Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Design and construction
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post06 Nov 2012, 01:12

spazsinbad wrote:http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/naf NAF a backwards FAN

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/YOB YOB a backwards BOY

NAF YOB = a backwards FAN BOY. Defs of NAF & YOB may vary according to taste.

Eh, can't really say I've ever really been a fan of the F-35; I actually find the program rather disappointing for the most part. My support of the thing is nothing more than the sad acquiescence of a grownup who can't think of anything better. For the record, I would consider myself a fan of the following: F-22 (of course), F-20, Gripen, and F-15 ACTIVE.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26189
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Nov 2012, 01:20

I don't care either way what you like or not.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post06 Nov 2012, 01:35

spazsinbad wrote:I don't care either way what you like or not.

Jeez, what fell into your soup? Did you think I was calling you a "NAF YOB"? I know better than that. All I said is that there's no good source on the F-35's g-loading envelope yet, so we may as well let the fanboyz fight about it for now.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26189
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Nov 2012, 01:38

Why use the 'fan boy' term at all? And I don't like flies in my soup.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post06 Nov 2012, 01:51

1st503rdsgt wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/naf NAF a backwards FAN

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/YOB YOB a backwards BOY

NAF YOB = a backwards FAN BOY. Defs of NAF & YOB may vary according to taste.

Eh, can't really say I've ever really been a fan of the F-35; I actually find the program rather disappointing for the most part. My support of the thing is nothing more than the sad acquiescence of a grownup who can't think of anything better. For the record, I would consider myself a fan of the following: F-22 (of course), F-20, Gripen, and F-15 ACTIVE.


Well some one has to love the fat girls!
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post06 Nov 2012, 02:21

spazsinbad wrote:Why use the 'fan boy' term at all?

Perhaps an example. I've already mentioned that I like the Gripen and find the F-35 disappointing. Does that mean I think the USAF should buy planes from Saab? Absolutely not; one has to be realistic.

Were I a fanboy, I could make endless arguments about how the Gripen is better in this way or that, and take endless jabs about every F-35 shortcoming (real or imagined) while ignoring the fact that what works for Sweden is simply too small for the USAF. The F-35 draws more than its fair share of fanboy ire because it's going to replace so many sentimental favorites whilst possibly driving others out of production, and over-sentimentality is the essence of being fanboy.

I support the F-35 program because I can't come up with a clear, logical argument for anything else. That doesn't mean I like it; I simply have to accept facts as they are now. All my ideas for fixing the JSF mess involve time-travel back to 1996.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post06 Nov 2012, 02:27

alloycowboy wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:Eh, can't really say I've ever really been a fan of the F-35; I actually find the program rather disappointing for the most part. My support of the thing is nothing more than the sad acquiescence of a grownup who can't think of anything better. For the record, I would consider myself a fan of the following: F-22 (of course), F-20, Gripen, and F-15 ACTIVE.

Well some one has to love the fat girls!

To paraphrase Carlos Mencia: "Why did my wife and I get married? Because she's the best that I could get and I'm the best that she could get... and we both realized that at the same time!"
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post06 Nov 2012, 03:27

alloycowboy wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote: For the record, I would consider myself a fan of the following: F-22 (of course), F-20, Gripen, and F-15 ACTIVE.

Well some one has to love the fat girls!

The F-20 was quite light compared to previous jets. The problem was that the F-20 was a 9G jet but unfortunately the test pilots weren't used to a 9G jet. 2 fatal crashes didn't help sell the jet.

The Saab Gripen is also an excellent jet for defense of a small country, not so good for long range CAP.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post06 Nov 2012, 04:06

neurotech wrote:
alloycowboy wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote: For the record, I would consider myself a fan of the following: F-22 (of course), F-20, Gripen, and F-15 ACTIVE.

Well some one has to love the fat girls!

The F-20 was quite light compared to previous jets. The problem was that the F-20 was a 9G jet but unfortunately the test pilots weren't used to a 9G jet. 2 fatal crashes didn't help sell the jet.
The Saab Gripen is also an excellent jet for defense of a small country, not so good for long range CAP.

... or long range anything. Like I said, just a fan: ain't nothing rational about it.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post06 Nov 2012, 06:10

@1st503rdsgt.... I am just teasing of course. The F-20 Tiger Shark was a good airplane it just wasn't as good as an F-16 which is why it got no orders. As for the F-35 what would you change on the airplane?

Since every aircraft is designed around its jet engine you really wouldn't want to change that being the F-135 engine is the highest thrust engine available. Since the F-35 engine size, mass flow requirements and weapons bays dictate that you must use side air intakes that pretty much forces you into an airframe of the size and shape of the F-35. So really the only thing left to change is who supplies the avionics and systems.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post06 Nov 2012, 06:22

alloycowboy wrote:@1st503rdsgt.... I am just teasing of course. The F-20 Tiger Shark was a good airplane it just wasn't as good as an F-16 which is why it got no orders. As for the F-35 what would you change on the airplane?

Since every aircraft is designed around its jet engine you really wouldn't want to change that being the F-135 engine is the highest thrust engine available. Since the F-35 engine size, mass flow requirements and weapons bays dictate that you must use side air intakes that pretty much forces you into an airframe of the size and shape of the F-35. So really the only thing left to change is who supplies the avionics and systems.

You've pretty much just said everything I've said about why the F-35 is the way it is. As for what I would change, that's pretty much pointless speculation; I've long since vented my spleen about what should have been done differently. All I'll say is that three separate programs would have been best: more expensive, but still best
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3835
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post06 Nov 2012, 15:10

1st503rdsgt wrote: You've pretty much just said everything I've said about why the F-35 is the way it is. As for what I would change, that's pretty much pointless speculation; I've long since vented my spleen about what should have been done differently. All I'll say is that three separate programs would have been best: more expensive, but still best


Given an unlimited budget, 3 separate jets might've been nice, as would 750 Raptors with cheek arrays/IRSTs/HMDs,120 B-2s, and F-14 Tomcat 21s for the Navy instead of Super Hornets.
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 694
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post06 Nov 2012, 17:07

neurotech wrote:
m wrote:Remember I did read an article about the Swedish Saab Viggen. Flying at top speed, run out of fuel in less than five minutes.

Did some calculation. May I am wrong, but got this:

F22
mach 1.82 for 100 nm (185 km )

Mach 1.82 = 2229.5546 kilometers per hour / 1203.86317 nmi per hour

60 min = 3600 sec > 8,3% = 298.8 sec <> 4.98 min

Max. Speed is usually with internal fuel tanks only. Most 3rd Gen fighters would run out of usable fuel in less than 10 minutes of AB Max speed flight. The F-4 may be an exceptions in 3rd Gen fighters.

If you mean 4th gen Saab Gripen then it has a more efficient GE 404 engine although still a relatively low fuel fraction, like most fighters.

Conformal tanks are relatively new feature on "smaller" jets like the F-16, although I suspect it would still reduce top speed having them on the jet.


Thanks for your explanation. I am no expert, just calculated the given nmi and distance.
It’s only “a fure” in min, without knowing circumstances like drag, wind, climate etc. etc.
As well without the unknowns of both jets

Less than five min. concerned the Saab Viggen I did read about, not the Saab Gripen
Offline

cola

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 559
  • Joined: 18 May 2009, 00:52

Unread post06 Nov 2012, 21:55

megasun wrote:Sure F-35A has more "half-fuel" and equipments than 16/18. But...

...even with full internal fuel, an F16 still does a ~0.3g more than the F35A, while maintaining a significantly longer range.
Cheers, Cola
Offline

bigjku

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 679
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 21:00

Unread post06 Nov 2012, 22:14

cola wrote:
megasun wrote:Sure F-35A has more "half-fuel" and equipments than 16/18. But...

...even with full internal fuel, an F16 still does a ~0.3g more than the F35A, while maintaining a significantly longer range.


Can it do this while carrying a targeting pod, an ECM pod and weapons?
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Design & Construction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests