F-35 go past Mach 1 with full external load.

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23079
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Sep 2017, 07:38

Dragon029 wrote:I personally use a Firefox web browser with the Video Downloadhelper addon. Another I sometimes use is a stand-alone program named JDownloader, and for things that don't work with either, I just use OBS (as geoforcerfx linked) to record my screen.

OK thanks - I'll check it all out.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4331
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post12 Sep 2017, 13:39

eloise wrote:Light F-16 can reach about Mach 1.3 with DI=150
How many bombs is there.
Screenshot_20170911-211849.png

I'm going to go with none, or two with no wing tanks.

DI-125 for high fuel A-A load. Zero Fuel Weight 23,821lb
Basic Airframe - 4
Tip-AMRAAMS - 0
Pylon Winders - 22 (2 x [5+6])
Pylon AMRAAMs - 20 (2 x [4+6])
Wing tanks - 57 (2 x [28.5])
CL tank - 22 (15+7)

DI-207 for deep strike. Zero Fuel Weight 28,096lb
Basic Airframe - 4
Tip-AMRAAMS - 0
Pylon Winders - 22 (2 x [5+6])
Pylon GBU-31 - 56 (2 x [13+15])
Wing tanks - 81 (2 x [40.5]) note: higher interference drag due to A-G stores on adjacent pylon
Targeting pod - 22
CL tank - 22 (15+7)

Let's see though, drop all the gas tanks and add two more GBU-31s...

DI-160 for heavy strike. Zero Fuel Weight 31,067lb
Basic Airframe - 4
Tip-AMRAAMS - 0
Pylon Winders - 22 (2 x [5+6])
Pylon GBU-31 - 112 (4 x [13+15])
Targeting pod - 22

So yeah, the lightweight plane will never get there. An F100-PW-220 powered F-15E with four Mk-84s (fewer bombs that have less drag each) tops out at 1.25M. The F100-PW-229 powered F-15E will make it to 1.65 with four Mk-84s.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4331
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post10 Nov 2017, 16:56

So I was thinking about the discussion as to weather those are GBU-31s or GBU-32s. Then on another thread a picture surfaced of an F-35B with GBU-31s inboard and GBU-32s ouboard. I thought I would have a look.

F-35B_17P00250_15.jpg

Here we see that the pylons on the outboard GBU-32s go very far toward the tip and extend pretty far past the tail while on the GBU-31s the pylon is pretty far from the nose and almost to the end of the tail. The GBU-32 is also noticeably slender and has smaller (in fore-aft length) vanes on the side than the GBU-31.

F-35CbringItHook2017.jpg

The munitions in this picture look more robust than slender, have vanes closer to what was seen on the GBU-31s in the previous picture, the pylons seem to barely reach the tail instead of going significantly past it, and there seems to be a good amount of "nose" of the munition in front of the pylon as well.

On these points it certainly looks like those are 2,000lb bombs under the wing of the F-35C in which case the statement of external GBU-32s would have been in error.

Anyone with a counterpoint? Something I missed?
"Spurts"

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

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2049
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post10 Nov 2017, 20:33

I agree that all the munitions (all 4 of them) on that second picture are GBU-31s (2000 lb bombs) and not GBU-32s (1000 lb bombs).

About the "report" that the F-35C exceeded Mach 1 with 4 external GBU-32s having that image associated, I would say:
1- Like you said, the GBU-31s were mistaken as GBU-32s
OR,
2- The picture is not representative of the actual situation that actually happened (F-35C exceeded Mach 1 with 4 external GBU-32s) and that picture was posted as a "placeholder" to represent this same situation.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3212
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post10 Nov 2017, 20:37

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:So I was thinking about the discussion as to weather those are GBU-31s or GBU-32s. Then on another thread a picture surfaced of an F-35B with GBU-31s inboard and GBU-32s ouboard. I thought I would have a look.

F-35B_17P00250_15.jpg

Here we see that the pylons on the outboard GBU-32s go very far toward the tip and extend pretty far past the tail while on the GBU-31s the pylon is pretty far from the nose and almost to the end of the tail. The GBU-32 is also noticeably slender and has smaller (in fore-aft length) vanes on the side than the GBU-31.

F-35CbringItHook2017.jpg

The munitions in this picture look more robust than slender, have vanes closer to what was seen on the GBU-31s in the previous picture, the pylons seem to barely reach the tail instead of going significantly past it, and there seems to be a good amount of "nose" of the munition in front of the pylon as well.

On these points it certainly looks like those are 2,000lb bombs under the wing of the F-35C in which case the statement of external GBU-32s would have been in error.

Anyone with a counterpoint? Something I missed?



I've always felt that it was a misstatement, claiming that they were GBU-31s, which are much slimmer weapons. These look like -32s (i.e. 2000lb).
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2049
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post10 Nov 2017, 21:02

wrightwing, I believe that you made a mistake in your post.

GBU-31 ---> 2000 lb bomb

GBU-32 ---> 1000 lb bomb
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3212
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post10 Nov 2017, 21:44

ricnunes wrote:wrightwing, I believe that you made a mistake in your post.

GBU-31 ---> 2000 lb bomb

GBU-32 ---> 1000 lb bomb

You're correct. I transposed the numbers. I definitely meant -31 not -32.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23079
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Nov 2017, 23:21

No wonder my head was spinning but it was 0200 my time when I tried to GBU it all (non-familiar nomenclature). It is good to puzzle out these issues however as I recall the screenshot was 'bunched up' and I myself unbunched it on a whim.

Redid the unsquishing by taking the size of the overall screenshot then placing the F-35C image in that space. Image now looks a little elongated to me but whatever. The LM logo could be used as an unsquishing benchmark I guess but I'm not going to do anything about it.

It is clear to me from other HOOK 2017 briefings that the briefers often (not having prepared the slides themselves) were unfamiliar with what they saw (that may have been incorrect on whatever notes they had probably not prepared for them either) and they just said stuff. This is not to say that these briefers did not know stuff, just that they may not have known the details shown in the slides. Other HOOK 2017 posts make this clear. About the A/B thing I'll say that the briefer words would be accurate but no details provided for the context. That is the way it is for a military to civilian briefing.
Attachments
F-35CloadedGBUsHook17under.jpg
Last edited by spazsinbad on 11 Nov 2017, 00:45, edited 2 times in total.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post11 Nov 2017, 00:32

I have a very difficult time believing it managed to break mach 1 with a full load only on mil power. We need more info on this. I'd also like to know how long it took to get there.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2614
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post11 Nov 2017, 02:05

Who said mil power?

Because whomever said it is talking out of his or her backside.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23079
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Nov 2017, 02:17

Just watched the video (provided by 'Dragon029' on previous page this thread). There is no mention of the power, so far in this thread only one comment about 'not being on A/B' is from 'kimjongnumbaun' & I don't get it either. Why invent stuff?

RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2151
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post11 Nov 2017, 03:05

spazsinbad wrote:Just watched the video (provided by 'Dragon029' on previous page this thread). There is no mention of the power, so far in this thread only one comment about 'not being on A/B' is from 'kimjongnumbaun' & I don't get it either. Why invent stuff?



From the video to which you linked Spaz, the LM test pilots says "and the vapes are there because we're breaking the sound barrier... Mach 1+"... but it seems self evident from the photo in the video, that the afterburner ain't burnin'. So perhaps that is to what kingjong refers?
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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23079
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Nov 2017, 03:18

OK I don't mind going round and round in circles like a teddy bear one step two step and tickle somebody under there. Have a look at the first page of this thread where claims are made that the A/B flame/tail cannot be seen in daylight. Personally I don't care - the specific claim is vague and debatable - as has been shown - but comment away anyway. Has anyone thought perhaps the A/B was NOT ON when the photo was taken but the aircraft was creating 'vapes'? Don't care.

I'll say again: TAILHOOK conventions are for ex-tailhookers obviously but most are NOT in the USN anymore and are civilians with their wives/partners etc with civilians from civilian organisations associated with Naval Aviation support. These few days are a friendly get-together where hangovers rool while BRICK WILSON (the speaker in video) is grateful he is not speaking after the 'BUG ROACH mixer'. Google Bug Roach to see he is a famous deceased USN LSO - hence name.

These TAILHOOKS are not military style briefings although they may appear as such (can't take the USN out of the peeps).

People misspeak - slide makers screw up or include only old information - no job is on the line in the military here. OK?
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2151
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post11 Nov 2017, 03:34

OK... here's the "tickle under there" part...

In the video of the F-35I demo in Israel recently posted elsewheres arounds here... at the 0:29 mark, the afterburner is lit, and it is pretty self evident:



I was merely trying to point out that in the HOOK video, the LM test pilot points out the vapes, says "Mach 1+"... but it sure looks like the AB ain't lit. Now maybe it is... stage 1 or something and mebbe one cannot generally see F-35 stage 1 AB in the daytime. I dunno. Do I care? Not really.

Maybe the F-35 can bust the barrier at maximum military thrust in a 0g pushover. I dunno. But if QS throws the BS flag, I've got to respect that too. FWIW.
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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23079
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Nov 2017, 03:40

:poke: :applause: Yeah but no but yeah but - good comments whilst 'QS' was non specific about A/B stages. Does that tickle? :mrgreen: :roll:
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests