The F-22 has thrust vectoring nozzles because of the requirements, not because of someone else’s plane. Why do you suppose it has 2D nozzles instead of 3D? It was the best way to maximize performance, and signature management simultaneously.

Actually, the F-22 has 2D TV to meet the requirements, not because of the requirements; i.e-TV in and of itself was not a requirement. The YF-23 met the requirements for the ATF program and didn’t have TV nozzles. Which is what I think you’re trying to say, it just didn’t come out that way.

The J-20 is very much China’s own design. The state of aerospace tech at any given point leads to similar solutions for similar missions. Physics in China is the same as it is in Russia, the U.S. and the rest of the world. That’s not to say that some of the underlying technology wasn’t stolen. But the design itself is not. Hell, I’m actually surprised it took them this long.

China has been investing heavily in technology, especially through education. Back when I was in college in the 1980’s studying Aero, at least 50% of the grad students were Chinese. As such, I would expect the J-20 to be a capable aircraft as many of their aerospace engineers were trained in the U.S.

I called again today, I got an answer after a few attempts. Now its August to print and ship (maybe early Sept) Vol 27 from the UK, Vol 28 at least 3 months away but there will be a letter in Vol 27 explaining everything…..

BSG, could you PM me the phone number to call from the states? I never received volume 26, maybe he can make sure vol. 27 gets here. Thanks.

BTW, I know he is having trouble, which I don’t mind as I personally don’t care how long it takes to get here as long as it arrives. I hope his personal circumstances improve.

These are always fun discussions because 99% of what’s in them is complete and utter cluelessness.

As usual, most of the people here, and the people at EADS, have completely missed the point. Granted, for the PR people at EADS, it was intentional. But I have good and bad news for both. The good news is the F-35 can not perform the Typhoon’s mission. However, unfortunately for EADS, the bad news is the Typhoon can not perform the F-35’s mission. Of course, that’s the dirty little secret that these PR types try to distract everyone from, quite successfully apparently. However, to say the F-35 isn’t a fighter is to say the F-16 isn’t a fighter, the F-18 isn’t a fighter, etc.

The MAIN difference, besides LO, which can’t be emphasized enough, is that the F-35 carries as much fuel internally as the F-22 does. It has a much higher fuel weight fraction than any other fighter. Now, under normal circumstances, combat calculations for aircraft are assumed to occur at the 50% internal fuel load condition. However, doing the same for the F-35 as with the other fighters is comparing apples and oranges, because you are not comparing them on the same mission. If you do that, you will find the F-35 has a much greater range basis than the other fighter at the 50% point.

However, if you put the F-35 in the “same” mission as the standard fighters for their range, you’ll find when it’s at the same point in the mission it’s fuel load will probably be between 33% to 40%. Granted, it does have a higher structural weight comparatively speaking, due to carrying the fuel internally along with the payload, but I’ve yet to see any evidence this is being taken into account in all of these “comparisons.”

Also, it has been stated that the F-35 has the same performance as the F-22 without TV. Which is still greater maneuvering performance than the F-16 or F/A-18. Although someone up thread mentioned something about the F-22 not using TV in combat, which is just completely ignorant. The TV is part of the FCS, in much the same fashion that the flaperons, tailerons, LE flaps, and rudders are part of the FCS. The FCS maximizes the use of all of the surfaces to maximize performance.

But if we are to use EADS performance maxims of what constitutes a fighter, well then, the Typhoon isn’t a fighter, because it can’t do what the F-22 can do. You see, anyone can play this game. It’s fun! It just isn’t very serious.

You guys should either go to school and get your Aero degree, or really, just stop. I can’t believe the amount of BS I’ve seen in this thread, although em475 has tried to educate along with a few others. Let’s try this again. What’s better, the canard or the conventional tail? The answer: Neither.

The mission defines the airplane, not the other way around. The reason American aircraft don’t have canards is because the conventionally tailed designs met the design requirements better than canards did. That’s it. It isn’t magic. It isn’t knowledge limited (Grumman and many of the other companies have years and years of wind tunnel, flight test, and design studies I’m not going to reference here, and yes I do possess them, though you guys did forget the McDD F-15 STOL demonstrator.) It isn’t because of what designers are used to designing.

The same goes for the Euro-Canards. The reason they have canards is because they met their requirements better than a conventional tail. I remember studying the engineering back then on the euro canards and one of the main reasons given for using them was that they could get “better” performance in parts of the flight envelope over a conventionally tailed design at a lower weight. Also, since weight translates into cost, that meant lower cost. Cost has always been a much larger design driver in Europe than in the U.S. (Just witness the JSF 😉 )

So, let me say this again; The mission drives the design, not the other way around. Any aero engineer who decided that a fighter must have canards or a conventional tail based on “belief” wouldn’t be employed very long on either side of the Atlantic. Also, just as a reference, anyone who has studied the Gripen knows that what appeared to be the best design was the conventionally tailed model 2107, but they thought the dorsal inlet was too risky. They said it actually had lower weight than the canard configuration, which I “think” is due to how they were able to greatly simplify the airframe/engine integration issues by minimizing the weight penalty of the inlet.

So what’s better for the mission? Put up your mission requirements, set up your design space and run the trade studies, etc., and that will tell you if you need a canard or a conventional tail. And they all lived happi…all hell, who am I kidding, this is key forums. Back to your regularly scheduled belief systems.

I usually haven’t received mine until 6 to 9 months after it has been released. I’ve also moved since I last received one and e-mailed them to give them my new address, but I never received a reply from them. I know I’m owed issue 26 and 27, because they never let me know my sub had run out after volume 22 and I ended up having to buy the softcover of volume 23 as a result and re-subbed and received volumes 24 and 25 and haven’t been able to contact them (him) since. I’m not surprised readership may be down based on the service I’ve received.

That picture is the Boeing F/A-XX concept.

No, it isn’t. It’s a single engine single seat design and much smaller than the twin engine F/A-XX. It also has a completely different fuselage/intake design and their wing planforms are different. If you meant to say, the MRF-24XX, from 2003, shares some of it’s technology with the F/A-XX, than that is true.

You guys are late to the party.

Boeing MRF-24X