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.
Both the 119 and 120 engines were prototyped and flown. The 120's outperformed the 119's in the YF-23. Probably had something to do with inlet design. The reasons listed for the 23's loss though are true but had nothing to do with the final decision. It came down to literally...which one do I like better...okay, that one gets my vote. Weapons had nothing to do with it...the 23 could carry plenty of weapons..you must not have ever seen how big the bay was. Same launching concept as the F-22. TVC was taken care of by the 23's exotic control surfaces and could manuever as well as the 22. One thing I think they took into consideration was Lockheed's successful fighter legacy and that really hurt Northrop/McDD. Skripp00 does make a good point though...The F-22A is a winner and that is very obvious!
Sponsor
Posted: Jul 24, 2008 - 3:51 PM
F-16.net Sponsor
This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.
end
Posted: Sep 29, 2006 - 11:20 AM
Regular User
Joined: Sep 28, 2006
Posts: 52
Status: Offline
idesof wrote:
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!
What does I mean?
I mean the fuel you carry is about 8/9 of Su-27.
But the combat radius is only less 2/3 of Su-27!
_________________ I think therefor I am
idesof
Posted: Sep 29, 2006 - 02:16 PM
Elite
Joined: May 29, 2006
Posts: 640
Status: Offline
end wrote:
idesof wrote:
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!
What does I mean?
I mean the fuel you carry is about 8/9 of Su-27.
But the combat radius is only less 2/3 of Su-27!
Ah, I get you now. Don't pay attention to the figures you're reading. The F-35's range is a lot greater than the figures being given, as I believe they related to the requirement as opposed to actual results.
end
Posted: Sep 30, 2006 - 07:29 AM
Regular User
Joined: Sep 28, 2006
Posts: 52
Status: Offline
I got your idea, I will be waiting the real results.
_________________ I think therefor I am
renatohm
Posted: Sep 30, 2006 - 02:57 PM
Frequent Poster
Joined: Dec 27, 2004
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
idesof wrote:
Guysmiley wrote:
Exactly, thrust ain't free. A big motor burns more gas than a little one.
It is my understanding that the F-135 is a more efficient motor than the F-100, with a substantially higher percentage of dry vs. afterburner thrust. Moreover, you are talking about an aircrat that is far less draggy in combat configuration. Also, the Viper's range hasn't decreased appreciably with the advent of higher thrust engines. Higher thrust also means the same relative thrust at lower power settings.
Ever heard about sfc? Sure, the -135 vmay be more efficient, but if you use higher thrust, fuel consumption will be higher. Moreover, the real data are not attainable, for 2 reasons: 1) fighter still in developmentand 2) even when it is ready, data will surely be classified for quite some time.
Personally, I do believe a single-engine fighter carrying as much fuel as a Flanker will certainly outrange its 700+nm range. But while data is classified, we can only assume...
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Forum Guidelines
