Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Design and construction
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post03 Nov 2012, 22:43

Cola, the NATOP was to show Neurotech that the F-18E CANNOT supercruise, even clean. This is especially true above FL400 as he claimed.

If you will look at the pic, you will notice that the difference between #1, #2, #3, and #4 at full MIL is very small and that #2 is with a centerline tank and #3 & #4 are with pylons. Given that #1 is with conformal AMRAAM and wingtip Sidewinders, flying totally clean would not be much faster.
Last edited by SpudmanWP on 03 Nov 2012, 23:20, edited 1 time in total.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post03 Nov 2012, 22:51

neurotech wrote:the Super Hornet will go supersonic above FL400 without burners, if the pylons are removed from the wings.


And how many weapons will the Super Hornet be carrying with no pylons? :roll:
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1104
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77550

Unread post03 Nov 2012, 22:53

gtx wrote:
sferrin wrote:I wonder if Bill Sweetman will tell us about this at Ares. ;-)


Probably...but he will spin it as a bad thing somehow :roll:


Probably something like this:

"further proof of failure surface with information that the doomed fighter falls way short of promised range"
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Offline

Scorpion82

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1094
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2007, 18:52

Unread post03 Nov 2012, 23:16

neurotech wrote:Thanks for the NATOPS page. I already have a copy of the F/A-18 E/F NATOPS Manual and familiar with the page you quote. The Super Hornet in the fleet flies with pylons on the wings which contributes significantly to the Supersonic drag. I specifically said without pylons for a reason. The page shows that the baseline configuration (1) is "AIM9(2) + AIM120(2)", which is not clean configuration.

The F/A-18E/F had issues with weapons separation, leading to canted pylons being used to ensure safe separation. This results in considerable Supersonic drag.


2 x Sidewinder plus 2 x AMRAAM is not an overly draggy configuration and if it is the standard configuration using the tip launchers and fuselage stations that's hardly of relevance wrt the hardpoints. In addition the envelope chart clearly demonstrates that the best performance is achieved below 40000 ft.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post03 Nov 2012, 23:22

SpudmanWP wrote:Cola, the NATOP was to show Neurotech that the F-18E CANNOT supercruise, even clean. This is especially true above FL400 as he claimed.

If you will look at the pic, you will notice that the difference between #1, #2, #3, and #4 at full MIL is very small and that #2 is with a centerline tanks and #3 & #4 are with pylons. Given that #1 is with conformal AMRAAM and wingtip Sidewinders, flying totally clean would not be much faster.

That page does not specifically state that the pylons were not fitted to the jet for the quotes figures. It also mentions "Combat Gross Weight" which implies the jet was not configured for airshow performance when measuring those figures.
Offline

falconedge

Banned

  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 21:41

Unread post03 Nov 2012, 23:22

count_to_10 wrote:
discofishing wrote:
falconedge wrote:
sketch22 wrote:As I've mentioned in another thread, I chatted with "Hog" from the 461st and he confirmed that yes the F-35 can indeed supercruise. It takes afterburner to get past the sound barrier but once hes supersonic he can pull the power back to mil and it'll stay there around Mach 1.2.

:? it quite hard to understand , i dont get it , if the pilot pull the power back then the force will be decrease how could the f-35 still able to remain it's speed ???
( i mean it physics :shock: )


The Concorde was able to do the same thing. There's a video somewhere on youtube about this.

Generally, if you have a drag dominated top speed for a given thrust level, then you approach that speed asymptotically while at that thrust. It should formally take you forever to reach that speed unless you boost up above it with afterburner.

:? what you mean ? , so in basic after the F-35 fly faster than mach 1.2 even if the pilot reduce thrust ,it still fly for 150 miles before decelerate to subsonic speed right ? :?
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post03 Nov 2012, 23:44

falconedge wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
discofishing wrote:
falconedge wrote:
sketch22 wrote:As I've mentioned in another thread, I chatted with "Hog" from the 461st and he confirmed that yes the F-35 can indeed supercruise. It takes afterburner to get past the sound barrier but once hes supersonic he can pull the power back to mil and it'll stay there around Mach 1.2.

:? it quite hard to understand , i dont get it , if the pilot pull the power back then the force will be decrease how could the f-35 still able to remain it's speed ???
( i mean it physics :shock: )


The Concorde was able to do the same thing. There's a video somewhere on youtube about this.

Generally, if you have a drag dominated top speed for a given thrust level, then you approach that speed asymptotically while at that thrust. It should formally take you forever to reach that speed unless you boost up above it with afterburner.

:? what you mean ? , so in basic after the F-35 fly faster than mach 1.2 even if the pilot reduce thrust ,it still fly for 150 miles before decelerate to subsonic speed right ? :?


Image

AB to get over the hump.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post04 Nov 2012, 00:08

Scorpion82 wrote:
neurotech wrote:Thanks for the NATOPS page. I already have a copy of the F/A-18 E/F NATOPS Manual and familiar with the page you quote. The Super Hornet in the fleet flies with pylons on the wings which contributes significantly to the Supersonic drag. I specifically said without pylons for a reason. The page shows that the baseline configuration (1) is "AIM9(2) + AIM120(2)", which is not clean configuration.

The F/A-18E/F had issues with weapons separation, leading to canted pylons being used to ensure safe separation. This results in considerable Supersonic drag.


2 x Sidewinder plus 2 x AMRAAM is not an overly draggy configuration and if it is the standard configuration using the tip launchers and fuselage stations that's hardly of relevance wrt the hardpoints. In addition the envelope chart clearly demonstrates that the best performance is achieved below 40000 ft.

That is a trade-off between engine performance and drag at varying altitudes. The curve would be different without canted wing pylons, as they contribute to the drag significantly.
Offline

handyman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 104
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2011, 05:41
  • Location: SFO

Unread post04 Nov 2012, 01:19

falconedge wrote:
sketch22 wrote:As I've mentioned in another thread, I chatted with "Hog" from the 461st and he confirmed that yes the F-35 can indeed supercruise. It takes afterburner to get past the sound barrier but once hes supersonic he can pull the power back to mil and it'll stay there around Mach 1.2.

:? it quite hard to understand , i dont get it , if the pilot pull the power back then the force will be decrease how could the f-35 still able to remain it's speed ???
( i mean it physics :shock: )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_diver ... ach_number
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post04 Nov 2012, 01:20

neurotech wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Cola, the NATOP was to show Neurotech that the F-18E CANNOT supercruise, even clean. This is especially true above FL400 as he claimed.

If you will look at the pic, you will notice that the difference between #1, #2, #3, and #4 at full MIL is very small and that #2 is with a centerline tanks and #3 & #4 are with pylons. Given that #1 is with conformal AMRAAM and wingtip Sidewinders, flying totally clean would not be much faster.

That page does not specifically state that the pylons were not fitted to the jet for the quotes figures. It also mentions "Combat Gross Weight" which implies the jet was not configured for airshow performance when measuring those figures.
You're grasping at straws. I've shown you an official doc that says that not only can it not supercruise, but that it'er performance above 40k actually gets worse.

Do you have any official doc that says otherwise?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post04 Nov 2012, 01:52

SpudmanWP wrote:
neurotech wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Cola, the NATOP was to show Neurotech that the F-18E CANNOT supercruise, even clean. This is especially true above FL400 as he claimed.

If you will look at the pic, you will notice that the difference between #1, #2, #3, and #4 at full MIL is very small and that #2 is with a centerline tanks and #3 & #4 are with pylons. Given that #1 is with conformal AMRAAM and wingtip Sidewinders, flying totally clean would not be much faster.

That page does not specifically state that the pylons were not fitted to the jet for the quotes figures. It also mentions "Combat Gross Weight" which implies the jet was not configured for airshow performance when measuring those figures.
You're grasping at straws. I've shown you an official doc that says that not only can it not supercruise, but that it'er performance above 40k actually gets worse.

Do you have any official doc that says otherwise?

I'll check if the test pilot interviews are available online, going back before pylons were fitted to EMD jets for weapons separation testing.
Offline

cola

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 559
  • Joined: 18 May 2009, 00:52

Unread post04 Nov 2012, 02:07

Spudman,
unless I'm mistaking, neurotech is a SH backseater, so I don't see much point in arguing here, particularly because the difference is marginal.
Besides, this graph doesn't specify engine trim and I've seen several Hornet's official docs, with sub-standard performance due lowly trimmed engines.
It's possible that this measurement has been done on such a line jet and neurotech may just be right.
Also, there isn't definitive declaration on AMRAAM mount for the graph and I think I remember this particular config. was defined elsewhere in the document, with AMRAAMs mounted on outboard pylons, but I'm not sure, so...
Cheers, Cola
Offline

seruriermarshal

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 200
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2007, 02:01

Unread post04 Nov 2012, 02:12

Wow great news :)
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post04 Nov 2012, 04:53

cola wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:F16 also does dash supersonic in dry...that's not supercruising.



Armed, for 13 minutes as part of a longer mission? That would be "no" to all of the above.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post04 Nov 2012, 05:19

sferrin wrote:I wonder if Bill Sweetman will tell us about this at Ares. ;-)

His only recourse is to assert that the USAF is flat-out lying, completing his journey from respected industry journalist to conspiracy-blogger kook. Then again, most of AVweek's readership is probably more interested in new flight-apps for the latest iPad.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Design & Construction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest