F-35 program documents

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 04 Mar 2019, 18:34

It's not either of those.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 04 Mar 2019, 19:19

This one?

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 04 Mar 2019, 19:26

similar but WAY more densely populated and for all three versions.

botsing · by **botsing** » 04 Mar 2019, 21:36

This one?

It's from "F-35 System Development and Demonstration Flight Testing at Edwards Air Force Base and Naval Air Station from Patuxent River"

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 04 Mar 2019, 21:49

That's the one! Thanks botsing!

botsing · by **botsing** » 04 Mar 2019, 22:08

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:That's the one! Thanks botsing!

Glad I could help. :thumb:

P.s., that linked image was originally posted by doge.

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 04 Mar 2019, 22:30

So the F-35A can do Mach 1.55, F-35B/C Mach 1.5, when loaded with external sidewinders. No real degradation.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 04 Mar 2019, 22:38

botsing wrote:P.s., that linked image was originally posted by doge.

I knew it HAD been I just couldn't find it for anything. Now I have it saved offline.

marsavian wrote: So the F-35A can do Mach 1.55, F-35B/C Mach 1.5 when loaded with external sidewinders. No real degradation.

Not quite, they HAVE done 1.55M/1.5M with "external AA".

1: they may be able to go faster and just didn't test it or include the data here. We know an F-35A went to 1.67M but that isn't shown. We know an F-35C went 1.0+M with external AG and that isn't shown.

2: It is NOT a BAD assumption to say that "external AA" means "tip-winders" and nothing else. It COULD mean the Gun Pod for the B/C, it COULD mean AMRAAMs, that much we DON'T KNOW. I think it would be safe to say that External AA is at least the AIM-9Xs.

Just being technical.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 05 Mar 2019, 00:06

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:That's the one! Thanks botsing!

Ditto. So many diagrams - not enough clues. :mrgreen:

PDF of main graphic attached & I'll make a 3 x CHART diagram. PDF attached - GIF made from this PDF.

wrightwing · by **wrightwing** » 05 Mar 2019, 02:12

We know the F-35C went between M1.1+ to M1.2 with 6 GBU-31, 2 AIM-120, and 2 AIM-9X. The A should be even faster. With an A2A only load, there shouldn't be much degradation at all, on top end speeds.

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 05 Mar 2019, 11:05

Interesting, so the F-35A/C hit Mach 1.6 at 25kft but the F-35B does it only at 30kft. Why, less thrust ?

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 05 Mar 2019, 14:56

marsavian wrote:Interesting, so the F-35A/C hit Mach 1.6 at 25kft but the F-35B does it only at 30kft. Why, less thrust ?

It's the lower KCAS limit, not less thrust.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 05 Mar 2019, 14:58

wrightwing wrote:We know the F-35C went between M1.1+ to M1.2 with 6 GBU-31, 2 AIM-120, and 2 AIM-9X. The A should be even faster. With an A2A only load, there shouldn't be much degradation at all, on top end speeds.

Do we know it went past 1.1M? AFAIK it was 1.0+M. Could have been 1.01M for all I know.

wrightwing · by **wrightwing** » 05 Mar 2019, 19:14

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
wrightwing wrote:We know the F-35C went between M1.1+ to M1.2 with 6 GBU-31, 2 AIM-120, and 2 AIM-9X. The A should be even faster. With an A2A only load, there shouldn't be much degradation at all, on top end speeds.

Do we know it went past 1.1M? AFAIK it was 1.0+M. Could have been 1.01M for all I know.

The pilot said M1.1+, when describing the photo and load.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 05 Mar 2019, 19:55

USN Test Pilot CMDR 'Brick' Wilson says "Mach 1 plus" in the video kindly provided by 'Dragon029'.

download/file.php?id=25878

Tailhook 2017 Symposium - Update on F-35C testing from LM test pilot [start 60 sec]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSIzWFxznvM