Blah-di-Blah so much noise so little evidences…

Right back at yah.

So in every brochures according to your boyz superior knowledges, the F-35 cruise speeds of 0.95 are correct but the designed Mach limit are not. 😀

Nowhere does any official document does it state that the MAX cruise speed of the F-35 is Mach 0.95 and nowhere does any official document state that the designed Mach limit is Mach 1.6. That data is classified.

Funny you even have to invent a USAF “standard” for the word supercruise no???

I didn’t invent anything, the USAF did.

STFU my dear sir, at least i understand some you still dont comprehend like designed aerodynamics and engine pressure limits….

LOL

It’s pretty obvious that if you were right it would be supersonic in military power but guess what, even L-M says it ain’t supercruising so now we have a NEW definition of the word conveniently thrown at the rest of the “ignorant” world.

Like I said when the USAF, the US DOD & LM talk about the F-22/F-35 & supercruising their THRESHOLD for supercruise is >Mach 1.5, not >Mach 1.0.

You counterdict yourself there…

No I didn’t.

“500 lb class” munitions don’t weigh 500 lbs, they weigh MORE
“1,000 lb class” munitions don’t weigh 1,000 lbs, they weigh MORE
“2,000 lb class” munitions don’t weigh 2,000 lbs, they weigh MORE

Another example…the ‘250 lb’ SDB actually weighs ~285 lbs.

“35,000 lb thrust class” engines don’t produce 35,000 lbs of thrust, they weight MORE (~39,000 lbs in the case of the F119)
“40,000 lb thrust class” engines don’t produce 40,000 lbs of thrust, they weight MORE (~43,000 lbs in the case of the F135)

The Inlet was specifically designed to recover this loss of pressure…

With NO improvement at Mach 2.0 on a clean aircraft usualy capable of MORE than Mach 2.0 with its original inlet, with a much smaller cross section, a supersonic wing profile in place of the dragier superctitical and 40* swept wing instaead of 33*… Good going.

Like I said, the F-35 inlet is perfectly capable of performing up to Mach 2.0. 🙂

I know for what flight regime its design is optimised for and i also know that these limits are NOT KPP THRESHOLDS as you conveniently pretend.

Then you know that the flight regime its design is optimised for include EXCEEDING KPP THRESHOLDS! So why pray tell do you so INCORRECTLY state KPP THRESHOLDS as MAXIMUM limts when they are in fact MINIMUM limits?

Yeah we know the old legend, you still can’t grab it do you?

The Mig 25 is “capable of 3.0” Mach when in fact it will only reach 2.85 in current operation or else you’ll have to change engines after each flight.

You are the one who doen’t grasp it.

So the “US” Uber Alles legion is rebelling, much mouthing and little evidences, KPP THRESHOLDS, “Classified” and all you understand, designed limits for both engines and airframes are for the rest of the Under Alles world.

:rolleyes:

For the time being; none of you can make do and elaborate other than with these pseudo-technical acronymes you conveniently apply to red-line limits pretending they are proper designed maximas.

Sorry, I am not the one confusing KPP THRESHOLDS with designed maximums. Nor am I the one failing to recognize so many other thing you have.

Please get yourself this nice literature and dont bother coming back lecturing me and getting all personal before you actualy understand what the very USAF “standard”s you are pushing as “evidences” are all about. :diablo:

Wow, you can post the same picture over & over & over again.

Perhaps YOU should try actually READING said document (or any of a number similar ones).

Here is a link TO THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT instead of just a picture of the cover.
http://www.aviation.org.uk/pdf/apft.pdf

Guess what. NOTHING ABOUT THE F-35 ANYWHERE IN THERE! And YOU don’t have the data F-35.

Yes so? What part of what he explained to YOU did you blank out?

“production” model mirages could be pushed to M 2.5 in theory if the whole aircraft and its engine wasn’t FCS and and FADEC RATED.

I CAN and HAVE been above M 2.2 but the airframe is not designed with the material that’d like to get closer to the kinetic heating strain this involves, AND the engine lifespan would be reduced, still this would be a “production” model (with non-standard settings).

If I were putting money down, I’d say that the 2000 can quite comfortably exceed M2.4 by a good margin in AB.

The Mirage IV was designed (including its internals) for a higher kinetic tolerence and was capable of sustaining M 2.0 for hours… Literaly but in PC.

A record like achieving M1.72 was most likely done using full engine rating, which may not be available to line F-22 in peacetime, and which may not be part of the official flight envelope.

Looks a lot more grababable than my version so i dont realy comprehend your insistance into posting old news like you cant understand this…

LOL

So you claim that “production” model Mirages with STATED max speed of Mach 2.2 can actually do Mach 2.4-2.5…
…but the F-35 with a KPP THRESHOLD of Mach 1.6 can not do more than Mach 1.6. 🙂

***

On a somewhat related note. I wonder what it is about Mach 1.6 that the USAF likes so much…

The operational LOADED KPP THRESHOLD for the F-22 supercruise was Mach 1.6.
The operational LOADED KPP THRESHOLD for the F-35 top speed is Mach 1.6.

I recoup datas from manufacturers with that of the users and compare them with what i KNOW are industry standards for computing them, a little complex, so i wont bother you with a proper aerodynamic analisys…

No you don’t. The manufactures HAVE NOT RELEASED ANY OF THE CLASSIFIED DATA FOR THE F-22 OR F-35! What you ARE doing is taking the KPP THRESHOLDS & stating them as maximum designed values when they are MINIMUM acceptable values for acceptance.

More to the point if the guy typoed 48.000 for 38.000 lb it just proved that the rest of the datas are coming from L-M and that they didn’t even atempt to compute them themself…

2.000lb of thrust aren’t going to change the designed Mach BTW, expecialy because P&W didn’t FIND sudently an extra 2.000 lb of thrust and that the datas are still the same than when L-M were given the expected Max thrust of F135 after development…

The 40.000lb power output for this particular engine is the LAST one published by P&W, (So it is NOT an error as such) it was recently enough rated at 38.000 lb and this wouldn’t changed anything to a designed Max Mach, i just won’t bother trying to elaborate further…

Once agian you PROVE you don’t know what you are talking about.

The typo was 48,000 lbs rather than the OFFICIALLY RATED STATIC UNINSTALLED 43,000 lbs.

from Pratt & Whitney

40,000 lbs was NEVER the actual number for the F135, it (prior to official ratings numbers were published) was always “40,000 lb class”. But just like the F119 is “35,000 lb class” but actually is in the region of 39,000 lbs.

Oh, & they DID find ‘another 3,000 lbs’ of thrust with the F135-PW-100…BY INSTALLING IT IN A F-35! Amazing what the increased airflow from a well designed intake will do. AND that intake has been tested up to Mach 2 installed on an F-16.

Engines aren’t generaly designed to run a maximum pressures, rpms, and Temps for a prolonged period of time and that of the F-22 aren’t an exeption, thus cruising AND supercruising data ARE accurate, your story is unrealistic even if marginaly achievable in quiet exeptional conditions, since it is below the DESIGNED Max Mach.

You don’t know what the ‘DESIGNED Max Mach’ for the F-22 OR the F-35 are.

The F-22 was, however DESINED to “cruise” WITHOUT AFTERBURNER for extended periods at Mach 1.6. Turns out it is capable of Mach 1.72 – for how long is not known. It is quike likely they have found a nice compromise somwhere around Mach 1.6…

LordAssap,

What part of KPP (Key Performance Parameter) THRESHOLD (MINIMUM acceptable) do you not understand?

I also want to say as a sidenote, I must admit I find you a bit hypocritical Flex. Not that I really care or that you really care :). But telling others that you’re skeptical of using LM test pilots as gospel since they are expected to tow the party line – while you use the same quote to make numerous digs at the F-22 without using your critical faculties. That for me is cheap, and while I can understand you and your frustrations by being swamped with LM fanboys – who make silly statements and claim things like Beesley’s statement equates to the F-35 having top end maneuverability. But honestly you come across innately as bad as them on the other end of the spectrum.

WHO ever said that?

[note LmRaptor this comment is not meant for you]
It is QUITE CLEAR if you actually READ Beesley’s comments that in the subsonic flight regime a COMBAT LOADED F-35 ‘nearly matches the flight performance of a CLEAN block 50 F-16’ & COMES CLOSE TO THAT OF A COMBAT LOADED F-22 (with notable exception to ‘post-stall’ maneuvers the F-22’s can due due to its TV nozzles).

The supersubsonic flight regime is a differnent story however…
[note LmRaptor this comment is not meant for you]

Well, it is simply NOT the case for many reasons, the first it that it was simply NOT designed to out-turn F-16 in CLEAN configuration but in A2G configuration and that appart for the F-16 versions with the lowest TWR it just wont happen.

No, a COMBAT LOADED (i.e ~5000 lbs of ordanace, as in two 2000 lbs JDAM + two AMRAAM, & nearly a full load of fuel – test flight load equivalents have been ~15,000 lbs) F-35 vs CLEAN configuration F-16.

Also keep in mind that chase planes are not “stock” block 50/52 F-16s…

More to it you EXPLAIN to us how the 7.0 and 7.5 G (structuraly) limited versions are going to out-turn a 9.0 G aircraft?

NOT structuraly limited, NONCOMBAT operations limited. The F-35C, JUST LIKE THE F/A-18 can be flown up to 9g during combat operations, the lower NONCOMBAT operations limit is meant to extent airframe life given the harsh conditions of carrier operations.

About supercuise:

Right, the F-35 does not “supercruise” at >Mach 1.5 like the F-22…

BUT using the same definition others use to claim that CLEAN F-15s & F-16s and air-to-air configuration (i.e. 4 MRAAMs + 2 SRAAMs + 1 external tank) Typhoons & Rafales can supercruise, the F-35 VERY VERY VERY likely can.

Has very good high AoA capabilities.

KPP THRESHOLDS (i.e. MINIMUM acceptable performace) ‘similar’ to CLEAN F-16 & F/A-18…

The F/A-18 is renowned for its high AoA capabilities.

Tell this to L-M since they are the source:

I ONLY use official datas…

LM has pretty much just regurgitated KPP THRESHOLDS, not true performance…

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.

No, KPP THRESHOLD (i.e. MINIMUM acceptable performace) of Mach 1.6…

Both times wrong in both cases.

LOL. You have NO idea what you are even talking about.

WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO INSIST ON IGNORING MY COMMENTS & INSTEAD CONTINUE TO MAKE COMMENTS AS IF I HAVE SAID SOMETHING I HAVE NOT SAID?

ETs do allow you to vary your fuel content without the related rise in size and the related weight, when a price is to pay for some extra drag or occupied stations.

BS. Jet fuel weighs ~6.7 lbs per gallon whether it is carried internally or externally. And external tanks are NOT weightless or dragless. 😀

Not carrying enough fuel internally FORCES you to carry it externally, thus adding weight & drag (MUCH more so than internal fuel) & in most cases REQUIRES you to use up weapons stations carrying said external fuel.

A simple example is. You can buy a car with the capability to transport your familiy and all luggage for the summer holidays. The other time of the year that car is oversized for most “missions”. See the fuel-bill for a year to get the idea. Every kg moved is in need of energy.
You can buy a smaller car and add some holiday luggage on the roof. At your destination or the rest of the year, you can free your car from that.
Another idea is to add a special (aerodynamic box) on the roof (conformal tanks).

Sorry irrelavent & unrelated analogy.

WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO INSIST ON IGNORING MY COMMENTS & INSTEAD CONTINUE TO MAKE COMMENTS AS IF I HAVE SAID SOMETHING I HAVE NOT SAID?

All that a means to find the smartest solution for your problem, but none is free of setbacks.

WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO INSIST ON IGNORING MY COMMENTS & INSTEAD CONTINUE TO MAKE COMMENTS AS IF I HAVE SAID SOMETHING I HAVE NOT SAID?

Fastpacks are in some way such oversized internal tanks, but with the option to remove that, when not in need.

So again, why is it that the F-15E went with Factpacks (CFTs) instead of more/bigger external drop tanks?