F-35A maximum G rating lower than 5?!

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

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2554
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 16:48

f-16adf wrote:Steve,
Also have words from the CO of Wisconsin ANG about his Block 30 in comparison to F-35 and their upcoming conversion to it.


Have you posted these anywhere? If not, are you at liberty to share? If not, I shirley understand.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 16:57

Steve, there's something else that Optimist brought to my attention here viewtopic.php?p=434884#p434884 and which comes straight from the manuals, the empty weight of Block 50 is not 18,238 lb as we both thought and as stated here

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html

That's most likely Block 30,

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article6.html

Block 50 appears to be around 20 klb empty, 21 klb with pilot, gun ammo and 2 amraams.

https://info.publicintelligence.net/HAF-F16.pdf

So you need to use the 28 klb weight charts in link below if you want fully fueled and armed Block 50/52 performance.

https://info.publicintelligence.net/HAF ... lement.pdf
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 17:02

Steve, here are a few:

F-16A Block 15 turn charts.jpg






F-16 Block 15 and Block 42  P&W F100-220.jpg






As far as Block 50 weight. Technically you are suppose to do a Weight and Balance load with the numbers from each particular jet's licensed AFM. Same as a Cessna 172RG, you do it with copyrighted manual to that serialed plane. You just cannot use any C-172RG POH/AFM. However, since we do not have that for the F-16 B50, I would reference the 19,261lbs empty number that is even used in a sample load out problem on pg B1-3 of the HAF Supplement. For example:

F-16C  HAF empty weight pg.jpg




I'll try and find the other stuff, may take a bit...
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2062
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 18:01

steve2267 wrote:The EM chart of a Blk 5/10 oughta be close to a Blk 15, correct?

As an aside, wasn't the Viper still a 9g machine with a single centerline tank?

WRT the argument raging about dropping tanks vs not dropping tanks, I will note that in a number of Eagle vs Mig combat accounts from the '91 Gulf War and Kosovo, the Eagles punched tanks. Dunno if they still had gas or not.





If you are referring to the original Block 15 and not later ones maybe - it also had a bigger tail over the Israeli block 5/10 of 82.

Yes by the time they got there the tank was probably empty so even if turning fights happened there would have been next to no difference in relative performance to the potential foes.

Vietnam and before (long story short) - tanks were dropped a lot for various reasons - e.g. the tanks were not stressed for combat in a lot of cases also F-4s had to drop tanks to fire AIM-7s etc blah. With 4 gen the tanks were combat stressed so less need to jettison them but they do in an emergency situation (SAM / A-A) like DS shows. But these aircraft still spend most of their lives with tanks - e.g. taking off and going to a combat area.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 18:27

Badger Militia article:

Badger Militia 1.jpeg

Badger Militia 2.jpeg

Badger Militia 3.jpeg

Badger Militia 4.jpeg
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3142
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 18:51

OK. Are we through ‘boiling the ocean‘ (again) yet? :wink:

See smsgtmac’s post on page one of this thread. That was 6ish years ago...and he had three detailed discussions on ‘spec’ changes on his blog that you can find with a simple search.

Obtw, great podcast find above. Kinda says it all.
Last edited by quicksilver on 12 Feb 2020, 19:01, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2554
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 18:59

quicksilver wrote:OK. Are we through ‘boiling the ocean‘ (again) yet? :wink:


I don't know... Maybe. It's a nice respite from Canaduh and Gripenitis, me thinks. :o

Only other thing I'll offer is this... in a conversation with Gums, I was surprised to learn that "most air combat" (take this with a grain of salt, this is me (an aero engineer) regurgitating what I heard) takes place at 5-6g. I had this mistaken notion that Viper dudes tore around the sky with their hair on fire at 9g and 400kt for the entire fight. At the merge you might put on 9g for something like 3-9 seconds (sounded like 2-4 sec was more "typical") in a break turn as you sought to gain an angles advantage, by then you have either pissed away some energy, or you are tracking your bandit and seeing what he is doing. The statement that Gums made that really caught my attention was something like "if you can sustain 5-6g for 2-3 minutes... your golden..." And the fact that the early Vipers anyway, could sit out there at 5-6g until they ran out of gas from like 10-20k feet was hugely eye opening to pilots in the 1980's, and still a YUGE advantage 'til today.

After that conversation, I'm looking at Lightning numbers and I'm seeing 5-6g sustained up to, it seems, at least 20k feet... so, yeah, the F-35 can bring it, if it needs to. And, yet again, this is the least important aspect of the jet so many of us like to yak about.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3142
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 19:09

‘Sustained turn performance’ is what turned lotsa guys into gym rats — weight training, healthy eating and all kinds of counter-fighter culture stuff.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2554
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 19:18

quicksilver wrote:See smsgtmac’s post on page one of this thread. That was 6ish years ago...and he had three detailed discussions on ‘spec’ changes on his blog that you can find with a simple search.


