Can the F-35 perform this F-18 maneuver?

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

raptorpilotwannabe

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2011, 16:49
  • Location: Alaska

Unread post28 Apr 2012, 18:41

I saw this video about the F-18 performing a 7 G turn to the left here it is... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ7ocBFnDQI

And i was wondering if the F-35 (at least the A varient) could perform a high g mauver like that. If it could, that could actually give it a good antee up in a dogfight if it could perform such a steep turn. Usually I would think any jet could, but with all the negative views toward the F-35, it left me puzzled, let me know what you think!
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4795
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post28 Apr 2012, 18:46

The F-35 has already been flown to 9.9G.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 651
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post29 Apr 2012, 01:44

If and when Canada gets their F-35A's they should be able to turn inside the F-18's turn radius as Canada's F-18's are limited to 7.5 G turns.


Image
Offline

battleshipagincourt

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2011, 00:30

Unread post29 Apr 2012, 02:11

alloycowboy wrote:If and when Canada gets their F-35A's they should be able to turn inside the F-18's turn radius as Canada's F-18's are limited to 7.5 G turns.


Actually not. There is a significant difference between instantaneous turn rates and sustained turned rates. I won't contest that the F-35 probably has an equal or better instantaneous turn rate than the F-16, but the F-16 can sustain a 9g turn indefinitely. Although the F-35's body generates lift, that lift factor is lost in sustained turns. According to the chief test pilot, the F-35C actually has a better turn rate than the F-35A due to its enlarged wings.

So it's quite premature to say that the F-35A will do circles around other fighters when all it's got to its advantage is instantaneous turn rates. I highly doubt that an F-35A can outperform an F-16 in a sustained turn.
Offline

johnwill

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1493
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post29 Apr 2012, 03:01

battleshipagincourt,

I know you know the difference, but for those who do not, sustained g means the g level that can be held without losing speed or altitude.

The F-16 can indeed sustain a 9g turn, but certainly not in all flight conditions. The 9g sustained envelope is at medium speeds, at medium and low altitudes. The F-35A will be able to sustain 9g at some conditions, but the envelope may or may not match the F-16. I suspect the F-35 sustained g envelope will be larger than F-16 or any other airplane while both are carrying a heavy weapon load. I may be wrong, but I understand the F-35 is designed for 9g with a loaded weapon bay, while other airplanes cannot exceed 5 or 6g with heavy weapons.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that fuselage lift goes away during a sustained g turn. Fuselage lift is a function of AoA and airspeed, just like wing lift.

The F-35C may have a better turn rate then the A under some low speed conditions, where the big wing is enough to overcome the added drag and lower g limit of the C. At any condition where the A can exceed 7.5g, I promise you the A will have a higher turn rate than the C, which is limited to 7.5g.

alloycowboy's posted photo was taken during the YF-16 / YF-17 competition. The two airplanes in the photo are a YF-16 and an F-4 at 30,000 feet. It should be obvious which is which. I was lucky enough to be standing next to the photographer.
Last edited by johnwill on 29 Apr 2012, 03:15, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

sirsapo

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 03 May 2009, 21:40
  • Location: Phoenix, AZ

Unread post29 Apr 2012, 03:05

battleshipagincourt wrote:
alloycowboy wrote:If and when Canada gets their F-35A's they should be able to turn inside the F-18's turn radius as Canada's F-18's are limited to 7.5 G turns.


Actually not. There is a significant difference between instantaneous turn rates and sustained turned rates. I won't contest that the F-35 probably has an equal or better instantaneous turn rate than the F-16, but the F-16 can sustain a 9g turn indefinitely. Although the F-35's body generates lift, that lift factor is lost in sustained turns. According to the chief test pilot, the F-35C actually has a better turn rate than the F-35A due to its enlarged wings.

So it's quite premature to say that the F-35A will do circles around other fighters when all it's got to its advantage is instantaneous turn rates. I highly doubt that an F-35A can outperform an F-16 in a sustained turn.



You'd be hard pressed to find an F-16 these days that can sustain 9Gs in a useful configuration. At sealevel in a clean configuration maybe, but you start sticking pods and other modern essentials on the outside and you get some significant Ps and G-limit restrictions.

Also its not just what G you are pulling, but what airspeed you are at when you're doing it. A high G turn flown at a high speed can be much worse than a lower G turn flown at a slower speed. For example a 9G turn at 400kts givesyou a 3 percent slower turn rate and a 38 percent larger turn radius than a 7G turn at 300 kts.

EDIT: Beaten to the punch...
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1030
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post29 Apr 2012, 05:08

I'm guessing the YF-16 held more altitude in that turn than the F-4(E?).
Offline

johnwill

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1493
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post29 Apr 2012, 06:03

Both were supposed to hold altitude and speed. Who knows? It was supposed to be a sustained g turn comparison, but with a competitive fly-off going on, a PR style photo couldn't hurt. Perhaps it was accidental the test point happened to be flown right over the base and a photographer was ready and waiting.

The photo eventually made it to an F-16 program logo.
Offline

exorcet

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 154
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 15:35
  • Location: US

Unread post29 Apr 2012, 06:58

battleshipagincourt wrote:
alloycowboy wrote:If and when Canada gets their F-35A's they should be able to turn inside the F-18's turn radius as Canada's F-18's are limited to 7.5 G turns.


Actually not. There is a significant difference between instantaneous turn rates and sustained turned rates. I won't contest that the F-35 probably has an equal or better instantaneous turn rate than the F-16, but the F-16 can sustain a 9g turn indefinitely. Although the F-35's body generates lift, that lift factor is lost in sustained turns. According to the chief test pilot, the F-35C actually has a better turn rate than the F-35A due to its enlarged wings.

So it's quite premature to say that the F-35A will do circles around other fighters when all it's got to its advantage is instantaneous turn rates. I highly doubt that an F-35A can outperform an F-16 in a sustained turn.


I could believe the C outperforming the A at low speed, but at high speed I think the A would come out ahead. Lift isn't all that matters, there is drag as well, and the C's larger span will probably hurt it when speeds get high.

What do you mean when you say that the F-35's lift factor is lost during sustained turns? The advantage of body lift never goes away.

I don't see why the F-35 wouldn't match the F-16 in sustained turns, but I have yet to see the flight envelope, so I can't say it's fact yet.
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1000
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post29 Apr 2012, 14:46

exorcet wrote:
battleshipagincourt wrote:
alloycowboy wrote:If and when Canada gets their F-35A's they should be able to turn inside the F-18's turn radius as Canada's F-18's are limited to 7.5 G turns.


Actually not. There is a significant difference between instantaneous turn rates and sustained turned rates. I won't contest that the F-35 probably has an equal or better instantaneous turn rate than the F-16, but the F-16 can sustain a 9g turn indefinitely. Although the F-35's body generates lift, that lift factor is lost in sustained turns. According to the chief test pilot, the F-35C actually has a better turn rate than the F-35A due to its enlarged wings.

So it's quite premature to say that the F-35A will do circles around other fighters when all it's got to its advantage is instantaneous turn rates. I highly doubt that an F-35A can outperform an F-16 in a sustained turn.


I could believe the C outperforming the A at low speed, but at high speed I think the A would come out ahead. Lift isn't all that matters, there is drag as well, and the C's larger span will probably hurt it when speeds get high.

What do you mean when you say that the F-35's lift factor is lost during sustained turns? The advantage of body lift never goes away.

I don't see why the F-35 wouldn't match the F-16 in sustained turns, but I have yet to see the flight envelope, so I can't say it's fact yet.


He has to go away and see if Bill Sweetman (sorry I mean the user - Low Observable, there's no "proof" it's Bill) can come up with another reason he can use as to why body lift is a myth, so don't expect a response soon...
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2091
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post29 Apr 2012, 14:47

Why did the conversation switch from the F-18 to the F-16?
I thought the F-18 was significantly less maneuverable than the F-16 -- 7.5 g's vs 9 g's.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.
Offline

pushoksti

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 172
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2008, 04:50
  • Location: Canadar

Unread post29 Apr 2012, 15:57

count_to_10 wrote:I thought the F-18 was significantly less maneuverable than the F-16 -- 7.5 g's vs 9 g's.


Not from what I've seen. :shock:
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1724
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post29 Apr 2012, 16:01

yes, but as stated above, G limit is not everything. Loaded roll can also be a very important factor, as can climb rate while turning. The F/A-18 has always been a great "angles" fighter allowing it to point it's nose rapidly, but it loses speed rapidly too. The F-16 has always been a great "energy" fighter. The special G-limiter on the F-16 actually takes away from it's maximum instantaneous turn rate, but it means that at a full pull from the pilot the F-16 will not bleed speed as rapidly, which also gives the pilot the option of trading that retained speed for extra altitude.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-Project Engineer
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2091
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post29 Apr 2012, 16:24

Ah, okay. Different design strategies cause performance to project differently onto the various performance metrics.
Thanks.
Offline

avxva

Banned

  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2012, 23:04

Unread post29 Apr 2012, 18:29

SpudmanWP wrote:The F-35 has already been flown to 9.9G.

What were the circumstances of that feat? We always hear "the F-35 has already been flown to 9.9G," but the details are always (conveniently?) missing. I'm beginning to suspect the F-35 pulled a calculated 9.9 G's for 1/1000th of a second during some miscellaneous flight event and when the airplane landed the engineers got to looking at the accelerometer load data and someone, said, "Hey look!" Then, when the sales force / propaganda team heard about it, a press release went flying out the door saying, "We flew this thing to 9.9G's"

So what are those details exactly...?

Al
Last edited by avxva on 29 Apr 2012, 21:20, edited 3 times in total.
Next

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 1 guest