FBWNo, in this case allow me to correct you : you cannot say this about russian ones as they are blended wing bodies with podded engines, meaning that there is not any real fuselage there, just the so called stinger acting like the spinal cord in a vertebrate and that generate a lot of lift anyway.
wing area is wing area. All modern aircraft are blended wing and body designs. The F-14, Su-27, Pak-fa, et al. podded engine- flat tunnel design. The F-16 does not and yet 40+% of the lift was generated by the fuselage- at a certain speed and alt, it is not a constant. (according to John Will, one of the designers).
His opinion was that the F-35 has a higher percentage than that. Obviously, the wing itself is a more efficient lifting surface. BUT, once you start hanging pylons and weapons off a wing, or between the engines, not only does interference drag (and overall drag) increase, but lift is reduced.
FBWI don’t know how you read those Hellenic Viper charts. Note those are heavier airframes than their older standard USAF Block 50 counterparts, more or less Block 50+ vs. Block 50.
I got the following figures:
@ 0.8 Mach
15k feet, 22k lbs, DI 0: 6.55g
10k feet, 26k lbs, DI 50: 6.55g
20k feet, 26k lbs, DI 50: 4.49g
–> 15k feet, 26k lbs, DI 50: 5.52gI didn’t bother with the rest.
If we allow the F-16 to fly where it’s best, at 0.88 Mach, the result is:
@ 0.88 Mach
15k feet, 22k lbs, DI 0: 7.45g
10k feet, 26k lbs, DI 50: 7.25g
20k feet, 26k lbs, DI 50: 5.09g
–> 15k feet, 26k lbs, DI 50: 6.17gThis gives a good hint where the objective of 6g sustained comes from if you ask me.
Are you two looking at the same charts? You are looking at B8-49 and B8-50, yes? The F-35 specs were obviously written for a block 50 with a DI of 50 (basically as low as practical considering pylons and two amraams). I agree with what you said 100% here.
The original objective was 6+g with a threshold of 5.3+g. Current threshold is 4.6. Observed performance of the heavier 240-3 configuration was 4.95g, sustained. The F-35 did not meet the planned threshold. It is most likely between .35g or less off the original threshold. That translates to a roughly 1 degree per second difference (in the worst case scenario 4.6g, based on the 4.95g observed performance= less than 1 degree per second difference). Break out the pitchforks….
Note- reading the degrees per second is messy on these charts: 26,000lbs mach .8, 10,000 feet in F-16 block 50-129 6g is 13 degrees per second. The planned threshold 5.3g is roughly 11 degrees per second. 4.6g is roughly 10ish degrees per second. Not to mention that the specs were written for 15,000 feet.
FBWthe actual performance is 4.6g, live with it
Wrong, learn what threshold means.
FBWFor those in the second group lying repeatedly, and/or playing dumb is a perfectly acceptable approach. It isn’t about actual facts, just creating trouble, preventing meaningful discussion of the “wrong” plane.
… I don’t need to tell you which group MSphere and Obligatory belong to.
Personally I don’t want to have to wade through 19 obligatory posts of tripe. The sooner newer posters realize: 1. he has no idea what he is talking about 2. cannot defend what he post because it is wrong 3. reposts things repeatedly despite it being refuted 4. has a rudimentary understanding of flight in general…. the better for everyone who has been on here for years and know his M.O. Interesting topics get buried by people honesty trying to respond to the drivel.
It may sound contentious, but reading the same inane posts over and over again in the F-35 thread posted by him is tiresome.
FBWi
as for russians not having a “look” at different western weapons… well in iraq during the early mid 1980s they could look at rapier missiles, i-hawk radars, F4E phantoms, F-14, CH-47s, chieftains, M60s, captured radar and elint stations and a plethora of other items… in exchange for which they sent loads of MiG29s, SU-24 SU-25s and agreed to licence assembly of Mi28A in iraq. Also a number of iraqi pilots who trained in the west shared their experiences with Russians in Iraq… of flying in Jaguars, Tornados, British, French and other curriculum etc… we can see that “just” in iraq the soviets had access to a pretty wide array of then front line western equipment to look at and get an idea of training, curriculum of western academies and flying schools from the iraqi graduates. once one aggregates that over all the other “sources” the Russians had… they probably had a pretty decent idea about western equipment and doctrine… I wouldn’t be surprised about pro-communist members of nominally pro-western nations “leaking” info in vast quantities during those periods.
