Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

Thanks Lieven!

F-16.net Sponsor

Lieven wrote:

cxxtxx, broncazonk, broncazonc and now as avxva.

Yeah thats pretty much what I said when I reported him Smile

I see someone else in this thread had worked it out too with the tinfoil hat image that turned him all fruitcakey last time.

Talk about a nutter, how desperate must he be to constantly create accounts just to troll on this site.

Where is the "limited to 20° AoA" baloney coming from? They've already been flying up to 55° for years!

delvo wrote:

Where is the "limited to 20° AoA" baloney coming from? They've already been flying up to 55° for years!

Dunno, but I suspect it has something to with the difference between *tested* and *certified*. Just because a certain parameter has been reached in testing doesn't mean the guys learning to fly the thing at Eglin are allowed to go there yet. *Sigh* Everything has to be so damned deliberate these days. Time was when Chuck Yeager could put on a low-level aerobatic display in the X-1 just for the hell of it if he had any fuel left over, but at least we don't end up with as many smoking holes as we used to.

avxva wrote:

Hobo wrote: "You may think this is clever trolling... but it really isn't." Response: I'm not trolling anyone. I'm just asking very simple questions that nobody seems to be able (or is willing to)give me the answer that I want to hear.

Fixed that for you

So you would have to be willfully negligent, even reckless, not to be suspicious of marketing claims like: "The aircraft has flown to 9.9g's," from a company who's very survival depends on getting this product far enough down the production road that it can't be cancelled.

Quote:

Hobo wrote: "The F-35 is designed to be a 9G aircraft." Response: In what way? A "9G aircraft" is a many splendored thing. Is a combat-loaded F-35 designed to do 9g's in a sustained turn?

Yes. With 5000lbs of internal weapons

Quote:

Hobo wrote, "The fact that it reached 9.9Gs so far in testing is perfectly consistent with that." Maybe, but factually, we really don't know, because that 9.9G might have randomly occurred for 1/1000 of a second in a downdraft.

It may have, but seeing as how you don't know either, you're talking out of your hindquarters, in suggesting that's what actually happened.

Quote:

Here's the point. Just because the F-35 is able to survive (doesn't come apart and self destruct) under a load of 9g's doesn't mean the F-35 is, "more maneuverable than an F-16 or an F-18." So lets stop saying that. I'm tired of the LM sales/marketing/propaganda B.S..

The reason that the F-35 is more maneuverable is that the F-16/F-18 lose a lot of their agility once you start hanging bombs, external fuel tanks, jamming/targeting pods. An F-35 in clean configuration doesn't have the G limits, that the other 2 do. You're problem is that you feel anything positive about the F-35 must be propaganda. There are plenty of non-LM folks that have had great things to say.

wrightwing wrote:

Fixed that for you

You'll have to wait for dummy to come back on a new account in a few weeks. He made the (derpy derp) mistake of signing his posts exactly the same way as he did last time he was booted.

Lieven wrote:

checksixx wrote:

Avxva, I can only assume that from your banter that you are either a child, or a troll.

He was a troll who managed to be banned before as cxxtxx, broncazonk, broncazonc and now as avxva.

Excellent work!! Very Happy

munny wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

Fixed that for you

You'll have to wait for dummy to come back on a new account in a few weeks. He made the (derpy derp) mistake of signing his posts exactly the same way as he did last time he was booted.

Nooo, you shouldn't have said it. Maybe he would have done it again, as I'm sure he'll be back Laughing

wrightwing wrote:

Quote:

Hobo wrote: "The F-35 is designed to be a 9G aircraft." Response: In what way? A "9G aircraft" is a many splendored thing. Is a combat-loaded F-35 designed to do 9g's in a sustained turn?

Yes. With 5000lbs of internal weapons

That's the part that I'm skeptical about. I recognize that internal weapons on the F-35 don't add drag, but they are ahead of the aircraft's center of gravity. I frankly have trouble imagining an F-35 doing a 9g turn with almost 5k Ibs of dead weight ahead of the wings.

I remember Beesly once saying that to keep the aircraft balanced, the F-35 draws its fuel from the front tanks first and draws from the aft tanks last. I seriously have to wonder how much two 2k weapons affect its turning performance. They don't add drag, but bombs do make the fighter more nose-heavy.

wrightwing wrote:

The reason that the F-35 is more maneuverable is that the F-16/F-18 lose a lot of their agility once you start hanging bombs, external fuel tanks, jamming/targeting pods.

That's why you drop fuel tanks before engaging in a dogfight and don't hang bombs or weapons pods on aircraft equipped for air superiority. An F-16 armed only with AMRAAM's and AIM-9's performs only marginally worse than a clean F-16.

Back in the days when they were designing high performance fighters like the F-16 and F-15, they believed it was important to make the fighters as light and nimble as possible. To accomplish this, they opted to lower the internal fuel fraction and rely on external tanks for extended missions. This of course added lots of drag and reduced range considerably.

One of the things about the F-35 I think they did very well was to give it a huge fuel fraction and high-bypass turbofan engine at the expense of raw performance. I seriously don't care whether the F-35 is more agile than legacy fighters or not... packing everything internally comes with a moderate penalty to performance, but I would say that penalty is worth the added benefits.

The F-35 isn't supposed to be a stunt plane, it's supposed to be a warhorse.

The F-35 isn't having to overcome the added inertial forces, of heavy weights(interrupted air flow) on its wings(or asymmetric loads). Additionally, the internal mounts in the F-35 are stressed to 9Gs, whereas the F-16/18 are much more limited. It is true that they can drop their fuel tanks, but in doing so, they drop a lot of fuel that might come in handy, if they have to use their afterburners for prolonged periods. They'll reach bingo fuel well before the F-35.

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

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