I thought the C basically is an A modified to land on a carrier!?

The F-35C has the least commonality with the other two. They really are different aircraft that share common sensors, engine, some structural components and layout.

Really, just rock solid on approach. No oscillations, minimal yaw or roll corrections. “Magic Carpet” indeed. Despite my misgivings over the weight, and the Navy’s ability to afford the -C, there’s no doubt about how well they’ve dialed in the “C” for carrier suitability.

Edit- magic carpet is actually for the F-18’s but…same idea.

:sleeping: Yaawn.. Your memory is very short and selective.. I will give it one last shot and post the “facts” from the past.. If you now pretend you can’t remember those page-long tirades (mainly in 2009-2010) about how the F-35 almost matches the F-22 because Beesley said so, then I really cannot help you..

Don’t hold your breath..

In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft’s thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its’ larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The “subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor– which is about as good as you can get.” Beesley said.

The aircraft flies in “large measure like the F-22, but it’s smaller, and stiffer” than the Raptor however, Beesley explained, adding that the aircraft handles superbly. The reason for the similar flight characteristics, explained the test pilot, is because the man who designed the flight control laws for the Raptor, is also the same man who is responsible for the flight control software for the F-35.

What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets’ superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor“, Beesley said.

http://www.livescience.com/3032-fighter-jet-controversial-future-fleet.html

Yawn, Beez was a member of this forum back in 2010? Because that was what you were talking about.

But, I figured what you were going to pull up, so I prepared an answer:

First off, your confusing “fly’s like” with has the same envelope. No. Both the F-22 and F-35 have “demand” digital FBW. The control laws dictate available G (and pitch), roll, yaw, with what weights at what speeds. I’ve posted this before but will again as it is a good primer on the F-35 CLAW. http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=187

So, first some basics. Was Beesley lying? Exaggerating? Doesn’t have to be anything like that. First, subsonic acceleration. We have enough information from pilots that the acceleration of the F-35 exceeds that of an F-16 when not “clean” pilots have said this, the Heritage Foundation survey put the F-35 only behind the F-15 for regaining energy. So, what about the F-22? Most likely, it’s subsonic acceleration is not significantly better (if at all) than an F-15C. The F-22 has low bypass turbofans, and is optimized for supersonic flight. So, does that mean that the F-35 can accelerate nearly as fast as a Raptor from say 250-400 knots? Most likely it is not that far behind. From mach .8 on? No contest. What about thrust to weight ratio? The dynamic thrust of two different engines at the same speed is not the same as static thrust. The F119’s which the F135 was derived from was designed to pump out lots of thrust high and fast. The bypass ratio and larger fan of the F135 suggests the opposite.

Turning and high alpha maneuvers. First off, the designers of the F-22 limited the control laws by not allowing expansion of the envelope by thrust vectoring. This means that an F-22 without thrust vectoring would STILL be able to do the same maneuvers. However, the aircraft would not transition from one maneuver to the next as quickly. The F-22’s thrust vectoring is meant for speedy transition from one maneuver to the next, and supersonic control. That said, The F-22 and the F-35 has similar Alpha, same G rating, most likely similar roll rate (now that CLAW on the F-35 seems to have been eased up a bit). The F-35 should be able to do much of the same slow speed maneuvers, at a much slower rate.

Turning? Two aircraft flying mach .9 turning at 9 G are going to have a comparable turn rate UNTILL- the one that looses energy faster is not going to be able to maintain it, but the slower it gets the turn radius decreases. The F-35 has (from what we know of it’s 9G envelope so far) a significantly larger range of weights and probably speeds that it’s control laws will allow it to reach 9G compared to the F-16. The F-16 is a “9g all day” at certain weights and speeds. Once the CAT III limiter is on, the F-16 cannot go above a certain AoA. The F-35 and the F-22’s instantaneous turn rate is most likely spectacular (and the survey supports this, even though the F-35 is limited to 7g right now). So how are the different? The F-22 can go from that turn into another maneuver faster and with more P’s than an F-35 could possibly maintain.

In the end, every design is a trade off. The F-16, Typhoon, limit their AoA to keep P’s high, the Typhoon regains energy very, very well. The F-22 has the ability to retain energy and rate, an acceleration is very good subsonic. The F-35 loses energy, but can swing that nose around, and apparently regains energy better than an F-16. Back to Beesley… most likely the F-22 and the F-35 have a similar “feel” in their strengths subsonically, by their control law imput. The F-35 can most likely come close to a Raptor at certain subsonic speeds, but then, that is not what an F-22 excels at.

Honestly I am unconvinced, I need to see it with my own eyes. The F35 looks like a thick short wing sausage as it needs to accommodate fuel and bombs inside its body. It just does not look maneuverable, you cannot have it all, there are compromises to be made. And if it is then soon we will see it but I doubt it. From what I’ve seen it is far behind 4th gen jet during displays…let see of progress are made but for now it was rather poor…Again I need to see it, not reading another report with an agenda. If it is actually maneuverable they should show it !

Eyeball aerodynamicist. Brilliant. There has been a virtual nonstop swell of first hand reports that the “flying brick” minions have been wrong. Sweep those away without any regard, obviously your eyeball qualifications trump actual pilots. Btw, what displays? The USAF has not cleared the F-35 for airshow displays other than the heritage flights contingent on IOC. The Dutch F-35 display gave a taste that in this aspect (the all important airshow armchair agility specialists), you will be wrong again.

So here’s the image of how the F-35 compares, keeping in mind that this is with the 7g control law limit.

It will be interesting to see what an up-engined F-35 can do. If I recall, the F135 isn’t making full use of the F-35 inlet, since there’s currently enough flowrate to accommodate a more powerful motor. Block 1 improvement of the F135 that (if properly funded) should be in service in 2023 is supposed to provide up to 47,300 lbf of thrust, so it will be interesting to see what an F-35A with full 9g envelope and Block 1 F135 would do.
.

The allowable “G” raising to 9 in 3i will give the F-35 an even more favorable instantaneous G turn comparison. One of its current strengths. Easing up CLAW restrictions should give the F-35 an even more pronounced pitch and yaw advantage. The full envelope is not going to make the sustained turn any better than it’s current average. This should be no surprise, the sustained turn performance is unexceptional, evidenced by the relatively low comparision score in the 9k perch bfm set up.

I was under the impression that the inlet was currently the limiting factor for F135 thrust. I seem to recall P&W saying that the inlets would need modification to increase thrust. Do you recall where you read the inlets had sufficient flow?

Yes, i have read the footnotes. The idea of comparing the contract of the last batch of Gripen C/D´s for the Flygvapnet then do “an inflation to 2014” sum, a contract that included an awfull lot more than just the aircraft´s with the “Recurring Fly Away Unit cost”, something that doesnt even cover the construction of one single airframe, nevermind things like concurrency, for 2019/20 (and those “80 to 85 million US$” might, or not, be atainable) is out of this world!
.

By the time of FRP, concurrency costs will be negligible so that can be taken out of the equation. And I agree that comparing contract costs (especially arbitrarily using FY 2014 dollars) is a poor method. Having said that, not really interested in another go around with the whole “what does the F-35 really cost” carousel. Nor is the Heritage Foundation an unbiased source. However, I found the polling of the pilot’s impressions interesting and worth a read (with one caveat, there were only two former F-15C pilots among those polled. Most likely the USAF is transitioning few pilots from F-15C to the F-35).
Particularly:

The F-35A was not designed to be an air superiority fighter, but the pilots interviewed conveyed the picture of a jet that will more than hold its own in that environment—even with its current G and maneuver restrictions. In the words of an F-16C Weapons School Graduate and instructor pilot now flying the F-35A, “Even pre-IOC,[26] this jet has exceeded pilot expectations for dissimilar combat. (It is) G-limited now, but even with that, the pedal turns[27] are incredible and deliver a constant 28 degrees/second. When they open up the CLAW, and remove the (7) G-restrictions, this jet will be eye watering.”