F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 763
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post21 Mar 2018, 21:10

playloud wrote:http://soff.se/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Del-2-F%C3%B6rdjupningsseminarium-Flyg-2017.pdf

So, in this document from the FMV, the thrust for Gripen E is listed (last page) as follows...

Dry: >64kN (14,388 lbs)
Max: >98kN (22,031 lbs)

If the F414-GE-400 is 13,000/22,000, how feasible is it that the F414-GE-39E would be roughly 14,400/22,000?

What kind of engine upgrade would increase dry thrust almost 11%, while not increasing wet thrust?

Well it does not say what the dry and wet thrust are, only that they are "more than".

MTOW is qouted as "approx 17,000 kg" -- is this 16,500 kg rounded off, or has MTOW gone up?

This is what Gripen C/D should have looked like...
Offline
User avatar

playloud

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 268
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 04:07

Unread post21 Mar 2018, 21:37

At one point, they started advertising 17,000kg instead of 16,500kg, so I assume that is a change. edit: I guess the twitter announcement on Gripen News was just reporting THIS document, so this would appear to be the only place it is stated.

I'm just wondering why if the dry thrust rating is greater than a number 10-11% above the baseline F414, why wouldn't the thrust rating for the wet thrust be raised at least some?
Last edited by playloud on 21 Mar 2018, 22:03, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

fbw

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 143
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2012, 02:47

Unread post21 Mar 2018, 22:01

playloud wrote:At one point, they started advertising 17,000kg instead of 16,500kg, so I assume that is a change.

I'm just wondering why if the dry thrust rating is greater than a number 10-11% above the baseline F414, why wouldn't the thrust rating for the wet thrust be raised at least some?


It’s not, depends on where your getting the intermediate thrust rating from. RAND lists the F414GE-400 at 14,327lbs at intermediate thrust (and they got the figures directly from manufacturer if figures were available)

So the F414GE-39E has roughly 64kN of intermediate thrust.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23176
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Mar 2018, 22:40

'swefrank' thanks for info about road landings and brake system. My long winded point was perhaps missed by me earlier (I do that sometimes) was: landing on less than half the runway (deck marked with limpet lights) at night is equivalent to landing on your road (some 47 years ago without the flight aids available today) was appropriate experience. OMG when doing a full stop landing after the MADDLS/FCLP session sometimes the runway lights were late being switched back on!

The Skyhawk had different tyre pressures ashore/onboard. Tyre pressure was doubled for carrier deck landings (an explanation can be provided) but this meant when disembarking one had to remember to firstly actuate the spoilers (not used onboard) and be careful about braking with such high tyre pressures (no anti-skid - which the Sea Venom had - Maxaret). Woe betide forgetting these two important changes on a wet crosswind runway at NAS Nowra. It is easy to upset the A-4 on those long legs (must taxi around corners slowly). An RNZAF Skyhawk was overturned when landing during a thunderstorm in northern Australia (ex-A4G without the usual Kiwi A-4K drag chute) pilot was OK however. So it shows that even landing / braking / taxiing an A4G was NOT SO EASY ashore sometimes. :roll: :mrgreen:
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23176
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Mar 2018, 01:27

swefrank wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Photo from Don Simms (wrote an excellent book on the Kiwi A-4K) shows RW26 with ZOOM lens misrepresenting the actual view a little. Also it is May 1991 and to me it is obvious the overrun area has been cleared of trees for some distance uphill. The trees used to be down almost to the road which crosses by the end of that runway (fence just visible). The first A-4K is just about airborne, being very heavy with fuel, on way to Singapore. It will struggle climbing following the contour ahead and being MAY the temperature is not so hot as it will be on a summer day NIL wind. The middle RNZAF A-4K is at the runway intersection of 26/08 and 21/03 at the bottom of the bowl.

Dude, that was one weird looking rwy! The roads we land at are 2700ft long and 50ft wide, but fortunately they are fairly level. This is an old clip [video at original post] that shows a Gripen landing and taking off from the woods. A nice feature about the Gripen is that you can step on the brakes before touchdown and then the computer decides when to apply the brakes. This in combination with efficient brakes (canards, air brakes and wheel brakes) makes for fairly short landings.

Just to explain a bit more about our A4G operations at NAS Nowra.... We regularly carried out pair formation full stop landings (often off GCAs). Sometimes we did 3 aircraft form landings with No.2 & No.3 in their respective halves of the 150 foot wide runway with Leader in the middle centerline. I have been in all these positions. However I never got to be in the CHECKMATE VF-805 formation team which at first (until about 1972) carried out formation diamond four landings at NAS Nowra for practice and on our AIR DAYS. After that (because No.4 had a difficult time in the box position to brake/or potential brake failure) the box man arrested whilst the rest continued on braking as required. For the leader this was difficult as he had to land much further down then allow braking ability for the wingmen etc. Sadly there are only a few photos of them that I know of so I'll post them soon. There is a video of the former Checkmate (805 Sqdn) and Ramjet (724 Sqdn) Sea Venom teams carrying out these landings. The video stops just as the four reach the runway intersect (bottom of the doughnut) at NAS Nowra, highlighting the DOWN slope of the runway to that point. Also I never got to fly with another Sea Venom (they were few and in last year of service by 1969-70) but like the Vampire it was really difficult to fly as No.2 (on the left side of leader) because in both dual seat aircraft the right hand seat 'passenger' was obscuring the view on the right to a very marked degree! :-) Easier in the A4G though - no 'deadweight' in the way. :mrgreen:

You may notice in the A4G form foto that the runway 21 (so that the crowd area on that eastern side has a good view of the air day ops) has the portable mirror and the runway is starting to slope downhill, the bottom is at the other end - the runway intersection. A Kiwi RNZAF pilot kindly made a description of the up/down on this runway (Kiwis operated No.2 RNZAF A-4K Kahu training squadron from NAS Nowra for a decade from 1991-2001). Photo looks down runway 21.
“There’s a 19ft difference between the threshold heights on 03/21 (the runway is 2046M long). From the Aussie ERSA, the runway slope in the 03 direction: Slope down 0.9% to NE to 450M, then down 0.1% to 650M, then up 0.3% to 850M, then up 0.9% to 1850M, then up 0.5% to RWY end. For a bit of a word picture: 03 threshold at 357ft, then down to 344 ft at 450M, then down to 343ft at 650M, then up to 345ft at 850M, then up 374ft at 1850M, then up to 376ft at runway end. As you can see there's a height change of 29ft in 1000M of runway, at its steepest gradient of 0.9%.” Barnsey [A-K Kahu pilot]

and comment from the world renowned Wal Nelowkin (prolific RAAF Engineer photo recorder of that era 1960s-1980s etc.
“A year 2007 View of Nowra’s Rwy 21, taken from Canberra Aero Club Cessna 172N VH-MUW, on line-up for departure to Canberra, after the Nowra Air Day at HMAS Albatross. This Runway actually slopes down-hill — with a substantial dip in the middle section of Runway. Pilots can easily land ‘long’ as the runway surface drops away beneath them! However, down-hill take-offs are quicker!” Wal Nelowkin


Attachments
A4GcheckmatesFormLanding1974rw21No4arrests.jpg
RW21nasNowraWalNelowkin2007crop.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2791
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post22 Mar 2018, 08:12

Here is very nice video about Finnish F/A-18C/Ds and Swedish Gripens and their ground crews training both from road bases and airbases in Finland:


It's only in Finnish and Swedish, but there is English translation available. I'm sure any model of F-35 would be similarly capable of operating from roads also. From what I've seen, Gripens and Hornets have very similar looking landing performance but Hornets (with EPE engines) have a lot more power available for takeoff. Especially evident when carrying say 2-3 EFTs and other stores. I wonder what loads Naval Gripen could possibly take-off with?
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 763
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post22 Mar 2018, 09:18

hornetfinn wrote:From what I've seen, Gripens and Hornets have very similar looking landing performance but Hornets (with EPE engines) have a lot more power available for takeoff. Especially evident when carrying say 2-3 EFTs and other stores. I wonder what loads Naval Gripen could possibly take-off with?

Interesting question.

The minimum take-off distance of Gripen E is 500m, whereas minimum take-off distance of Gripen C is 400m.

What is the minimum take-off distance of the Finnish Hornets?
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2791
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post22 Mar 2018, 10:28

loke wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:From what I've seen, Gripens and Hornets have very similar looking landing performance but Hornets (with EPE engines) have a lot more power available for takeoff. Especially evident when carrying say 2-3 EFTs and other stores. I wonder what loads Naval Gripen could possibly take-off with?

Interesting question.

The minimum take-off distance of Gripen E is 500m, whereas minimum take-off distance of Gripen C is 400m.

What is the minimum take-off distance of the Finnish Hornets?


AFAIK, about the same. Real world distance varies depending on weather (especially temperature and air density) and what stores are carried. Hornet is larger aircraft with higher T/W ratio and stores affect it a lot less. So taking off with realistic combat load, Hornet needs shorter distance to take off or it needs similar distance to takee off with larger load.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23176
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post25 Mar 2018, 00:13

AND... just to show the underpowered MACCHI MB326H trainer could take off up the hill on RW 03 at NAS Nowra.... & then a DOWN HILL arrest by the KIWIs on same runway but RW 21



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

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1210
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post31 Mar 2018, 00:13

Nimble is the word that comes to mind. Nice cinematography of internal and external views synchronisation.

Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 297
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post01 Apr 2018, 10:55

marsavian wrote:Nimble is the word that comes to mind. Nice cinematography of internal and external views synchronisation.



I hope so. It's flying clean. A clean F-16 will outturn it.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23176
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post02 Apr 2018, 22:34

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

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post03 Apr 2018, 00:16

kimjongnumbaun wrote:
marsavian wrote:Nimble is the word that comes to mind. Nice cinematography of internal and external views synchronisation.



I hope so. It's flying clean. A clean F-16 will outturn it.


This video, or better yet, the audio, might be good to remember Vil59 you can pull some serious Gs even in performing an air-show friendly routine.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23176
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Apr 2018, 09:49

Earlier there was talk about 'landings of various kinds' I had forgotten the A-4 Assoc. has a lot of my material online here:

http://a4skyhawk.info/article-unit/ran-vc724 SCROLL DOWN to see the Diamond Four Form A4G landings without a hook.

There are more photos, one example, RW26 SLOPES down & UP!: http://a4skyhawk.info/sites/default/fil ... pson_0.jpg

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

hummingbird

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 64
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54

Unread post04 Apr 2018, 14:09

kimjongnumbaun wrote:
marsavian wrote:Nimble is the word that comes to mind. Nice cinematography of internal and external views synchronisation.



I hope so. It's flying clean. A clean F-16 will outturn it.


What makes you think that?
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests