F-35 and Airshows

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5411
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post07 Jun 2019, 14:04

gta4 wrote:
sferrin wrote:1) Are you saying china is upgrading RD-33 to beat F414 (performance-wise)? Making that small engine as powerful as F100? If that is true, I could say China's engine technology is on par with, or probably has exceed US.


Not so. The F414 could be much more powerful than it currently is (EPE) at 26,500lbs thrust. The USN would rather have more life than more power though. Furthermore the F414 achieved it's 22,000lb thrust level over two decades ago. (Hell, even EPE is a decade old.) Matching that initial power hardly requires "exceeding" US technology. More like "matching US 1990s technology". As for "small engine" the F414 is actually smaller than the WS-13 so it's even less of a stretch.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 729
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post07 Jun 2019, 14:09

sferrin wrote:Presumably the production powerplant would be the WS-13E (22,450lbs). That's more thrust and better aerodynamics than the F-35 (certainly a better fineness ratio).


Apparently not WS-13E, that's for JF-17. The engine for FC-31 is supposed to be WS-19.

FC-31 is also bigger in all dimension than F-35 and with 2 engines probably more maintenance heavy. Though Shenyang brochure claimed max speed of Mach 1.8. If it's geared for export it's probably overall less capable than F-35 just based on lack of avionics experience alone.

gta4 wrote:2) It's not an easy task to assume "A has better aerodynamics than B" without wind tunnel or CFD result.
Due to higher wing sweep, it is unlikely that FC-31 could become as efficient as F-35 at subsonic. Due to smaller H-stab, it may not have F-35 level pitch authority and unable to conduct drift turns/tight loops.

You can not judge a plane's "fineness" by its "thinness". There are lots of counter-examples. A seemingly "thin" or "slim" aircraft (such as all Gen.3 jets) may have very poor aerodynamic efficiency, while a seemingly stubby plane, such as propeller fighters from WW2 era, may have decent aerodynamic efficiency.


You can't just look at size of horizontal stabilizers, you have to look at tail volume and how far away it is from CG.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3447
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post07 Jun 2019, 14:47

sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:
sferrin wrote:1) Are you saying china is upgrading RD-33 to beat F414 (performance-wise)? Making that small engine as powerful as F100? If that is true, I could say China's engine technology is on par with, or probably has exceed US.


Not so. The F414 could be much more powerful than it currently is (EPE) at 26,500lbs thrust. The USN would rather have more life than more power though. Furthermore the F414 achieved it's 22,000lb thrust level over two decades ago. (Hell, even EPE is a decade old.) Matching that initial power hardly requires "exceeding" US technology. More like "matching US 1990s technology". As for "small engine" the F414 is actually smaller than the WS-13 so it's even less of a stretch.


26.000lbs of thrust from am F-414 sized engine? That's insane..

I've stood at the aft end of the F-100, F-110, F-135 and F404/414. The F-404/414 is TINY in comparison. Crazy to think they get F-100 type thrust out of it. Great work GE, as I imagine you can still slam the throttle around like early F-404's.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5411
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post07 Jun 2019, 15:48

mixelflick wrote:I've stood at the aft end of the F-100, F-110, F-135 and F404/414. The F-404/414 is TINY in comparison. Crazy to think they get F-100 type thrust out of it. Great work GE, as I imagine you can still slam the throttle around like early F-404's.


"Back in the day" Allison had planned a 30,000lb thrust, F414-sized engine for the Super Hornet. :shock:

Aviation WeeK
5/27/91

Allison
GMA800 30,000lb thrust engine for Super Hornet.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5411
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post07 Jun 2019, 15:54

disconnectedradical wrote:
sferrin wrote:Presumably the production powerplant would be the WS-13E (22,450lbs). That's more thrust and better aerodynamics than the F-35 (certainly a better fineness ratio).


Apparently not WS-13E, that's for JF-17. The engine for FC-31 is supposed to be WS-19.


Hmmm.

Capture.PNG
"There I was. . ."
Offline

f119doctor

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2019, 00:07

Unread post07 Jun 2019, 20:53

Not to disparage the Chinese engine development, but that picture of the engine on test cell looks like an artist conception photoshopped over a real exhaust plume.... The outer surface of a real engine is never that smooth and shiny, especially a development engine.
P&W FSR (retired) - TF30 / F100 /F119 /F135
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3271
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post07 Jun 2019, 21:19

sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I've stood at the aft end of the F-100, F-110, F-135 and F404/414. The F-404/414 is TINY in comparison. Crazy to think they get F-100 type thrust out of it. Great work GE, as I imagine you can still slam the throttle around like early F-404's.


"Back in the day" Allison had planned a 30,000lb thrust, F414-sized engine for the Super Hornet. :shock:

Aviation WeeK
5/27/91

Allison
GMA800 30,000lb thrust engine for Super Hornet.


That would make for an impressive flying display. I wonder what the SFC/TBO would've been.
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 854
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post07 Jun 2019, 21:28

wrightwing wrote:That would make for an impressive flying display. I wonder what the SFC/TBO would've been.

Probably not worth it, else we would have seen an implementation of it.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post07 Jun 2019, 21:33

f119doctor wrote:Not to disparage the Chinese engine development, but that picture of the engine on test cell looks like an artist conception photoshopped over a real exhaust plume.... The outer surface of a real engine is never that smooth and shiny, especially a development engine.

I agree.... obvious CGI
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5411
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post07 Jun 2019, 21:50

Grabbed the screen shot mostly for the text. Regardless, it seems they're going for something more in the class of the F414 than the Russian engine.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

krieger22

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 68
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2018, 22:02

Unread post10 Jun 2019, 11:09

https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-200000613 ... 1bd4a3b646

USAF F-35s have arrived in Finland for the Turku Air Show
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23328
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Jun 2019, 12:36

CAN the F-35A DRAG BABIES do this in an airshow? PUHLeez - if only in error - or not. :devil: Dunno. IMAGE UPloaded! :applause:

Su-30SM activates drag chute during Cobra maneuver https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulhxy9Pi9ZU

Attachments
Su-30dragChuteCobra.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

viper12

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 266
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post12 Jun 2019, 13:05

krieger22 wrote:https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000006137557.html?share=9c46e4bac9f311a827ab521bd4a3b646

USAF F-35s have arrived in Finland for the Turku Air Show


The spec sheets don't look quite right ; take a look at the F-35A for example. It reads :

"Polttoaineen kulutus (kg/h) 11 089
Kulutus jälkipoltolla (kg/s) 10,2"

So if I understood it correctly, the first line is the fuel consumption (cruise or typical ?) and the second one is the fuel consumption in afterburner. The first line is where it's problematic ; it would imply the F-35A burns all its internal fuel in less than one hour, which is in contradiction with the F-35A's estimated combat radius of 584 nm.
Everytime you don't tell the facts, you make Putin stronger.

Everytime you're hit by Dunning-Kruger, you make Putin stronger.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3447
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post12 Jun 2019, 13:28

Those Russians put on quite a show.

Always thinking of something new. You have to hand it to those pilots and machine.. those maneuvers are hard to duplicate. Not going to help it any vs. an F-35 or 22 in a BVR fight, but I bet it sells a lot of airplanes..
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 869
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post12 Jun 2019, 14:53

F-22 used to pull the cobra maneuver to 140 degrees. Can Russians do that?
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests