Q&A session with an F-35C naval aviator

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

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 528
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post24 Dec 2018, 17:06

It is possible the Block 42 w/the Pratt -229 and the Block 30 are quicker than the 50 (depending on altitude). Also, the Eurofighter Typhoon could probably out accelerate all those jets except the F-22.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2211
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post25 Dec 2018, 01:45

blindpilot wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:We need to stop the statement that the F-35 can out accelerate the Flanker by 10-20%. It has zero basis in fact. You cannot scale acceleration times by air density alone, so a 1,300ft acceleration is completely in-comparable to a 30,000ft one.


This says it well, absent any published data. Even with, or modified, even KPPs don't tell the whole story. This said we can assume the "A" to have the best perfomance overall, and B/C will have some variation.

Yet I would also take care imputing transonic acceleration compromises for the C into the base subsonic realm. The 135 is a beast of an engine and getting off the line or going from 100 kts to 300 kts in the C will be close to base A numbers. Usual BFM situation will be in that realm, recovering from post stall to "let's go" subsonic acceleration. There is no "60 seconds longer" in that case, that we might see in trying to get to Mach 1.2.

MHO,
BP


x2
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2578
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post26 Dec 2018, 15:07

quicksilver wrote:
blindpilot wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:We need to stop the statement that the F-35 can out accelerate the Flanker by 10-20%. It has zero basis in fact. You cannot scale acceleration times by air density alone, so a 1,300ft acceleration is completely in-comparable to a 30,000ft one.


This says it well, absent any published data. Even with, or modified, even KPPs don't tell the whole story. This said we can assume the "A" to have the best perfomance overall, and B/C will have some variation.
Yet I would also take care imputing transonic acceleration compromises for the C into the base subsonic realm. The 135 is a beast of an engine and getting off the line or going from 100 kts to 300 kts in the C will be close to base A numbers. Usual BFM situation will be in that realm, recovering from post stall to "let's go" subsonic acceleration. There is no "60 seconds longer" in that case, that we might see in trying to get to Mach 1.2.

MHO,
BP

x2


OK.... what is fair to say about its acceleration then vs. the various Flankers?

Let's assume it's the SU-35 we're talking about, the most capable Flanker. And the F-35A, the most sprightly of the 3 variatnts. Let's also assume a 5,000lbs weapons load and 1/2 internal fuel for each, and both are at 25,000 feet and accelerate straight and level. Is there a way to ballpark its acceleration vs. the SU-35????
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3717
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post26 Dec 2018, 16:02

Not with any degree of accuracy. I would fully expect the Su-35S to have wonderful acceleration as it has a LOT of thrust compared to the previous generation of Flankers. Even in my analysis I am doing I acknowledge the lack of data that helps determine dynamic thrust. It draggy, yes, compared to the F-35A, but it also has more net thrust than anything in the west bar the F-22. It SHOULD have the best transonic/supersonic acceleration of any 4th gen jet barring the supersonic performance of the MiG-31.
"Spurts"

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

lbk000

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 208
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post01 Jan 2019, 15:38

Just making a note that for the purposes of our favorite olde-fashioned Le Dogefighte, transonic acceleration isn't particularly relevant. Acceleration and deceleration inside M .6 is what makes the rodeo ride.

Transonic performance is a matter of interest for the all-important positioning game outside of the fight, yet in the 5thgen context is an issue ruled by ISR: He who sees first moves soonest, and he who moves soonest, moves fastest.

In other words, Su-35 is stuck with acceleration of 0 anytime he's not aware of F-35 movements. It is unlikely any marginal advantage the Su-35 has in raw acceleration performance will be enough to overcome the lead time advantage that the F-35 gains from LO.

Ontopic: Wonder if interviewed pilot feels stifled by the F-35's teething/testing or LO discipline. Legacy aircraft, being what they are, might grant a perceived freedom to be smash around harder?
Previous

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 9 guests