Forum: General F-35 Forum

Sorry, you seems to be the one trolling and in great need of some education.

You really think only engineers can actually cut the mustard and comprehend the subject? Well i got news for you you still have way to go before you make ME believe in L-M commercials.

"The F-35 is a mediocre performer. Said 1st Fighter Wing commander Brigadier General Burton Field, "The problem with the F-35 ... is speed. It doesn't have the capability to supercruise. Speed lets us get inside the decision cycle of the bad guy."

Call this guy a troll for a laugh. So basically according to YOU, an aircraft with limited stealth technology, really low in structural margin, to the point one version is actually limited to 7 Gs, incapable of supercruising, would be better off than 4th gen fighter while its suffer and even larger kinetiq desadvantage over them? Supercruise F-22 = <> M 1.7 Rafale/Typhoon M 1.4/1.3???

Call someone else a troll please, preferably someone who can't tell the difference between a delta wing and his mum ironing table. Thanks.

F-16.net Sponsor

skrip00 wrote:

Corsair1963 wrote:

So, if Country XYZ purchased an F-35C and operated it only from landbases. It in turn would have a higher G Rating..............correct?

Yes. IF the folding wing system we're to be left deployed and strengthened.

You dont need to save space on land bases.

...and IF they paid L-M to certify and test the new configuration. That would be the real obstacle.

Patriot wrote:

I'm wondering about one more thing ?
Why LMAC during designing F-35 has not employed concept 'superb viev canopy' as there was in case F-16.
It gives pilot great capabilities during combat when he must have to see everything arround him well, besides aiming the target with use JHMCS requires that solution I think. F-16 and F-22 are built according to this concept and that unique feature differs these two aircrafts from all modern fighters, I think that for pilots it's very valuable feature too. So I can't understand why in case Lighting II they doesn't apply this concept ? Shrug

If you knew the capabilities of the F-35 HMD you would know why.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

sampaix wrote:

idesof

You keep bringing up L-M commercial staments as evidences of superiority. What i'd avise you to chew on is Aerodynamic ABCs not to mention Air Force specialist training because all you can do up to now is make me laugh.

No wonder you didn't "bother" elaborating on any of my points so far, you CANT.

The CFD programs you'd need to actually approximate the F-35's aerodynamics throughout the flight envelope are extremely expensive. Even if you got your hands on the right CFD packages, you'd need access to massive computing power to actually compute realistic subsonic, transonic, and supersonic flows about the F-35. It could take you years to do on your home PC. You probably wouldn't have enough RAM to generate an accurate enoguh mesh... hehe. Oh... and you'd have to have access to an accurate 3D computer model of the F-35. You couldn't generate one from publically available schematics, pictures, plastic model kits, etc.

The F-35 has little to do with aerodynamic ABCs. You either get the data from flight testing or wind tunnel testing, or you approximate it with massive computing power. Anyone who actually knows specifics about the F-35's aerodynamics is certainly not telling.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

sampaix wrote:

"The F-35 is a mediocre performer. Said 1st Fighter Wing commander Brigadier General Burton Field, "The problem with the F-35 ... is speed. It doesn't have the capability to supercruise. Speed lets us get inside the decision cycle of the bad guy."

Where is this quote from? Can you provide a link?

@Raptor_One

Please stop taking people for stupid, ignorance is for those who whant to be and stay ignorants only. All you need is some effort to understand, years to learn from A-to-where you can, some computing power and keep at it.

"you cannot compare a fighter like the F-35 that carries its weapons internally with one that carries them externally."

It greatly depends in which configuration and in every case althought it is complicated you can, that's how Air Force specialists computes ranges and perfs vs diverse loads.

You'd be surprised on how little difference 6 AAMs are making on cruising or top performances and F-35 carries a permanent drag and weight penalty with its internal bay.

As soon as you start talking 2.000 l external tanks YES it works in F-35 favour to have an internal bay but not in the case of low-drag/high-speed AAMs and drag-effiscient pylons.

As a matter of FACT all 4ht fighters supercruise in basic A2A configuration, some even with one 1.250 lexternal tank and 4 AAMs at speed from M 1.2 to M 1.4; F-35 doesn't supercruise and its designed Mach Limit is 1.6.

"Regardless, you cannot make simplistic aerodynamic judgements like the one you're making for what is no doubt a very complex aerodynamic design."

You meant yourself CANT perhaps, many of us actually can.

Aerodynamic basic principles are used to define more refined solutions but their resultantes remains the same in most cases and basic rules applies happy or not.

And i wouldn't describe F-35 aerodynamics as being complexe, NO, in fact it is a quiet simple one compared to some.

"Once again, you're trying to apply overly simplisitic analysis to complex aerodynamic designs. If you really think that a lower aspect ratio ammounts to a better performing wing, you're mistaken."

I dont think that there is no such thing as "applying overly simplisitic analysis to complex aerodynamic design":

1) locum is first giving an indication which is a perferctly valid way to do things before elaborating further.

2) What you call oversimplistic are in fact simplified versions of higly complexe laws, if they are so simple to you, then you're quiet advanced in your knowledge of them, in which case care to elaborate, i'll listen.

3) Your POW would imply that between the basics aerodynamic choices (Arrangements and solutions) and the developed design there have been no optimisation whatsoever.

4) The results are there to validate locum remarks, not yours.

"The airfoil section(s) used, and other geometric properties of the 3D finite wing are all important factors that must be taken into account."

Precisly what i was thinking of and i have little problem doing just that. There are rules and scales for doing proper analysis, even low-end softwares to compute 3D models.

A piece of sofware like the one used by L-M, designed by Dassault is available to you vs a few thousand dollars.

You do nothing more than quoting a "stage 2 of aerodynamic design" and your descriptif is as "overly simplisitic" as his.

In fact as far as modern aircraft are concerned, there isn't a huge amount of solutions available to designers as the basic laws of aerodynamic and physics are the same for everyone at all time (and well know today or so I thought).

"If you're talking about a delta wing, a reduction in span leads to an increase in wing sweep. This has its advantages and disadvantages."

Which are?

Still this is where we converge, most Typhoon fans knows little about its origins, its politico-industrial history and thus are not in a position to make a proper, developed analysis.

For example in the Eurofighter websites they can read that it owns its high maneuvrability to its level of instability and long moment harm canard.

Now THIS is a hell of a missleading over-simplification.

Some will assume that its high instantaneous turn rate is due to the long moment harm canards and it is a false notion.

In FACT, Typhoon is the brainchild of Dr. Wolfgang Herbst of Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm (MBB) who was the advocate of post-stall technology (PST) in europe and of the use of PS maneuvres in ACMs in the 80s.

At the time, MBB, BAE and Dassault were already on the ECF project since <> 1978.

I quote NASA: Highlights of Research by Langley for the X-31.

"Herbst’s conclusions were based on wind-tunnel tests of a German advanced canard fighter configuration known as the TKF-90 and piloted simulator studies during which the application of simulated thrust vectoring resulted in rapid directional turns at high angles of attack had increased the turn rate by over 30 percent."

You can conclude the use of long moment harm was designed to increase pitch authority at the predicted very high AoAs and as a matter of fact i know it from their own designers.

This feature translates by very large sized elevators on F-22, and an increase from a planed 15% to 18% instability to 35% on Typhoon due to the absence of TVC for the very same reasons.

This little caption is often missinterpreted itself, and YOU are the one doing just that.

People translates "rapid directional turns" into "instantaneous turn rate" which is quiet different.

In one case you point the nose somewhere, in the second you do the same but also ignitiate a change of direction at the same time. This of course apply in the case of F-22 too.

To achieve BOTH you need LIFT and... more lift.

To SUSTAIN the turn you need LIFT and THRUST.

Today's Typhoon is flying without the TVC it was designed for in the first place and its long moment harm is falsly advertised as being there for a reason it isn't there for.

So blelieve you me i can well discernnate between commercial and PR stuff and the real stuff.

According to your own oversimplified views where the hell does Typhoon get its turning performances from then?

For some, Typhoon have LOADS more lift and pitch control at any AoA than F-35 have to offer by design, delta wing characteristics, lower wingload helps, the best indication of that is a max obtainable AoA of 70 without TVC*.

Come back when F-35 will have reached more than 45* AoA.

At equal aerodynamic levels of "complexity" TWR and wingload are equaly important, your state of denial doesn't change that nor Typhoon flight envelop.

If you're interested on aerodynamics, i can also give you a clue on how Rafale designers obtained an even higher level of pitch control at far higher AoA with close coupled canards.

On top of the close coupled advantages i will point out to
the use of expending waves over the fuselage (both sides).

I hope you will be able to spot this design feature, let me know if you do when you do.

"The YF-22 had a greater wing sweep angle than the F-22, and I assume a lower aspect ratio too. So why was the wing sweep angle decreased for the F-22? If I remember correctly, a thinner airfoil was used which offset the increased wave drag at high Mach. The higher aspect ratio improved low speed handling, I think. It's not always a bad thing to increase aspect ratio. Of course a fighter is not going to have an AR of 10, but an aspect ratio less than 3 is considered relatively small."

Increasing aspect ratio is the sure sign of a shift to lower Mach values as far as optimisation is concerned, even more if you're after low speed handling.

As for the YF-22 design, there is another explaination:

YF-22 elevators were suffering from shockwaves from the wing at <> M 1.4 with a resulting loss of authority.

Reducing their sweep angle from 48* to 42* and reducing root thickness could have helpt solving this.

Overal thickness seems to be the same, twist and camber are modified, the shape of the flaperon changed, the tip were scarfed for RCS redution purpose.

STILL wing area remains the same, 1/3rd more than that of F-15, so I suppose they wanted to keep as low as wingload as possible don't you?

Back to Typhoon and F-35 now.

This is just logical, if you're honnest you'll admit that their requierements were for one STRIKE and Air Superiority for the other. = Different aerodynamics solutions.

Other than that we got the usual revisionism which goes hand to hand with L-M commercial brochures.

No good for a proper analysis.

F-35 aerodynamic arrangement IS conventional and its wing optimised for lower speed and operational ceilling.

This is consistant with its wings aspect ratio, tickness, general design features and requiered specifications.

"T/W ratio is an overhyped figure of merit."

Really? So it IS a valid Operational point in the case of F-22 but you dismiss it in the case of Typhoon. Weird.

"Also, wing loading is no longer a telling figure of merit for advanced aerodynamic designs such as the Typhoon or F-35."

Same here, is there anything else you'd like to make look like totally inaccesible to us mortals?

Dismissing the importance of these aspects lead you nowhere and again if you cant elaborate further don't start.

"If you tried to apply the concept of wing loading to the F-16 for example, you'd come to the conclusion that it was a piece of garbage."

Not what Jonh Boyd and Pierre Sprey were saying of it when they designed the Viper and i can assure YOU that F-35 will hardly out-turn a F-16 A Block 15 clean.

I have noticed a strong tendency to dismiss the merit of both these guy in this particular forum, forgeting that they are the fathers of the most succesful aircraft in the history of aviation. Arrogant and ungratefull at the same time.

More to it, long before you guys tried to rewrite every books in the buziness, they invented the conceipt of Agile fighters and you seem to forget that they know lot more about it than you do reading how you interpret the importance of maneuvrability in ACMs.

Clearly there is a large disproportion between pretention, habit for dismissal and real knowledge somewhere and when such a guy speaks even if i have a difference of opinion, I listen.

I'm a genuine air fan, i SAW F-16 out-flying Mirage F1 and SAAG Vigen at le Bourget Air Show and thought of it as being a stroke of genius, as did my flight instructor a 3 star AdA General, head of the Bretigny AdA test flight center.

So clearly, himself, Jonh Boyd and Pierre Sprey knows some you guys are far from comprehending just yet and i can tell.

"The concept of wing loading should be used with caution and only applied to very conventional aircraft designs."

Is that a plea for us not to point out overly inferiority of US aircrats in this aspect or a word of caution for yourself?

Just for your information, a "very conventional aircraft designs" is my definition of that of F-35 itself appart for the stealth features and if you think F-35 stealth allow for the most develop aerodynamics you're the world's first.

There is NOTHING in F-35 design and features that would make it turn or climb with a Typhoon at ANY time, ANY speed, ANY altitude as long as it is in A2A configuration and this, even with a 1.000 l central tank...

This sort of dismissal exercises are generally used by those who cannot have their way vs the simplest arguments.

These basic rules ARE complexe laws explained in a simplistic way to you and are always more valid than continuous denial without any form of alternative solution.

Try Dryden they will explain some more very well.

Thank you for your attention. I'll search for this article link and will post it back to you ASAP. The author is David Axe.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

What a ridiculously muddled post. How is anyone supposed to respond to that mess you just wrote? How about this? You're a really smart guy and must know a lot more than me. You showed me up, dude. I feel like a total idiot. What ever was I thinking? Later. Very Happy

Last edited by sampaix on Sep 22, 2006 - 03:54 PM; edited 1 time in total

Raptor_One Posted: Sep 22, 2006 - 01:44 PM

Not with your usual "i know better, it's NOT possible, all you write is a mess" etc. Not good enough.

I think you should consider the possibility that some people might well be in a position to prove you wrong on most of the points you made.

What i'm talking about is something thousand of analysts the world over are doing every day with some very reasonable level of success and precision, professionally or as amateurs.

Something else. If these aerodynamics basics weren't allowing designers to do their jobs, computing power or NOT Dassault Systems would never have been able to write CATIA, DELMIA, ENOVIA, SMARTEAM, CAAV5.

AGAIN just to remind YOU of some F-35 was designed using CATIA.

So instead of dismissing every single argument going vs your opinion, just show us what you're made of because i can garantee you that if the provided datas are correct i can come up with F-35 turning point, instantaneous and sustained turn rate with what i got at home only (and which is perfectly legal) with a few * and kts precision.

Dont know about you but i went over the basics 30 years ago. Ge real.

http://www.3ds.com/home

PS i know exactly what i should be equiped with to work with the nEUROn team in terms of computing power (for example), got the requierements on my HD and i believe you'll be able to find the info too.

Infortunaly these guys are WAY more advanced than i am and i would never get a job with Dassault appart as floor runner perhaps but powerwise, its nowhere near what you SAY it is, at all.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

Okay dude... like I said, you have told me my business. I stand in awe of you.

Well mate if this is your buziness stop playing games and talk buziness we're all hears.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

Say what? Forgive me for not taking you seriously.

Seriously you have perhaps notyhing to bring to the debate???

I dont care your opinion, as long as you didn't show how much you got behind your attitude of dismissal. It's either genius or arrogance. me i'm no genius, i'm a pain in the back, i question people and things...

I saw SMART and top SMART and as i already said like to learn from them.

One thing. the more it goes, th less I think you're one of them.

Since you have point to make instead of trying to prove someone is wrong by just saying so, please tell us more. Passed this point i'll start loosing interest, im for dialog not abuse.

Hey mods, when did this place become the "Fight Club"???

starting to remind me of rec.aviation.mil.... (not a fond memory)

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

sampaix wrote:

Seriously you have perhaps notyhing to bring to the debate???

I dont care your opinion, as long as you didn't show how much you got behind your attitude of dismissal. It's either genius or arrogance. me i'm no genius, i'm a pain in the back, i question people and things...

I saw SMART and top SMART and as i already said like to learn from them.

One thing. the more it goes, th less I think you're one of them.

Since you have point to make instead of trying to prove someone is wrong by just saying so, please tell us more. Passed this point i'll start loosing interest, im for dialog not abuse.

Okay.

Raptor_One

Good, in this case i have to say that i am interested in your opinion as to what sort of performances you are expecting from F-35 no need for details numbers i just need a rough estimate from you here...

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35 Lightning II maneuverability