Agile F-35 High Wing Loading

[easer]

And those people know their numbers and argue their points well, all You "critics of them" really say is "Lockheed say this", "Lockheed say that", "even the pilots say this and thát"....
-Hardly objective sources All....

What? And its not just lockheed martin saying it. Its been proven and officially recognized by the US Government, and governments the world over.

-It is You guys who doesn´t really argue, what numbers should I have come up with (one response to my first reply to this thread), "Looks like its more than good enough without the big wing assumption" was another.
"Who says it's not already decent?" is hardly an argument either....

Your arrogance is astounding, Requirements were set, requirements were met. Paul Belavaqua who is an actual aero engineer not just a guy pretending to be one on the internet, says that the desire for optimization is a curse. The customer is happy with the wing, now go solve a problem that needs solving. It is acceptable. you are trying to imply that it is not, trying to imply the customers are unhappy, trying to imply it hasn't been proven, trying to imply its insufficient...

Have You seen them maneuver, they have been grounded all the airshow seasons, I doubt thát is a coincidence....???

Completely false. Not only have F-35s attended airshows, they have PROVEN their capability in officially run tests at Pax and Edwards. Your insinuation is thus utterly wrong, and just because you have not seen it "proven at an airshow", doesn't mean it is not proven. trying to tie in airshow knowledge as proof of lack of required maneuverability?

are you serious?

Mr imagination can't imagine that we don't flight test at airshows? Thus its invalid?

-I think a try at a minimum radius turn would be embarrassing, and costly in costumers....

uhh no. and if customers wanted the bigger wing, they could buy the F-35C. So far, no takers. What the C gets in turn radius it sacrifices wave drag and G limit for. There are no free lunches

Common sense and imagination (which I believe my idea is founded on) is the base of mechanical engineering, then we see the numbers later....

Common sense would mean you would actually study the requirements and other design trade offs. You clearly don't know what the parameters are because if you did, you would see that your concept is not "common sense." I will agree its heavy on the imagination though, and as for Mechanical engineering imagination is wonderful, but the reason people go to school for years in the subject is to learn the limitations for when imagination meets reality. Moreover there is a lot more to it than simply inventing a bigger wing. Anyone who works in industry will tell you its a very complex system, and design is only one phase, there are many many other issues to contend with.

-Sorry about the tone, but it IS You Guys who are Bashing here....

You don't know what the hell you are talking about. Basically you are taking something that in YOUR OPINION is not good enough, and without considering any other factors or trade offs, are decisively stating its insufficient when the Customer says its acceptable, as per the requirements set. If the customer wanted different requirements, they would set them.

It's really cute and all that you have this idea, but your attitude, and your insinuations, and implications, make you utterly tedious and not worth listening to. We even have real life Big Wing F-35s that we can use for comparison already, and guess what? its not a magic bullet customers have seen it and decided not to purchase it

Read the requirements, and there should be some obvious clues as to why the wings are the size they are. You've also dismissed many other engineering features that help the F-35 in the areas you say it falls short in.

If you want to say "I'm right" hey thats great. But saying "I'm right and they are wrong, because there are no objective testing or airshows" Well thats pure Bullshit.

XanderCrews...:
"What? And its not just lockheed martin saying it. Its been proven and officially recognized by the US Government, and governments the world over. "

My government is one of those, and I guarantee to You that they have not been thinking a lot, they can´t, not critical thought anyway.... ;- )



XanderCrews...:
"Your arrogance is astounding"

I did put up an interesting idea, and of the 4 people responding to it, there were one actually thinking it was a good idea, and 3 basically laughing....

If You know anything about airplane design, then You know that one of the area´s with the highest pressure is under the wing.
Most of the plane´s weight is resting there, and the air that get pressed away is restricted in doing so, on the rest of the plane the air that get pushed away can move in 180 directions (degrees) or more, under the wing it only have 90 so to speak....
-And Lockheed chose to EXPAND the airplanes body THERE, was thát a government-set requirement....???
-Or a flaw...?



XanderCrews...:
"Not only have F-35s attended airshows"

Yes, I have seen it hover and fly by, really not much of a show....
Sure someone have seen it do what it can, but I´m also sure that those were not my government who are going to buy this plane 98% sure, spending A LOT of money doing it.
-And they WILL NOT request a demonstration, I guarantee thát, they cannot think properly....



XanderCrews...:
"Common sense would mean you would actually study the requirements and other design trade offs. You clearly don't know what the parameters are because if you did, you would see that your concept is not "common sense.""

