see it that way. If in fact you know what you are actually looking at & take into account camera angle/POV even the view from above shows the inside edge of the engines (cowlings being a bit larger than the engines themselves) to be almost directly in line with the inside edge of the LEVCONs.
It’s because of the effect slipperysam has described – top of the intake and the bottom of the intake are not square, so one *expects* the intake to be somewhere else than it really is.
No, you can not even see the intakes from above! But when you look at it from beloe you can clearly see that the inside edge of the intakes are FURTHER in than the inside edge of the LEVCONs. The distorting effect from above is due to other (fuselage) structure breaking the circular shape of the cowling and the upper ‘cowling’ BOTH continuing the toe of the engines & no longer maintaining ‘full diameter’ ahead of the engine.
pfcemThe testing program continues to make good progress. I’ve read where there were some concerns that the weight reduction program may have compromised the structural integrity of the airgrame..
Only from those wishing it was the case.
Sign In
