Agile F-35 High Wing Loading

[Dragon029]

As silly as it may sound, pitching forward would've done the trick, as the elevators do extend nicely rearward, allowing for continued manipulation of the CP after whipping the nose up. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some spoileron work happening too (using the ailerons in the opposite way of using them as flaps to push the center of pressure even further rearward).

[optimist]

They were saying in the article that in testing that they had a lot of weight aft, the 110 deg sounds like a pitch up?
I read they were testing to about 70 deg to clear the 50deg AOA and that makes more sense to me.

[Dragon029]

I don't think so; it's not as if it's the first non-TV aircraft to be able to pull a cobra.

Remember too that the precise wording is:

Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA.

There's no mention of a range of AOA, etc, just a maximum figure.

[zero-one]

What I wonder is what control surface deflection could possible make it come back from 110 degrees?

depends on what the 110 degrees looks like, we immediately think it may have been a cobra-ish maneuver, however, it may have been simply going straight down belly first with a slight nose up, that would make it to 110 degrees also,

to go out of it, simply move forward

[johnwill]

Anyway, since the F-2 is an overgrown F-16, I was thinking so is the F-35, although it does have more wing and a bigger engine.

So what airplane more closely matches the F-35's performance? is it the F-16C block 52 or the F-2? or none?

Thanks for your understanding. I'll never use the term myself, but time heals all wounds, so maybe others will begin to. I hope not.

There is little to be gained in those comparisons, but for what it's worth, I'd say the F-2 is closer to F-35 than the F-16 is. Someday, when JASDF has both the F-35 and F-2, maybe we'll find out. One way the F-2 and F-35 compare well is cost, since the F-2 was around $100M per copy due to only 100 being built.

[Gums]

Salute!

Good to see the real data about the Viper tanks. TNX John-boy, heh heh.

Best I recall was our big wing tanks could go to 9 gees symmetrical. However, punching the button lost the whole assembly. The centerline could also pull 9 gees but be dropped without losing the pylon ( station 5). Bad news was we carried the jammer on station 5, so we had to use 4 and 6 for those big tanks.

Dunno why USAF didn't have a cheapo wing tank for about 7 gees and such that could be jetted and save the pylon and plumbing. Oh well. Never flew the thing A2A with the big tanks, but a low level attack with 6 or 8 x MK-82 ( or maybe 4 or 6 x 1000 pounders), ''winders or maybe mixed Slammers and 'winders using 2,8,1 and 9 meant you could "be somebody". Problem was one station had to be the ACMI doofer. ECM Pod was on sta 5, as we didn't get the "joint" countermeasure doofer at the base of the tail that was promised back in 1975. At 90%+ power, we zipped along at 540 or 600 knots and could do that for well over an hour if we came home after expending.. So we never refueled at a Red Flag going or coming. Not a shabby radius at attack speed, but that Nellis complex ain't that big.

BTW, except for the speed, the A-7D did the same in Linebacker 2 back in 1972 from Korat to "downtown".

Gums sends...


So I like a jet that can go far without hitting a tanker, carry

[johnwill]

What I wonder is what control surface deflection could possible make it come back from 110 degrees?

depends on what the 110 degrees looks like, we immediately think it may have been a cobra-ish maneuver, however, it may have been simply going straight down belly first with a slight nose up, that would make it to 110 degrees also,

to go out of it, simply move forward

"Simply move forward" may be harder than you think, as very little thrust is generated with the free airstream moving up and forward relative to the inlets. If AoA is above 90 deg, airspeed is negative.

I suspect the 110 deg was not a steady condition, but the result of a dynamic overshoot. In that condition, recovery was likely automatic, not the result of control application.

[archeman]

A request - since I come from a day when "Jap" was a very negative expression, worse than the "N" word, it really irritates me to hear people use it today. I suspect you did not mean anything bad by using it. I lived and worked in Japan for a year and a half on the F-2 program, and the Japanese people of today are the finest group of people I have ever known. So please use "Japanese" when referring to them.

I'm very sorry John, I've worked with some Japanese people as well, and you're right, they are a fine bunch, very humble and polite. I think we should start redeeming the "Jap" term and stop affiliating it with the negative notations of WWII.

but yeah, I'll use Japanese from now on.

No dice Zero1 on redeeming the term "Jap" because you see, it isn't up to the non-Japanese public to declare such an accord. I accidentally fell into that trap once with a good friend and riding buddy who was of Japanese heritage. I had used the term without realizing it when discussing motorcycles. Just shortening the word and dropping syllables to get there. Neither of us was from the WWII era, but he was quite serious that it is not an acceptable term. OK then.

[johnwill]

Gums,

Good to hear from you again. Here's the story on those 9g tanks. Underwing 370 and centerline 300 tanks were both designed for 6.5g full, 7.33g empty. After the flight loads test in 1977, with various tank fuel conditions, we found the empty tanks and the airplane structure could handle 9g fine. So as a free gift to USAF, I (and GD) raised the -1 limits to 9g symmetric, 6g roll with empty tanks. Of course, if A/G stores were still on board, the limits were still 5.5g/4.4g for most loadings.

The decision to drop the pylon along with the 370 tank was from USAF, and was driven by two things, less weight & drag and tank separation characteristics. Jettisoning an empty 370 from a standard pylon up to 1.6 mach conditions (required) was too risky, so the special tank pylon was designed. It was about two feet longer than the standard pylon and attached to the wing rear spar with a pivot fitting that kept the pylon connected to the wing until it had pitched down 17 deg. That assured the pylon would continue downward and not pitch back up into the airplane. Empty tanks are a bitch to get rid of at high speeds.

Check out this F-111 tank separation test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKlV9VvHaEY

[basher54321]

Gums,

Good to hear from you again. Here's the story on those 9g tanks. Underwing 370 and centerline 300 tanks were both designed for 6.5g full, 7.33g empty. After the flight loads test in 1977, with various tank fuel conditions, we found the empty tanks and the airplane structure could handle 9g fine. So as a free gift to USAF, I (and GD) raised the -1 limits to 9g symmetric, 6g roll with empty tanks. Of course, if A/G stores were still on board, the limits were still 5.5g/4.4g for most loadings.

The decision to drop the pylon along with the 370 tank was from USAF, and was driven by two things, less weight & drag and tank separation characteristics. Jettisoning an empty 370 from a standard pylon up to 1.6 mach conditions (required) was too risky, so the special tank pylon was designed. It was about two feet longer than the standard pylon and attached to the wing rear spar with a pivot fitting that kept the pylon connected to the wing until it had pitched down 17 deg. That assured the pylon would continue downward and not pitch back up into the airplane. Empty tanks are a bitch to get rid of at high speeds.

Check out this F-111 tank separation test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKlV9VvHaEY

Great stuff - I guess that's one of the reasons the 600 tanks have subsonic limits.

Had also noticed the F-22 had similar integrated tanks in testing:

[KamenRiderBlade]

Once you eject a drop tank, is there a parachute built into the rear of the tank to let it land relatively gently for reuse, or does it just collide with the ground and you write it off as a spent equipment?

[basher54321]

Once you eject a drop tank, is there a parachute built into the rear of the tank to let it land relatively gently for reuse, or does it just collide with the ground and you write it off as a spent equipment?

Think that's a big no for most tanks as Spaz as touched on.

Did have a photo of a 370 that had split almost in half (from what I remember) after an emergency jettison - the pylon was still on it though..


Found this vid - must be 370s not 600 as stated

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xg0q6p ... -fire_news

[quicksilver]

"A request - since I come from a day when "Jap" was a very negative expression, worse than the "N" word, it really irritates me to hear people use it today. I suspect you did not mean anything bad by using it."

I come from that day also, and I have a request -- keep the PC editorializing off the board. If you suspected he didnt mean anything by it, then perhaps the better part of valor might have been to let it ride.

[KamenRiderBlade]

I guess I'm kind of lucky in that the term "Jap" was only a part of history books, not something I hear on a day to day basis as I was growing up. My generation has nothing but the utmost respect and love for the Japanese and most races.

[johnwill]

"A request - since I come from a day when "Jap" was a very negative expression, worse than the "N" word, it really irritates me to hear people use it today. I suspect you did not mean anything bad by using it."

I come from that day also, and I have a request -- keep the PC editorializing off the board. If you suspected he didnt mean anything by it, then perhaps the better part of valor might have been to let it ride.

I'll have to disagree with you there. Still assuming he meant no harm, wouldn't it be better for him to find out about his insulting speech from me, rather than from someone he insulted down the road somewhere?

As far as being "PC" in your words, if people don't object to ignorance or hatred, even if unintentional, it will continue. In my world, that's not going to happen.