Forum: F-35 Lightning II

1- good enough to pull cobras, stop cobras and cobra turns. basically, the same as that of the f-22, su-37 and mig-29ovt

2- higher than that of the f-22. it has a higher T/W ratio, larger wing area and a pancake fuselage like the f-14, which produces a lot of lift.

3- well compared to the f-35, at least it has it!!

4- all depends on weights. at loaded weight (as specified by wikipedia), and powered by production al-41fs its around 1.4

5- all right, ill admit i was being stupid saying that javascript:emoticon(' Embarassed

'). no-one knows. that means that any arguments regarding stealth around this aircraft are most likely invalid

F-16.net Sponsor

1. The Post-Stall Regime is useless with the HOBS Missles, I wouldn't want to stall on purpose only to have an Aim-9X in my face.
2. Source?
3. It would be nice to know it's supercruise speed, along with the range it could go with it.
4.According to Wikipedia it says T/W Ratio of 1.19
5.Sukhoi admitted it will not be better than the F-35 and F-22 in the stealth regime.

1- well i guess the same could be said for r-74s lol
2- logic. the f-22 has smaller wing area, less engine thrust and its loaded weight is higher.
3- i honestly cant say but most people say round mach 1.6-2.0
4- im pretty sure theyre referring to the prototype, which is powered by article 117s engines. if you calculate the T/W ratio with wikipedias normal weight and 2 al41fs (of which the exact thrust is unknown but is most likely around 40000lb each [!] ) then its 1.39
5- ok, team f-35/f-22 wins that part of the argument......-sigh-

i reckon it would be a pretty close fight. f-35s and f-22 have the stealth but the t-50s got the performance. i reckon its all on the pilots.

Really, kristi's post doesn't warrant a reply. Nothing but wild speculation and guesses.

He's another one who knows nothing. Let him migrate to the moron board.

hey, its only my personal opinion. i thought that the point of this thread was to compare aircraft, not call people morons?

PAK-FA won't be supercruising anything near like the F-22 does with regard to speed and fuel consumption until it gets its proper 5th gen engines. Work is due to start on those engines this year, but we've all heard such promises many times before.

Neither you nor I have no idea of the TWR that the PAK-FA will have either. Expect it to be a heavier aircraft though, especially as it is said to have five radars, fancy inlet blockers and has all moving tail fins. It sure as hell won't be lighter than the F-22.

"team F-35/F-22" as you call them probably does win the stealth argument too, considering there isn't another company on this planet outside the US with even remotely comparable experience with VLO aircraft. On the other hand Russian's practical experience with stealth seems to be the TU-160 inlets and that wooden mock-up of the SKAT UCAV that seems to have been quietly dumped.

Factor in the performance of the Russian airforce in the Georgian conflict and things and the picture becomes alot clearer. (yes their performance was just shy of appalling.)

I may be wrong too but I didn't think the PAK-FA can fit al41 class engines either.

kristianisme wrote:

i reckon it would be a pretty close fight. f-35s and f-22 have the stealth but the t-50s got the performance. i reckon its all on the pilots.

As pointed out T-50 does not have the performance advantage, unless specualative performance now counts (it doesn't btw) and if you're leaving its all down to the pilots then well, I think you're in for a shock. Russian fighter pilots are lucky to get 40 - 50 hours a year of flying time, and you can bank on not much of that being combat oriented either at those pityful levels of flying hours.

Lets not forget the PAK-FA has nothing even remotely similar to the AN/ALR-94 of the F-22 or the EO DAS and Barracuda suite of the F-35 either.

kristianisme wrote:

1- good enough to pull cobras, stop cobras and cobra turns. basically, the same as that of the f-22, su-37 and mig-29ovt

Cobra maneuver tells us nothing about ITR.

kristianisme wrote:

2- higher than that of the f-22. it has a higher T/W ratio, larger wing area and a pancake fuselage like the f-14, which produces a lot of lift.

1. What is the max thrust of the F-22?
2. What is the weight of the T-50?

I bet you dont know any of these.

kristianisme wrote:

3- well compared to the f-35, at least it has it!!

Are you sure that the T-50 can supercruise at all with it's 'first stage engines'?

kristianisme wrote:

4- all depends on weights. at loaded weight (as specified by wikipedia), and powered by production al-41fs its around 1.4

And F-22 powered by Warp Drive has T/W ratio around 2506:1...
There is no such engine like AL-41. T-50 is powered by 117 with a thrust of 33k lbs.

kristianisme wrote:

5- all right, ill admit i was being stupid saying that javascript:emoticon(' Embarassed

'). no-one knows. that means that any arguments regarding stealth around this aircraft are most likely invalid

That's correct.
Another thing is that current prototype has several issues regarding RCS that has to be solved in the final version so it can achieve decent RCS.

kristianisme wrote:

1- well i guess the same could be said for r-74s lol

Correct, so now you see that your cobra-argument was even more irrelevant.

kristianisme wrote:

2- logic. the f-22 has smaller wing area, less engine thrust and its loaded weight is higher.

1. F-16 also has smaller wing area than the Phantom.
2. AFAIK the F-22 has much more thrust than the T-50.

kristianisme wrote:

3- i honestly cant say but most people say round mach 1.6-2.0

You mean - most people like you? Pure fanboy speculation.

kristianisme wrote:

4- im pretty sure theyre referring to the prototype, which is powered by article 117s engines.

Full rate production aircrafts will also be equiped with 117 engines.

kristianisme wrote:

if you calculate the T/W ratio with wikipedias normal weight and 2 al41fs (of which the exact thrust is unknown but is most likely around 40000lb each [!] ) then its 1.39

The thruth is finally revealed! You know nothing but some wikipedia fanboy speculation. AL41 does not exist, so your 'specifications' is just a crap. Smile

Let's see, cobra=zero air speed=zero energy=dead pilot. Sounds like an effective tactic......for your adversary to use!

kristianisme wrote:

2- logic. the f-22 has smaller wing area, less engine thrust and its loaded weight is higher.

But wing loading doesn't tell you who has the better wings. Granted they are similar in this case, but the F-22 could make a lot more lift/area with less drag. Airfoil and planform matter as much, if not more than, wing loading.

Also, the F119 doesn't make 35,000 lbs thrust. It makes at least 35,000 lbs thrust. The real figure was never released.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

JSF Worst Nightmare