BF-02 Supersonic

[wrightwing]

We understand what you're saying. What we're saying is that you're wrong.

I think that you are wrong.
let's wait test results.

What's your source, or is it just a hunch? The manufacturer is the one making this claim(and they build 4 of the 5 aircraft in question).

this chart is the source, you just misunderstood the chart.

Let's apply a little logic to this debate- if your understanding of the chart is true, why would LM highlight this information in a presentation? The whole point of that presentation is to show that all 3 F-35 models offer superior performance to either F-16s or F-18s, in all 3 categories. Think of it this way, the length of those bars represents time to a given speed, with the longer bar representing a greater amount of time. It is not I that is misunderstanding the chart.

[wrightwing]

Let's apply a little logic to this debate- if your understanding of the chart is true, why would LM highlight this information in a presentation? The whole point of that presentation is to show that all 3 F-35 models offer superior performance to either F-16s or F-18s, in all 3 categories. Think of it this way, the length of those bars represents time to a given speed, with the longer bar representing a greater amount of time. It is not I that is misunderstanding the chart.

LM uses the chart to show the F-35's performance , including its advantages and disadvantages.

No disadvantages were shown though, which is what we're trying to tell you. The longer bar represents a greater amount of time, not a greater amount of acceleration. Otherwise the F-35B would be the quickest of all 3, and the F-18 would be quicker than an F-16, using your logic.

[wrightwing]

Ultimate Fighter: Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Bill Sweetman

However, the F-35C is likely to be slower in acceleration then the F-35A, particularly at transonic speeds, because of its larger wing.

Who here has claimed otherwise? The A is the quickest, then the C, then the B. For the record, Bill Sweetman is hardly an unbiased source with regard to the F-35.

because of its larger wing =>F-35C's wing is bigger than F-35B, too.

that's physical law, it's really un-biased.

I wasn't using this as an example of his bias. I was merely pointing out that he's a highly vocal critic of the F-35, so any info that you hear from him must be assessed knowing his bias. Much like Winslow Wheeler, Pierre Sprey are biased against anything more complicated than a lightweight, day fighter, and Carlo Kopp is biased against anything that isn't Russian, an F-22, or an F-111.

[apg77]

Otherwise the F-35B would be the quickest of all 3, and the F-18 would be quicker than an F-16, using your logic.

my logic?

I devide the chart to 2 part, you forget it.

No disadvantages were shown though, which is what we're trying to tell you.

many disadvantages have been shown.
max speed 1.6M,
range 1,200 nm
...

[dragorv]

I honestly don't see those as disadvantages....

[checksixx]

Gentleman...the aircraft is not far enough along in test to even validate any GUESSES by anyone. There is certainly no reason to release those numbers publicly once they do know them. We (including me) don't have a need to know. Some of the test points/info will be released...base your opinion on hard data. No need to get nasty with each other.

[wrightwing]

Otherwise the F-35B would be the quickest of all 3, and the F-18 would be quicker than an F-16, using your logic.

my logic?

I devide the chart to 2 part, you forget it.

If you change the chart from how it was originally presented, then it loses the original intent. It didn't escape my attention, it's just incorrect to do so. You may as well start relabeling the data too, in order to show that you know more than the author of the presentation.

[wrightwing]

No disadvantages were shown though, which is what we're trying to tell you.

many disadvantages have been shown.
max speed 1.6M,
range 1,200 nm
...

You're mixing info up again. If we use miles per hour rather than Mach, then it helps keep things from being as ambiguous. LM says that the F-35 will reach 1200mph. That works out to M1.8. The max speed figures when listed refer to with a combat load(i.e. 5500lbs internal weapons, and high fuel state), not the maximum speed that the plane can reach unloaded, and with 50% fuel. That range figure is way off too. The combat radius for the F-35A is between 673-751nm. The C model has an even longer range.
The maximum range is more than 2x the combat radius(as the radius doesn't include the combat time on station, which'll generally be several minutes of afterburner use, and aggressive manuevers, or the amount of reserve fuel 20-30 minutes). This means that the straight line range at optimal cruise speed would be quite a bit more than merely a factor of 2.

[apg77]

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,00.html

The exact performance of the current F-35A configuration -- also known as the 240-4 -- are classified.
But a similar earlier standard (240-3) was credited with
acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec.;
it's much worse than F-16.

[apg77]

acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 ,
F-16C use about 32s,
F/A-18C use about 52s,
F/A-18E/F use more,

but when these fighters have to carry tanks, bombs, pods...it must use much more time.
so 61s is not very bad,
it's still " like F-16/F/A-18"

[apg77]

You're mixing info up again. If we use miles per hour rather than Mach, then it helps keep things from being as ambiguous. LM says that the F-35 will reach 1200mph. That works out to M1.8. The max speed figures when listed refer to with a combat load(i.e. 5500lbs internal weapons, and high fuel state), not the maximum speed that the plane can reach unloaded, and with 50% fuel. That range figure is way off too. The combat radius for the F-35A is between 673-751nm. The C model has an even longer range.
The maximum range is more than 2x the combat radius(as the radius doesn't include the combat time on station, which'll generally be several minutes of afterburner use, and aggressive manuevers, or the amount of reserve fuel 20-30 minutes). This means that the straight line range at optimal cruise speed would be quite a bit more than merely a factor of 2.

I know your idea.
I think that F-35A/C's range is 1,800nm or more.

[Prinz_Eugn]

Radius and range are the most abused and misunderstood terms ever in aircraft performance statistics. Well, that and wing loading and thrust-to-weight ratio. Oh, plus max speed. And weight.

Okay, but they're in the top ten.

[popcorn]

I thought the F-35 was supposed to have better acceleration than the F-16? Honestly I think a Mach 1.2-1.3 speed without AB should have been a requirement.

at subsonic field , the test show that F-35A's acceleration and climbing is better than F-16.
but no news about supersonic and sound barrier field.

Actually, the F-35's performance has always been stated in the "transonic" region. That is mach .8 - 1.2

Interesting chart Spudman. Do you know when it was prepared by any chance. Is it based on simulations or actual flight tests?

[SpudmanWP]

Since the F-35s have only gone up to Mach 1.07, I am sure that it is based mostly on simulation data.

The presentation has a create date of 12/10/2009.

[popcorn]

Since the F-35s have only gone up to Mach 1.07, I am sure that it is based mostly on simulation data.

The presentation has a create date of 12/10/2009.

Thanks, good to know.