F-35 vs all non-thrust vectored fighter jets

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

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 918
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post19 Jun 2017, 18:29




It seems that F-35 could do some crazy moves which was believed to be impossible for non-thrust-vectored jets.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3906
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post21 Jun 2017, 19:14

It is now clear the aircraft is deceptively agile. Whether this was the result of low expectations, wild conjecture or it's protracted (some say troubled) development, I'm not certain. What I am certain of, is that a LOT of people are going to be eating a LOT of crow...
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 918
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post22 Jun 2017, 04:21

more vids...




Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3066
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post22 Jun 2017, 08:58

Very nice comparison, thank you!

Similar video could be made of the takeoff. I was truly impressed at how fast F-35 took off and went immediately to a very steep, almost vertical climb. I don't think I've seen any other fighter aircraft do that in quite similar manner. Even F-22 and Eurofighter usually seem to gain some speed before going to vertical. All the other vertical maneuvers showed a that there is really huge amount of power available. To me it seems like F-35 has even more power than what the public figures suggest.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 918
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post22 Jun 2017, 14:23

hornetfinn wrote:Very nice comparison, thank you!

Similar video could be made of the takeoff. I was truly impressed at how fast F-35 took off and went immediately to a very steep, almost vertical climb. I don't think I've seen any other fighter aircraft do that in quite similar manner. Even F-22 and Eurofighter usually seem to gain some speed before going to vertical. All the other vertical maneuvers showed a that there is really huge amount of power available. To me it seems like F-35 has even more power than what the public figures suggest.

The most spectacular thing is that the vertical climb was done in military power, no afterburner.
Last edited by gta4 on 22 Jun 2017, 15:29, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2505
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post22 Jun 2017, 15:26

At what airspeed are these 360° turns flown at airshows? Do they reach 350kts or 400kts before turn entry?

As QS pointed out earlier, the F-35 probably has to reach 350kts (lowest corner speed) before it could sustain a 9g turn.

If these turns are flown at 200kts, 250kts, or even 300kts, then comparing airshow turning performance is a moot point as no aircraft would be near its g-limit.
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: 4785
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post22 Jun 2017, 16:21

None of these aircraft ARE near their G limit as very few aircraft can sustain their limit G and none and a speed low enough to get the type of turning performance you see. Remember, these are never called Max G turns, or best rate turns, they are minimum radius turns.
"Spurts"

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

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3016
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post23 Jun 2017, 00:30

steve2267 wrote:At what airspeed are these 360° turns flown at airshows? Do they reach 350kts or 400kts before turn entry?

As QS pointed out earlier, the F-35 probably has to reach 350kts (lowest corner speed) before it could sustain a 9g turn.

If these turns are flown at 200kts, 250kts, or even 300kts, then comparing airshow turning performance is a moot point as no aircraft would be near its g-limit.


So, let's talk about it a bit. Here's what I said --

"I would dare say that there isnt gonna be much difference between a 7g display and a 9g display. 'G' onset rate might appear to be different because the pilot can do a limiter pull (vice manual limiting), but that's about it. 7g is probably what the jet sustains down low and given the demo they currently fly I'm not sure they ever get to 9g corner speed (which I assume to be somewhere above 350KCAS)."

Pilots flying something other than a 3F jet have to manually limit 'G' for the purpose of not exceeeding the current limit (even by one-tenth of a 'G'). In short, you can't go honking on the stick because you may overshoot a limit. Thus, the 'G' onset rates at the fly-by speeds in the demo are likely less that one would see if the pilot could command a pitch rate to whatever the limiter would allow. Would there be a noticable difference? Yes. Dramatically (omg..look at that) different? I dont think so.

Also, wrt to 'sustain a 9G turn' -- I doubt the jet is capable of such a thing. 'Getting to' 9Gs (i.e. 'attaining') is not nearly the same as 'sustaining' 9Gs (for most jets).
Offline

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 469
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post23 Jun 2017, 00:52

I wonder if the restricted claws of the 3i package (...don't we call it "firmware"?) just limits the g-load of the airframe or if the implications go beyond the simple "pulling Gs" .

The LM's pilot had an interview prior his exhibition saying the F35A would perform in a heavy load set up, while normally, airshows aircraft tend to fly clean and with low fuel. If that's true, the F35A is a puzzle idiotically hard to solve.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3016
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post23 Jun 2017, 01:53

nutshell wrote:I wonder if the restricted claws of the 3i package (...don't we call it "firmware"?) just limits the g-load of the airframe or if the implications go beyond the simple "pulling Gs" .


CLAWs? Amen...way beyond 'pulling G's.

However, for the purpose of this discussion there is a perception amongst some that 'when we get to 9g it will really be something.' I suggest that is simply not the case; most couldn't tell the difference one way or the other.

LM and F-35 buyers have already made the fundamental point -- in spite of years of misinformation, the jet is good enough to hold its own WVR even if we discount all of the dramatic advantages if has before a merge ever happens.

Now all the haters can move on to some other issue.
Offline

armedupdate

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 21:11

Unread post23 Jun 2017, 02:39

Any Rafale comparison?
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 918
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post25 Jun 2017, 00:32

armedupdate wrote:Any Rafale comparison?


As far as what the video shows:

1) 360 roll rate
F-35 has significantly higher roll rate in this video:
https://youtu.be/_DzqERHh7Tg?t=12s

2) vertical loop
F-35 has significantly higher angular velocity in the vertical. In fact it out-rates any non-thrust-vectored jet to the best of my knowledge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sf1H94FEME

3) Horizontal 360 turn
The rafale may seem to take longer time in the horizontal 360 turn, but there is a roll in the middle of the maneuver. If you take that off you can see both jets have similar horizontal 360 turn time.

4) post-stall maneuver, such as pedal turn
Rafale doesn't have any kind of high AOA capability.
Offline

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 469
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post26 Jun 2017, 00:04

quicksilver wrote:
nutshell wrote:I wonder if the restricted claws of the 3i package (...don't we call it "firmware"?) just limits the g-load of the airframe or if the implications go beyond the simple "pulling Gs" .


CLAWs? Amen...way beyond 'pulling G's.



Suspected as much, else they could've said "turn off traction control system so the computer doesn't cut off the power when turning".
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5554
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post26 Jun 2017, 02:16

quicksilver wrote:Now all the haters can move on to some other issue.


That's why some are cryin' so hard about the B-21 being kept under wraps. They don't have anything to generate fake news about anymore.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

lbk000

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 326
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post26 Jun 2017, 03:54

I believe thrust vectoring to be a transitory technology, just like the variable geometry wing. Advanced aerodynamic tailoring like in the F-35 is showing that it's possible to achieve near-TVC levels of authority and that's good enough for KISS to outweigh the benefit of TVC nozzles.
Next

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests