Skrip00, I believe the F120 engines for the YF-23 were also pretty cool and innovative. I don't know if they were better or even compatible with the 22, but they were cool. Anyone have good info on the F120? If you ask people which they're prefer they will almost always say GE.
_________________ Please bear with me... I'm still learning.
Peace through superior firepower.
Corsair1963
Posted: Jul 31, 2006 - 02:19 AM
Elite
Joined: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 621
Status: Offline
LordOfBunnies wrote:
Skrip00, I believe the F120 engines for the YF-23 were also pretty cool and innovative. I don't know if they were better or even compatible with the 22, but they were cool. Anyone have good info on the F120? If you ask people which they're prefer they will almost always say GE.
I believe the GE F-136 is a derivative of the earlier F-120 just like the F-135 is a by product of the F-119 that powers the F-22 Raptor.
asiatrails
Posted: Jul 31, 2006 - 02:19 AM
Elite
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Posts: 605
Location: San Antonio
Status: Offline
skrip00 wrote:
With the new EMALS launch system, it may have enough muscle to throw F-35s into te air without them needing a/b.
The big advantages of EMALS are the ability to integrate it into a ramp for better ballastics on launch, the elimination of steam ingestion, and a lot of space gained throughout the ship.
skrip00
Posted: Jul 31, 2006 - 02:40 AM
Elite
Joined: Jul 03, 2006
Posts: 535
Location: New Jersey, USA
Status: Offline
Or just use a regular flat deck. Cant launch an E-2 off a ramp.
asiatrails
Posted: Jul 31, 2006 - 03:40 AM
Elite
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Posts: 605
Location: San Antonio
Status: Offline
Now that would be interesting, but they will probably be on the way out when the EMALS gets into service.
I search of the impossible, the USN managed to get a T2 off a ramp at Pax river one time.
asiatrails
Posted: Jul 31, 2006 - 03:42 AM
Elite
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Posts: 605
Location: San Antonio
Status: Offline
Read the Great Engine War for P&W business practices.
idesof
Posted: Jul 31, 2006 - 05:00 AM
Elite
Joined: May 29, 2006
Posts: 640
Status: Offline
LordOfBunnies wrote:
Skrip00, I believe the F120 engines for the YF-23 were also pretty cool and innovative. I don't know if they were better or even compatible with the 22, but they were cool. Anyone have good info on the F120? If you ask people which they're prefer they will almost always say GE.
The F-120 is the basis for the F-136. The F-120 was superior to the F-119, but lost out because it was a higher-risk design, for much the same reasons that the F-23 lost to the F-22. Much as I love the Raptor, it pains me to think that such an absolutely marvelous design as the F-23 was never mass produced. Probably the greatest fighter that never was...
Same thing happens when I think of the A-12 (which the Navy traded that POS super bug for), or the F-16XL, which was decades ahead of its time, and which the air force traded the thoroughly conventional mudhen for. I hate, HATE people and organizations that are risk-adverse.
Of course, the F-117 and B-2 are something else entirely. Those took guts, and what glory was paid back in return. To think that the B-2 first flew back in 1989. Unbelievable. In some ways, the B-2 has got to be considered the aerospace engineering miracle of the century.
As for the Navy, when have those pansies taken any sort of risk lately? The super bug deserves the Navy, and the Navy deserves the super bug...
skrip00
Posted: Jul 31, 2006 - 05:48 PM
Elite
Joined: Jul 03, 2006
Posts: 535
Location: New Jersey, USA
Status: Offline
Quote:
The F-120 is the basis for the F-136. The F-120 was superior to the F-119, but lost out because it was a higher-risk design, for much the same reasons that the F-23 lost to the F-22.
Hah! The F120 never made it into production! But, I'll admit GE/RR can make good engines, but please, keep the bogus claims out of here. There is no evidence to support your reasoning. As far as I'm concerned, the F119 is the better engine as it appears to be offering greater than expected performance in flight today. The same can, and will be said for the F135.
As for the YF-23... I can list numerous reasons for its loss, but it usually comes down to these two:
1. No TVC (which means poorer WVR combat and even supersonic manuverability.)
2. Poor weapons release design/philosophy (More prone to failure, even less storage capacity than F-22's. F-22 main bay is a single unit.)
However, we have a "winner" in service. This typically means we have a good fighter.
As for the A-12.... good riddance. It's death allowed for the JAST program to truely evolve into JSF and to greenlight production of one of the best carrier aircraft out there.
Raptor_One
Posted: Aug 01, 2006 - 07:10 AM
Elite
Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 1086
Location: New York, NY
The YF-22 didn't have a single main bay. The F-22A does though.
end
Posted: Sep 28, 2006 - 02:12 PM
Regular User
Joined: Sep 28, 2006
Posts: 52
Status: Offline
Let's compete with Su-27
The Su-27 is twin engines fighter, F-35 is single engine, so the fuel consume rate of F-35 should be half Su-27.
Su-27 internal fuel is approximately to 9,3 tons, F-35 is over 8.3 ton.
The combat radius of Su-27 is 1500 km, but the F-35, you guys say range, ok, that isn't matter, 1200nm approxi radius to 700 km or make you more satisfied to say 900km that enough!
No matter radius or range, F-35 ONLY is 2/3 of Su-27 at most!
I don't know why you guys so happy? I am so worried that.......
_________________ I think therefor I am
idesof
Posted: Sep 28, 2006 - 02:45 PM
Elite
Joined: May 29, 2006
Posts: 640
Status: Offline
end wrote:
Let's compete with Su-27
The Su-27 is twin engines fighter, F-35 is single engine, so the fuel consume rate of F-35 should be half Su-27.
Su-27 internal fuel is approximately to 9,3 tons, F-35 is over 8.3 ton.
The combat radius of Su-27 is 1500 km, but the F-35, you guys say range, ok, that isn't matter, 1200nm approxi radius to 700 km or make you more satisfied to say 900km that enough!
No matter radius or range, F-35 ONLY is 2/3 of Su-27 at most!
I don't know why you guys so happy? I am so worried that.......
Can anyone translate this? Only part I got was, since the F-35 only has one engine and the Sue Twenty-seven has two, then the F-35's SFC should be half. Since that is a wild, not to mention incorrect, assumption, I don't think the rest of the post really matters. If it does, a translation would be appreciated. Thanks!
skrip00
Posted: Sep 28, 2006 - 05:31 PM
Elite
Joined: Jul 03, 2006
Posts: 535
Location: New Jersey, USA
Status: Offline
F-35 has stealth and high technology avionics which allow it to outperform an Su-27.
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Forum Guidelines
