Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

Maybe we've already talked about this but I was watching something on TV about the Harriers and how much they suck last night...

Does the F-35 have the same VTOL and flight problems that the Harriers do? Along with the tech and cockpit problems?

F-16.net Sponsor

If they were the same, that would mean our government is wasting money on the F-35. The F-35 is completely different from the Harrier. Its biggest difference is that the Harrier uses direct-lift whereas the F-35 uses a shaft-driven lift fan system. Here's a link.

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca.htm#top

Only one X-35 STOVL version has flown so far and it was pretty flawless during flight test, first airplane to ever take off in STOVL mode then transition to supersonic flight, not bad for a first attempt.
I would bet if any harrier pilots were to read your post they would fire back and say what a bad a$$ jet the Harrier actually is. Besides I saw the same show and it doesn't say the Harrier sucks, it said early Harriers had a bad problem with their flight control system, but later versions AV-8B's were great jets.

USAF version doesn't have any vertical lift problems. Salute

They have a STOVL F-35 in the Dulles part of the Air and Space Museum.

swanee wrote:

They have a STOVL F-35 in the Dulles part of the Air and Space Museum.

And boy did that one have problems....

The differences are many and huge. Imagine the Viper with STOVL, update all the Vipers basic design technology by 40 years and then make the comparison and you ought to be close.

One of the X-35C test pilots was a RAF Harrier pilot. I heard him say (on TV) that the X-35C was much better during vertical take-off and landing because it did not suffer from the sudden and critical power loss the Harrier does close to the ground. My understanding is that this power loss is dues to the engine sucking in hot air from its own engine exhaust; while the X-32C (if that is what it was called) had the same problem as the Harrier, as the vertical lift principal were the same direct-lift as the Harrier.

Close, but the VTOL version is the B model. Good info in there though Smile

So ok, that answers my questions about the VTOL, but what about the cockpit lay-out? and besides the F-35's supersonic cap.s which would win in a fullball?

F-35's cockpit is far more sophistocated than the Harrier's. This only makes sense when you consider the time periods from which the two fighters originate. The F-35 is a new 5th generation fighter, so obviously, it's displays are going to be more advanced. In a fight, the F-35 would dominate the Harrier hands down. Again, there's the time difference in technology. The main advantage the F-35 has, in my opinion, is a much higher thrust to weight ratio and the ability to escape from battle should it become necessary, as the F-35 can go supersonic.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

The F-35 doesn't have a much better t/w ratio:

From toan's numbers:

T/W ratio, sea-level(AB thrust / Maximal military thrust):

F-35B: 0.923~0.992 / 0.603 (F-135, 40,000 ~ 43,000 Ib / 26,100 Ib *1): Score: 0.726~0.781 / 0.703

For the AV-8B:

Power Plant: TAV-8B/AV-8B Day Attack (DA): One Rolls Royce Pegasus F402-RR-406 turbofan engine with approximately 20,280 pounds of thrust
AV-8B Night Attack (NA)/AV-8B
Radar: One Rolls Royce Pegasus F402-RR-408A turbofan engine with approximately 22,200 pounds of thrust
Empty weight: AV-8B 6,336 kg / TAV-8B 6,451kg

Source: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/av-8.htm

However, the F-35 obviously has a better range, better loadout and better speed, given the fact that it is about twice as big, carries much more fuel and is designed for supersonic speed.

lamoey wrote:

My understanding is that this power loss is dues to the engine sucking in hot air from its own engine exhaust

Yeah exactly, its the same reason you get a power loss when you apply carb heat. Hotter air f*cks the fuel mixture and you get a performance/power reduction.

Quote:

The F-35 doesn't have a much better t/w ratio:

Seeing your evidence, I stand corrected. I guess the Harrier can't do supersonic because of its draggy airframe then.

That, and the engine design. Think of it like a car; you can take a powerful motor and set up the gearing to go stupid fast, or set it up to have incredible low-end torque. Of course you can't 'gear' a motor but I imagine you can manufacture it to develope most of its power at lower speeds, like the harrier, or for higher speeds (like the F-35), which may also be why they went with the lift fan idea.

So, it's the fan that's the diff.? It takes care of the "intakes sucking back in hot air" problem?

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

The F-35 vs. The Harrier Jump-Jets