BF-02 Supersonic

Production milestones, roll-outs, test flights, service introduction and other milestones.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3547
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post02 Jul 2010, 12:43

apg77 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
apg77 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
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.
Last edited by wrightwing on 02 Jul 2010, 12:48, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3547
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post02 Jul 2010, 13:24

apg77 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
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.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3547
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post02 Jul 2010, 13:27

apg77 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
apg77 wrote: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.
Offline

apg77

Banned

  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2010, 05:47

Unread post02 Jul 2010, 14:13

wrightwing wrote: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.

wrightwing wrote: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
...
Offline

dragorv

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 03:47
  • Location: East Coast, USA

Unread post02 Jul 2010, 14:26

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

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post02 Jul 2010, 14:51

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.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3547
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post02 Jul 2010, 15:07

apg77 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
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.
Last edited by wrightwing on 02 Jul 2010, 15:20, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3547
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post02 Jul 2010, 15:18

apg77 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:

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.
Offline

apg77

Banned

  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2010, 05:47

Unread post02 Jul 2010, 16:21

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.
Offline

apg77

Banned

  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2010, 05:47

Unread post02 Jul 2010, 16:27

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"
Offline

apg77

Banned

  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2010, 05:47

Unread post02 Jul 2010, 16:30

wrightwing wrote:
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.
Offline

Prinz_Eugn

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 961
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2008, 03:35

Unread post02 Jul 2010, 16:54

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.
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7720
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post03 Jul 2010, 00:06

SpudmanWP wrote:
apg77 wrote:
lampshade111 wrote: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

Image


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

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post03 Jul 2010, 01:05

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.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7720
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post03 Jul 2010, 04:05

SpudmanWP wrote: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.
Previous

Return to F-35 milestones

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron