Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

avxva wrote:

hb_pencil wrote:

Or are you now going to question the integrity of a serving member of the armed forces and probably one of the most skeptical publications on the F-35?

No, I actually do believe the aircraft pulled 9.9g. I just want the details. The link you provided says, "The aircraft has also been flown to 9.9g – which is 0.9g beyond the operational limits." So, as far as we know, 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 team/propaganda force heard about it a press release was written for the program test pilot saying, "We flew this thing to 9.9G's."

Let's be honest here. The press release (link) reads like a sales brochure, so this is an honest and valid question. What were the circumstances of this 9.9g feat??

Al

The circumstances are that they're expanding the flight envelope portion of testing, and the plane was flown to 9.9Gs. Test pilots have very specific test points, and I can assure you that the plane wasn't accidentally flown to 9.9Gs, pleasantly surprising the LM marketing staff.

F-16.net Sponsor

avxva wrote:

sirsapo wrote:

And the 9.9G flight was likely more for structural analysis than aerodynamics anyways.

Makes sense, because until 2014 (at least,) a fully-loaded (passengers + luggage) Airbus 380 has a SIGNIFICANTLY larger flight envelope than the F-35. From the QLR: "These flights (above 20 degrees angle of attack) cannot be performed until aircraft have been certified as stable for these flight regimes..."

So, as it turns out, trotting out that 9.9g number in a thread about the F-35's maneuverability seems kind of disingenuous...

Al

Angle of attack is only one part of the flight envelope. The F-16 is limited to ~25 degrees AoA. I guess the A380 can outturn one of those too, by your nonsensical standards. You seem to be under the misguided impression that because the F-35 hasn't performed certain maneuvers yet, that it won't be able to. The whole point of testing is to see how the plane reacts in a wide variety of circumstances, so the simulations can be verified, any modifications made, and the flight control software adjusted accordingly.

avxva wrote:

So now I'm a Sith Lord and Kim Jong-Al for asking a simple question. Let's be honest here, "the F-35 has already been flown to 9.9G," line has been used repeatedly on this forum (about 100 times) as a shield and a sword in various discussions so I think it's logical (and fair) to ask what the circumstances of that feat are. Come on guys, all I'm asking for here is a little honesty. I don't know (and couldn't possibly know) why everyone is hyperventilating over such a simple question. Why is everyone getting so defensive over this???

Al

The thing to bear in mind, is that press releases are going to be rather vanilla(i.e. nothing that is sensitive information is going to be released to the public to satisfy their curiosity). The important take away, is that the F-35A has demonstrated that it is a 9+ G fighter, as was required by KPPs. It has also exceeded the M1.6 requirement, and will be tested at higher speeds as well. The post stall area of the envelope is what will be opening up now. Just like the Super Hornet, the idea is to give the pilot carefree handling, so methodical testing will allow the FCS to be programmed to achieve that. That's why there are numerous test points which are examined each flight. There's nothing haphazard about these flights.

avxva wrote:

river_otter wrote:

"... classified information ... really inept espionage ... classified information ... blah, blah, blah."

Well now I'm a Sith Lord, Kim Jong-Al and a Chinese spy for asking one (1) simple question. The F-35 is supposed to be more agile than an F-16 and is supposed to have already flown to 9.9g, but when asked to provide a simple shred of evidence for the claim beyond, "The F-35 has flown to 9.9G" in a press release: the question is treated like an accusation, everyone freaks out, and the issue (for the very first time) is classified beyond Top Secret! In all honesty, the 9.9g claim is beginning to sound like a piece of Lockheed Martin red herring meat, but I'll back off. Yeesh.

Al

Present your evidence to counter the claim. We'd all be happy to see what you've got. Your posts read like youtube comments.

wrightwing wrote:

avxva wrote:

... the 9.9g claim is beginning to sound like a piece of Lockheed Martin red herring meat, but I'll back off. Yeesh.

Al

Present your evidence to counter the claim. We'd all be happy to see what you've got. Your posts read like youtube comments.

I'd guess he's never heard of a FOIA request and thinks the way to get government information is to rile forum contributors.

wrightwing wrote:

The important take away, is that the F-35A has demonstrated that it is a 9+ G fighter, as was required by KPPs.

And that is EXACTLY what the 9.9g line in the press release was: a classic public relations "take away". The F-35 does 9.9g's for 1/1000 of a second and all of a sudden it's a "9+ G fighter!" Because it is, it actually pulled 9.9g's, so that makes it all true. The F-35 will be more agile than a F-16 because it's a 9.9g fighter!!

Well done Lockheed Martin public relations/marketing/sales/propaganda team. Well done indeed!

Listen guys, I don't want to post on this anymore. Nobody likes me and I don't have any friends. It hurts to be called a Sith Lord, Kim Jong-Al and a Chinese spy. It sure does. Some of you guys should feel real bad for doing that.

Al

avxva wrote:

And that is EXACTLY what the 9.9g line in the press release was: a classic public relations take away. The F-35 does 9.9g's for 1/1000 of a second and all of a sudden it's a "9+ G fighter!" Because it is, it actually pulled 9.9g's, so that makes it all true. The F-35 will be more agile than a F-16 because the F-35 is a 9.9g fighter!!

Well done Lockheed Martin public relations/marketing/sales/propaganda team. Well done indeed!

Listen guys, I don't want to post on this anymore. Nobody likes me and I don't have any friends. It hurts to be called a Sith Lord, Kim Jong-Al and a Chinese spy. it really does. Some of you guys should feel bad for doing that.

Al

Provide evidence to back up your claims. Test points aren't for marketing purposes. It's funny how you accuse anyone that is optimistic about the F-35 program, as having been brainwashed by the LM marketing team, yet you provide no evidence to support your ridiculous assertions. The reason that the F-35 will be more agile isn't that it's a 9.9G fighter. It's that it can fly 9Gs with 5000lbs of weapons, and a full fuel load. The F-16 can only fly 9Gs with a very minimal external load(i.e. without pods, bombs, external fuel tanks). That's where the apple to apple comparisons are made- combat configuration, not airshow configuration. The F-35 will also be quicker and faster, in a combat configuration, than will a similarly loaded F-16. Now factor in the situational awareness/avionics, stealth, and spherical targeting advantages, and tell me which plane will have the upper hand.

wrightwing wrote:

The reason that the F-35 will be more agile isn't that it's a 9.9G fighter. It's that it can fly 9Gs with 5000lbs of weapons, and a full fuel load. The F-16 can only fly 9Gs with a very minimal external load (i.e. without pods, bombs, external fuel tanks). That's where the apple to apple comparisons are made- combat configuration, not airshow configuration. The F-35 will also be quicker and faster, in a combat configuration, than will a similarly loaded F-16. Now factor in the situational awareness/avionics, stealth, and spherical targeting advantages, and tell me which plane will have the upper hand.

Well there Wrightwing, if you can provide ANY evidence for ANYTHING you just said above, I will hush up. Provide evidence to back up your claims. The F-35 hasn't done any of the above. NOTHING. It ain't done nothing even close to that...

Everything you just said is a Lockheed Martin marketing claim and there is ZERO flight test EVIDENCE to support any of it. That's the point I'm making here.

Lets drop this. You can't win. All you're doing is quoting Lockheed Martin marketing claims and take aways, because that's all you can do. The F-35 is five (5) years away from proving any of this--at the earliest. Until then, you guys are standing on pie in the sky marketing claims.

Al

avxva wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

The reason that the F-35 will be more agile isn't that it's a 9.9G fighter. It's that it can fly 9Gs with 5000lbs of weapons, and a full fuel load. The F-16 can only fly 9Gs with a very minimal external load (i.e. without pods, bombs, external fuel tanks). That's where the apple to apple comparisons are made- combat configuration, not airshow configuration. The F-35 will also be quicker and faster, in a combat configuration, than will a similarly loaded F-16. Now factor in the situational awareness/avionics, stealth, and spherical targeting advantages, and tell me which plane will have the upper hand.

Well there Wrightwing, if you can provide ANY evidence for ANYTHING you just said above, I will hush up. Provide evidence to back up your claims. The F-35 hasn't done any of the above. NOTHING. It ain't done nothing even close to that...

Everything you just said is a Lockheed Martin marketing claim and there is ZERO flight test EVIDENCE to support any of it. That's the point I'm making here.

Lets drop this. You can't win. All you're doing is quoting Lockheed Martin marketing claims and take aways, because that's all you can do. The F-35 is five (5) years away from proving any of this--at the earliest. Until then, you guys are standing on pie in the sky marketing claims.

Al

Those are KPPs, not marketing claims. Until the plane flew for the first time, no one knew if it'd fly(using your measure). What we do know is that the F-35A exceeds KPPs for top speed, G requirement, RCS, that with a full fuel load, in dry thrust(and in a climb)pulling away from F-16 chase planes(which had to use afterburners to keep up). We know that its radar, EW, EOTS/EODAS all work as well, or better than expected. These aren't just claims, they've been demonstrated. You're using an asinine metric, to compare performance, by trying to insinuate that because the plane hasn't gotten to a certain portion of the test program, that it absolutely can't do ______.

http://logical-critical-thinking.com/lo ... f-fallacy/

I suggest that you work on your critical thinking skills, and then get back to us, for a meaningful discussion.

avxva wrote:

Well there Wrightwing, if you can provide ANY evidence for ANYTHING you just said above, I will hush up.

Wrightwing here can't tell the difference between plane's nose and tail, so...

However, I may be of help.
F35A is designed with 1.5 times nominal load critical failure margin (at least its publicly classified as such), so it should be able to withstand 13.5g without suffering catastrophic failure of the airframe or other vital systems.
This also means that max g load for B/C is 10.5g/11.25g respectfully, before the catastrophic failure occurs (regardless of resource hours remained).
So you see, all JSFs should be 10+g capable and seeing F35A do 11.5g (f.e.) is nothing extraordinary in contrast to F35B/C, both of which would break at that load.
There are multiple reasons for the plane to go over 9g and they can range from intentional (envelope exploratory/FCS tuning), to unintentional (gust of wind, high pressure pocket, etc..), which could all cause temporary g overload.

Sustained turning is entirely different matter, but it's not the issue right now.

avxva wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

The important take away, is that the F-35A has demonstrated that it is a 9+ G fighter, as was required by KPPs.

And that is EXACTLY what the 9.9g line in the press release was: a classic public relations "take away". The F-35 does 9.9g's for 1/1000 of a second and all of a sudden it's a "9+ G fighter!" Because it is, it actually pulled 9.9g's, so that makes it all true. The F-35 will be more agile than a F-16 because it's a 9.9g fighter!!

Well done Lockheed Martin public relations/marketing/sales/propaganda team. Well done indeed!

Listen guys, I don't want to post on this anymore. Nobody likes me and I don't have any friends. It hurts to be called a Sith Lord, Kim Jong-Al and a Chinese spy. It sure does. Some of you guys should feel real bad for doing that.

Al

1st503rdsgt wrote:

avxva wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

The important take away, is that the F-35A has demonstrated that it is a 9+ G fighter, as was required by KPPs.

And that is EXACTLY what the 9.9g line in the press release was: a classic public relations "take away". The F-35 does 9.9g's for 1/1000 of a second and all of a sudden it's a "9+ G fighter!" Because it is, it actually pulled 9.9g's, so that makes it all true. The F-35 will be more agile than a F-16 because it's a 9.9g fighter!!

Well done Lockheed Martin public relations/marketing/sales/propaganda team. Well done indeed!

Listen guys, I don't want to post on this anymore. Nobody likes me and I don't have any friends. It hurts to be called a Sith Lord, Kim Jong-Al and a Chinese spy. It sure does. Some of you guys should feel real bad for doing that.

Al

Indeed it must be.

Axva, I'm no JSF fan, but it is an improvement over the Viper. Whether or not it's capable enough to deal with top-tier adversaries won't be known for about 5-10 years IMO, but it's certainly better than flying Block 30s until 2050, or, God forbid, UCAVs.

Hey sgt. you found my old picture of Underhill I see Very Happy

One and the same?

cola wrote:

avxva wrote:

Well there Wrightwing, if you can provide ANY evidence for ANYTHING you just said above, I will hush up.

Wrightwing here can't tell the difference between plane's nose and tail, so...

However, I may be of help.
F35A is designed with 1.5 times nominal load critical failure margin (at least its publicly classified as such), so it should be able to withstand 13.5g without suffering catastrophic failure of the airframe or other vital systems.
This also means that max g load for B/C is 10.5g/11.25g respectfully, before the catastrophic failure occurs (regardless of resource hours remained).
So you see, all JSFs should be 10+g capable and seeing F35A do 11.5g (f.e.) is nothing extraordinary in contrast to F35B/C, both of which would break at that load.
There are multiple reasons for the plane to go over 9g and they can range from intentional (envelope exploratory/FCS tuning), to unintentional (gust of wind, high pressure pocket, etc..), which could all cause temporary g overload.

Sustained turning is entirely different matter, but it's not the issue right now.

The nose is the pointy end, near where the pilot sits, right? Rolling Eyes

avxva,

You may think this is clever trolling... but it really isn't.

Nobody can make you believe anything you don't want to. If we applied you standards to every claim by every manufacturer, which of them would hold up?

That was the point of my previous post in this thread. You seem to think you are being clever, but this is just idiotic.

The F-35 is designed to be a 9G aircraft. The fact that it reached 9.9Gs so far in testing is perfectly consistent with that. Unless you have some evidence to suggest that some unusual circumstances apply to this claim, you are just making a fool of yourself.

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

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