Would be disappointing if they didn’t. Both Nato and Warsaw pact intelligence services had major “coups” during the 80’s- aldrich ames, Edward Howard Lee, and Dmitri Polyakov come to mind in addition to what you posted. I suppose the big difference was the massive exodus of intelligence, weapon systems, professionals to the West following the breakup of the Soviet Union. The U.S. alone was spending massive amounts of money accruing former Soviet weapons through third parties in the early 90’s.
FBWat least 31 pilots obey orders
Please highlight the part in the article where they are given orders to “praise” the F-35
While your at it:
1. still waiting for you to find where the memo was marked “classified”
2. still waiting for you to post anything supporting your assertion that the F-35 is a neutral stability aircraft- in the face of the articles, NASA report of FBW systems, explanation of CLAWS and the F-35’s relaxed stability from Lockheed, and most obvious evidence from the F-35 in flight, that show otherwise.
Still at it making things up, how many years is it now that you’ve continually been proven wrong?
FBWI believe that’s about 70% of the F-35 thread. Why should this thread be any different?
Because they do a better job of weeding out the fools, uninformed, and outright trolls on this thread. F-35 thread attracts those like moths to a candle (see current discussion over there). Not to mention sticking more to the news, less sensationalism. I like it.
FBWNo real evidence that’s it’s a dry weight either.
That was what the then-president of P&W said was the difference in dry weights (this was in 2010), reportedly P&W has had some success in F135 weight reduction. Either way it is not a lightweight engine by any stretch.
FBWCouldn’t agree more, official military powerplant weight numbers are notoriously difficult to come by… but:
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=10587&t=1&sid=c4efe5b9021ad6d6b806ae979fe372d4
No real evidence how close the F135 is to it’s not to exceed weight, nor if that is the dry weight. What we do know is that the F135 weighs about 1,500 lbs more than the F119.
FBWYou’re welcome to source wiki, but I’ll use Lockheed Martin’s own numbers, thanks.
That would be tough considering the P&W makes the F135 and the actual weight of the F135 has never been released.
FBWi think F-35 falls into neutral stability, F-35 didnt keep up in EM, and the low pitch rate made nose pointing another non-starter.
EM cant be rectified with current wing load and thrust, but the pilot made recommendations on pitch authority,
so improvements there can be made. highly dubious visibility will be improved upon
Well, because I showed you documents three years ago from NASA and elsewhere stating that the F-35 is a negative stability design (technically: relaxed longitudinal stability). Because L-M who designed it have stated it. Literally nothing you’ve posted in two pages has been accurate. The most obvious clue that the F-35 is a negative stability design is in the pictures of it flying, not that you’d pick up on it.Btw, did you find that “classified” mark on the USAF public relations memo yet?
P.s. You can ignore all you want. I actually prefer it. That way I don’t have to read the drivel of a reply.
FBWThose who were wondering about the 27-0 kill ratio in recent exercises, this explains it- the adversary aircraft were “respawning” .
http://pulsegulfcoast.com/2016/09/f-35-shows-superiority-legacy-aircraft
FBWIt’s not that it was marked “Classified”, just that it was marked “Not For Public Release” (on the bottom of every page).
Exactly FOUO is not a level of classification.
FBWthe video is another pathetic attempt at coverup, as per instructions by the classified document,
pretending it had restricted envelope while it didnt,
So the document instructing airmen how to debunk false narratives and information was a classified document, huh?
You really never know what you are talking about. Document is online, show me the classified marking on it.
FBWIf I understand right, in that scenario F-16D with two fuel tanks was more agile then AF-2 because it was used for reference and was better as pilot said? And AF-2 didnt had systems which F-35 have so it could be lighter and it wasnt restricted as operational F-35 are today.
AF-2 is considerably (300+ lbs) heavier than current F-35’s. The issue had more to do with the anti-spin logic and CLAW. L-M had stated that the control laws needed to be adjusted long before the high alpha testing was leaked.
Despite G-restrictions of 3i, the adjustment to CLAW seems to have alleviated many of the issues recorded by the test report. The purpose of the test was published in AAIA even before testing began. Current pilots have stated the purpose of the test and how it was an early look at the control laws. Not going to repost all this. Dig through the end of the “F-35 cant dogfight” thread.
Sign In