-Believe me, an plane CAN start out as an idea and turn out absolutely sensible, A-10 and F-16 for instance, thinkers were behind those planes, not desk generals....

[easer]

-Oops...

[easer]

-I think it looks as if it indeed COULD use a little more wing....;- )

Bjarke

Okay so you think LM should remove a bit of drag from one area but then add more drag elsewhere and weight by increasing the wing size.
Then add a bit more fuel (more weight) - would that increase range/endurance or does it just offset the higher fuel consumption due to the added weight/drag?
Go with the F-35C wing shape for sure - its been tested and might be as good regarding RCS (who knows) - problem is what
actual operational benefit has been gained from all this? - a tiny increase in max turn rate? - you may as well sellotape a chocolate teapot to the wing.

-If I were a pilot ad had a missile coming in, I would pay anything to get an ever so slightly better turning rate....

Thát said, I would guess the suggestion I did put forward will give him a bit more than thát, plus better drag, at least very nice to have when he have to pick up speed again to avoid the second missile coming in....

[easer]

-Well, it might be decent, but then it could be a little more decent, maybe even "quite ok good"...

"Who says it's not already decent?" is hardly an argument either....

It was not meant to be an argument. It indicated you have not given any sources. But hey, here's a real argument:

Some real F-35 pilots actually indicate the little bugger packs a punch:

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfl ... ed-so-far/

(English version below the norwegian text).

Read it - keeping in mind these flights are done on a more recent software version (That's the claw-reference in my prev post).

-Yea, I have read thát, first of all, I doubt that Hanche is very unbiased, he DOES KNOW that his days flying a fighter is over if he is just the tiniest critical, he does not want to fly a freighter if You know what I mean....

Second, he´s talking about being able to turn the nose just wherever he want for a quick shot, and being able to brake really fast going High AoA.

-Do You All remember what everybody said when the Russians started tumbling their Sukhoi´s around in Cobra´s and the like...?
"That is not usefull for anything" (because we can´t)....

-If You ask me a good plane that go High AoA should start turning very fast, not stop up....

[easer]

I need to sleep, it is getting late here, last one...:

That "a large LERX is a LO signature compromise" is definitely a good argument, thát might be the reason that they did what they did....

But on the other hand, the concave angle between the LERX I proposed and the chine would reflect in the same direction as the concave angle between the body and the wing, an non stealth angle the plane have already.
It would only add a little reflection, but have a significant effect in terms of aerodynamics, both drag and liftwise.

And would reflect a bit less forward than "the beginning of the bomb bay" as the angle of the LERX underside would be smaller.

[cosmicdwarf]

proof?

[basher54321]

-If I were a pilot ad had a missile coming in, I would pay anything to get an ever so slightly better turning rate....

Thát said, I would guess the suggestion I did put forward will give him a bit more than thát, plus better drag, at least very nice to have when he have to pick up speed again to avoid the second missile coming in....

If you were a pilot you would know that avoiding a missile doesn't simply involve trying to out turn it

No the complete opposite actually - you misunderstand what I'm talking about - are you familiar with what weight is?

[basher54321]

I did put up an interesting idea, and of the 4 people responding to it, there were one actually thinking it was a good idea, and 3 basically laughing....

Unfortunately you have got peoples backs up based on some of things you have stated. It would be worth going away and spending a bit of time doing some research and learning a bit about this.
The mention of Sprey as some kind of authority is a massive red flag ( I can appreciate that he targets the ignorant)Welcome to F-16.net where funnily enough a lot is known about the history of the F-16 ( ever heard of Harry Hillaker or John Boyd?)

[charlielima223]

So I've been reading the comments...

[XanderCrews]

My government is one of those, and I guarantee to You that they have not been thinking a lot, they can´t, not critical thought anyway.... ;- )

prove it.

I did put up an interesting idea, and of the 4 people responding to it, there were one actually thinking it was a good idea, and 3 basically laughing....

You put up an ( alternative idea, (which is basically the F-35C) that does not invalidate the original design decisions, especially when you remember there is more than just wing size to consider. Again you decided to take on small piece of the puzzle and emphasize it more than any other, to the point other peices wouldn't fit. Which I wouldn't mind but instead of simply proposing an idea, you decided to throw the design and designer under the bus as wrong or flawed. which instantly shows you as immature and out of your depth.

The next thing is you have no quantifiable numbers or proof. Example So the turn rate is improved? ok by how much? What is the cost in other areas?

If You know anything about airplane design, then You know that one of the area´s with the highest pressure is under the wing.
Most of the plane´s weight is resting there, and the air that get pressed away is restricted in doing so, on the rest of the plane the air that get pushed away can move in 180 directions (degrees) or more, under the wing it only have 90 so to speak....And Lockheed chose to EXPAND the airplanes body THERE

uhh What?

was thát a government-set requirement....???-Or a flaw...?

Who said it was flawed in the first place?

And how can you smart design decision when you don't know what the requirements and goals are? Don't you think that is kind of important to know before you start running your mouth with ideas that have already been done and claiming they are "interesting"?

Yes, I have seen it hover and fly by, really not much of a show....

The F-35 STOVL lift system won a collier trophy. "If You know anything about airplane design," you would be pretty impressed with what the F-35B can do, and the "thinkers" behind it-- The trophy has only been awarded for a propulsion system 2 other times, the radial engine and jet engine. So that's a pretty big deal . Unless you see any other hovering 14 ton super sonic stealth fighters out there? of course you aren't impressed, you are ignorant.

You are clearly a novice, you have no clue of what you speak and are more interested in propelling a narrative than speaking mathematically.

Sure someone have seen it do what it can,

So we are in agreement, despite you not seeing the whole story due to lack of access, the whole story does exist?

-And they WILL NOT request a demonstration, I guarantee thát, they cannot think properly....

Again, prove it. All the JSF partners have access to the numbers and the knowledge to accurately compare and evaluate the numbers that have been gained via testing the airplane itself.

In order to have a civil conversation about this certain assumptions must be made. For example we must assume that thanks to testing we know what both the F-35A/B wing and C wing can cannot do, and the differences, capabilities and trade offs involved within. Thus we can discuss what changes can be made and how they will affect things. You are basically dismissing the whole thing out of hand, and then declaring it wrong and yourself right. And based on what? do you have access to the numbers? Do you not having access to the numbers then mean no one else does? Whats your education and experience in this subject to make these judgement?

-Believe me, an plane CAN start out as an idea and turn out absolutely sensible, A-10 and F-16 for instance, thinkers were behind those planes, not desk generals....

[/quote]

I'm going to pull up a chair, because I can't wait to see you explain the above. This should be very comical. Please elaborate on this narrative.




What an F-35 with a larger wing might look like^ (and we know exactly what it does, and the trade offs)

Easer's idea:



How innovative!! What did you want for that again? a billion dollars you said? They should sue you


So let me go over some of the pitfalls so you can make more informed decisions and not be branded a troll:

*Respect the official testing, rather than trying to reject it or imply its false or not considered

*Know the requirements, and Respect the requirements

*Show numbers and proof, measurements etc.

*avoid narratives, like rejecting certain aircraft, people, and principals as "desk Generals" vs "thinkers"

*Don't steal others' ideas and say they are yours.

[KamenRiderBlade]

easer sounds like a F/A-18 SuperHornet salesman to the US Navy & Congress, "We'll just make it bigger, it'll cost next to nothing to make it bigger and better. Trust me Senator / Admiral."

[hornetfinn]

It was not meant to be an argument. It indicated you have not given any sources. But hey, here's a real argument:

Some real F-35 pilots actually indicate the little bugger packs a punch:

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfl ... ed-so-far/

(English version below the norwegian text).

Read it - keeping in mind these flights are done on a more recent software version (That's the claw-reference in my prev post).

-Yea, I have read thát, first of all, I doubt that Hanche is very unbiased, he DOES KNOW that his days flying a fighter is over if he is just the tiniest critical, he does not want to fly a freighter if You know what I mean....

Second, he´s talking about being able to turn the nose just wherever he want for a quick shot, and being able to brake really fast going High AoA.

-Do You All remember what everybody said when the Russians started tumbling their Sukhoi´s around in Cobra´s and the like...?
"That is not usefull for anything" (because we can´t)....

-If You ask me a good plane that go High AoA should start turning very fast, not stop up....

So you are dismissing narratives made by very experienced fighter pilot just because you doubt he is unbiased. Who do you think we should listen to? People who actually use the thing or people who look at photographs and think they know something about aerodynamics? You can claim that anybody involved with the F-35 (or any other aircraft) is biased but that doesn't change the fact that they know the aircraft far better than anybody else. I have yet to hear anything negative regarding F-35 flying qualities from people who have actual experience with it. You are assuming it doesn't start turning very fast, but people who fly it says it actually starts turning very fast (like Hanche).

I don't doubt there are some things in F-35 that are aerodynamically not optimum. However that is true with every single aicraft ever made as you can't design aircraft just for aerodynamics alone.

Sukhoi Cobra maneuver has been dismissed somewhat unfairly, I agree with that. Su-27 derivatives have shown excellent handling qualities in high-AoA maneuvers and definitely makes it dangerous opponent in close-in fight just like Hornet, Super Hornet, F-22 and F-35. Cobra maneuver itself is not that great for actual combat as it leaves the aircraft with almost no energy and losing altitude. It however shows the slow speed handling qualities and is impressive in airshows. I doubt pilots would try in in real world situations but they would definitely use high-AoA capabilities which allow such maneuvers.

[krorvik]

Just let him go - all he's doing here is taking up time.

Easer - you are either a troll, or you are sufficiently ignorant to some really basic stuff about flying that you cannot actually understand the sources you are given. Hanche did NOT describe high AoA as a manouvering method. He's likely not afraid of flying C-130s like Maverick is - and either way, are you really basing your own knowledge on other peoples fear? Let's not go down that road.

Free thinking is not called engineering. It is called philosophy. And as important as it is, it does NOT enable you to fly alone. Here, the data 100+ years of flying has given us tells us that you're dead in the water - well beyond reasonable doubt.

Go find some textbooks - start with one that has some info on Bernoullis principle. Until you return with more knowledge - safe travels.

Or, if you are a troll, go away. You don't exist.

[vanshilar]

I did put up an interesting idea, and of the 4 people responding to it, there were one actually thinking it was a good idea, and 3 basically laughing....

It's because you don't even bother to justify it with any sort of analysis, but just hand-wave "hey it's an idea and maybe better than decent!"

The designers literally design airplanes for a living. Do you think they didn't consider designing a bigger wing? Do you really think they're going to read your blog post, slap themselves on their forehead, and go "Hey Jim, we gotta redesign the wing, this internet blog post had the brilliant idea that the wing should be bigger, why didn't we think of that?!?!?!?"

No, they considered a bigger wing, along with a thousand other possible designs, during the process of designing the airplane. There's a reason why the wing is as big as it is. Because it is the size that is best able to meet the requirements. And as proof of this, the designers did design a bigger wing, for the F-35C. If that bigger wing were better, they would have applied it to the F-35A.

If you came on and said "Hmm why does the F-35 have such a small wing" then people could explain it to you. Instead you come on and say "Hey it should have a bigger wing, this is a good idea, it's awesome!" and yet provide no analysis or any sort of knowledgeable justification why it would be better. It's basically a violation of Chesterton's fence: if you think a design should be changed, you should first understand and be able to explain why the designers designed it that way in the first place. If you can't demonstrate that you understand the principles that went into their design, then it's hard to take your suggestion seriously. In this case, the designers clearly had a design with a bigger wing available (the F-35C). That they chose a smaller wing for the F-35A means that the smaller wing is the better choice for their design considerations. You haven't demonstrated any evidence to the contrary, yet you think a bigger wing will magically be better.

[XanderCrews]

No, they considered a bigger wing, along with a thousand other possible designs, during the process of designing the airplane. There's a reason why the wing is as big as it is. Because it is the size that is best able to meet the requirements. And as proof of this, the designers did design a bigger wing, for the F-35C. If that bigger wing were better, they would have applied it to the F-35A.

Or simply put, countries would prefer the F-35C and purchase it over the F-35A. So far, no takers.

the F-35C pro:

Better turning
Range

F-35C Con:

slower transonically
7.5G limit
Heavier overall

Johnwill actually had a really good explanation about the wing in one of his posts, but I'm not going to feed this troll anymore

If you came on and said "Hmm why does the F-35 have such a small wing" then people could explain it to you. Instead you come on and say "Hey it should have a bigger wing, this is a good idea, it's awesome!" and yet provide no analysis or any sort of knowledgeable justification why it would be better. It's basically a violation of Chesterton's fence: if you think a design should be changed, you should first understand and be able to explain why the designers designed it that way in the first place. If you can't demonstrate that you understand the principles that went into their design, then it's hard to take your suggestion seriously. In this case, the designers clearly had a design with a bigger wing available (the F-35C). That they chose a smaller wing for the F-35A means that the smaller wing is the better choice for their design considerations. You haven't demonstrated any evidence to the contrary, yet you think a bigger wing will magically be better.

Correct, the burden of proof is on him. I am willing to be they know their job better than he knows their job. Call it a hunch.

I refuse to screw around with this guy anymore than I have to.