I was reading through smsgtmac's blog posts before I posted on this thread. As I recall, he hadn't noted or specified at what weight / altitude the spec change had occurred (or I missed it). He may have just guessed it was at 15k feet, dunno. That's also kinda what prompted me to ask in here.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3142
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 19:21

steve2267 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:See smsgtmac’s post on page one of this thread. That was 6ish years ago...and he had three detailed discussions on ‘spec’ changes on his blog that you can find with a simple search.


I was reading through smsgtmac's blog posts before I posted on this thread. As I recall, he hadn't noted or specified at what weight / altitude the spec change had occurred (or I missed it). He may have just guessed it was at 15k feet, dunno. That's also kinda what prompted me to ask in here.


Istr that it was a specified kpp and thus not public info.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 19:24

I guess, for the great podcast material. If someone has a problem with what the Lt. Colonel implied (or as how he implied it), perhaps they should take a ride up to KMSN and ask him?

I had reservations about not posting it 3 months ago because I figured this was going to happen. But as Steve said, it changes the convo/discussion. Frankly there are probably many who couldn't take any more of the other discussion topics. I.E., the great Gripen circlejerk-
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3142
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 19:35

f-16adf wrote:I guess, for the great podcast material. If someone has a problem with what the Lt. Colonel implied (or as how he implied it), perhaps they should take a ride up to KMSN and ask him?

I had reservations about not posting it 3 months ago because I figured this was going to happen. But as Steve said, it changes the convo/discussion. Frankly there are probably many who couldn't take any more of the other discussion topics. I.E., the great Gripen circlejerk-


I missed it. What did he say?
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2554
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 19:48

quicksilver wrote:
f-16adf wrote:I guess, for the great podcast material. If someone has a problem with what the Lt. Colonel implied (or as how he implied it), perhaps they should take a ride up to KMSN and ask him?

I had reservations about not posting it 3 months ago because I figured this was going to happen. But as Steve said, it changes the convo/discussion. Frankly there are probably many who couldn't take any more of the other discussion topics. I.E., the great Gripen circlejerk-


I missed it. What did he say?


Lt Col Merkel is the head of the F-35 unit conversion office here and is enthusiastic about the forthcoming fighter, highlighting what new capabilities it will bring. “Number one is its ability to process and share information across networks. It may not have the sheer performance the F-16 has like climb and turn, but that’s not really a key metric anymore.
“These days we’re not as concerned about physical performance of the airplane as we are about sensors, integration and things like that. The F-35 is meant to operate stealthily and attack before it is detected. It doesn’t need to manoevre, it just needs to find things and shoot them.”

from p. 46 of the article adf just posted, November 2019 #330, Badger Militia


Personally, I have no issues with what the good Colonel said. It seems to fit with everything else I've read and seen discussed.

Lighter F-16's are rate machine beasts. Something I've come to appreciate more. The Bee driver with whom I corresponded said an airshow Viper would outrate him a bit, but he could outradius them (and implied "and kill him.") So too, a (light) Hornet may be able to outradius him, but he could outrate the Hornet (and implied "and kill him.").

I'm a numbers guy. Its what I do. And I'm seeing numbers, pulling numbers out of old charts & threads, developing numbers from things as silly as racing a $2M sports car... and all the numbers are supporting the notion that the F-35 is a beast in its own right. (But really, why should we be surprised? At 50% fuel -- either approaching target or coming off target -- the F-35 TW & wing loading is very competitive with the Viper, which everyone "raves" about. So yeah, what you said earlier, QS, about journos lacking even a little curiousity, is very disappointing. Actually, that should be the story -- the abysmal state of blogging / journalistic writing rather than F-35 performance, which is what LM has said all along -- that it is meeting requirements.)
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4937
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 19:58

Wasn't the Blk 30 the hottest of the hot? Lightest GE equipped Vipers? The F-35 is compared to the Blk 50 favorably, so... no shame in not matching a rocket ship. That would be like comparing the J79-GE-19 powered F-104A to the F-15 and saying "Yeah, it doesn't have the climb, speed, or ceiling that the F-104 has, but that big radar and big wing let it find targets and turn into them like no ones' business, and that is the name of the game now."
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2554
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 20:05

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Wasn't the Blk 30 the hottest of the hot? Lightest GE equipped Vipers? The F-35 is compared to the Blk 50 favorably, so... no shame in not matching a rocket ship. That would be like comparing the J79-GE-19 powered F-104A to the F-15 and saying "Yeah, it doesn't have the climb, speed, or ceiling that the F-104 has, but that big radar and big wing let it find targets and turn into them like no ones' business, and that is the name of the game now."


I am going to say yes... until... the ANG Blk42's got the PW-229EEP motor. Using the uninstalled thrust from the acceptance test, and running numbers on the actual aircraft, it is my understanding these Blk42's had the highest TW ratio of all Vipers then in service. (Perhaps a good question would be if the Blk 30's were in service at the time the Blk42's got their -229EEP motors?

Something that may not be appreciated about those PW-229EEP motors is that they go 6000hrs before overhaul/inspection (or whatever you call it). Not sure how long the F110-GE motors go before overhaul. But jumping from 7-9 years to something like 12 years on overhaul sounds like a big deal.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests