F-35 Supersonic Dash comparable to the F-22 (Theory)

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

cantaz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 782
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 22:01

Unread post19 Aug 2015, 22:16

If very minimal AB is correct, then it's possible that full realization of P&W's proposed engine upgrades will formally push the A model into the supercruise category.

P&W is talking about up to 10% improvement in thrust in blk 1, up to 15% in blk 2.

If, and I stress, IF they pull it off...

If blk 0 @ 100% mil = 28,000lbf, and @ 100% AB = 28,000lbf + 15,000lbf, then:

(10% imp) Blk 1 @ 100% mil = 30,800lbf = Blk 0 @ 18.6% AB

(15% imp) Blk 2 @ 100% mil = 32,200lbf = Blk 0 @ 28% AB

In fact, the low end of the blk 1 predication is a 7% improvement in thrust, which is...

(7%) Blk 1 @ 100% mil = 29,960lbf = Blk 0 @ 13% AB.

Whether the above is installed or uninstalled thrust should be immaterial given the uniformity in context.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3409
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post20 Aug 2015, 00:31

You can quibble (ad nauseum) about what supercruise means but the reality is that F-35 will not sustain supersonic speeds in level flight at mil power. It will, however, sustain supersonic speeds in min burner -- and it's got alotta JP onboard.

Dont wanna believe the guys who fly it (Griffiths, Neimi for starters...)? Knock yourself out.

:roll:
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post20 Aug 2015, 01:31

You just contradicted yourself.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26834
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Aug 2015, 01:38

QUE? 'SWP' please explain.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3409
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post20 Aug 2015, 01:48

Spud, you can believe what you want, but there's no fuzz on this for me. But, don't take my word for it, listen to one of the EDW test guys (as stated earlier) --

"What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising..."
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 884
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post20 Aug 2015, 01:53

quicksilver wrote:Spud, you can believe what you want, but there's no fuzz on this for me. But, don't take my word for it, listen to one of the EDW test guys (as stated earlier) --

"What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising..."


But what if thats what it takes to maintin mach 1.4? Or 1.5, what if it can do 1.2 on military but to gofaster you gotta be in burner. At anyrate that quite kinda provides me one answer that the f-35 can maintain supersonic speeds (dunno about the actual mach) in a limited burner with a lot of jp on board and only one engine consuming it. The remaining questions would be how fast is it going and for how long can it maintain it.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3409
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post20 Aug 2015, 01:58

geforcerfx wrote:
quicksilver wrote:Spud, you can believe what you want, but there's no fuzz on this for me. But, don't take my word for it, listen to one of the EDW test guys (as stated earlier) --

"What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising..."


But what if thats what it takes to maintin mach 1.4? Or 1.5, what if it can do 1.2 on military but to gofaster you gotta be in burner. At anyrate that quite kinda proves my point a bit that that f-35 can maintain supersonic speeds (dunno about the actual mach) in a limited burner with a lot of jp on board and only one engine consuming it.


Dude, it's real simple -- it will not sustain supersonic speed in level flight at mil power.

What it will attain at various levels of ab is subject to other variables that most are familiar with.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26834
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Aug 2015, 02:20

Was there not an USAF Generale (or similar) comment about the F-35 'supersonic' dash capability? What is clear is that NO ONE is going to give the NATOPS/Dash One details of the aircraft performance any time soon. OK. Speculate away - these quotes mentioned are all we have and take note of what 'QS' is saying here. Got this quote from 'reddit' & look for AFM...
"...the definitive article about the F-35's supersonic dash came out of the November 2012 edition of the AirForce Magazine, which unfortunately now requires a paid membership to view. But the quotes taken from that article is as follows:
"...The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners. (AFM November 2012)... [not entirely correct - eh]"


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comme ... uise_myth/

The complete article quoted is attached:
The F-35’s Race Against Time
Nov 2012 John A. Tirpak Executive Editor; Air Force Magazine; Vol. 95, No. 11

..."The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel gulping afterburners. [not entirely correct we say - F-35 will use minminA/B]

“Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,” O’Bryan [Lockheed Martin Vice President Stephen O’Bryan, the company’s point man for F-35 affairs] said.

The high speed also allows the F-35 to impart more energy to a weapon such as a bomb or missile, meaning the aircraft will be able to “throw” such munitions farther than they could go on their own energy alone.

There is a major extension of the fighter’s range if speed is kept around Mach .9, O’Bryan went on, but he asserted that F-35 transonic performance is exceptional and goes “through the [Mach 1] number fairly easily.” The transonic area is “where you really operate.”

In combat configuration, the F-35’s range exceeds that of fourth generation fighters by 25 percent. These are Air Force figures, O’Bryan noted. “We’re comparing [the F-35] to [the] ‘best of’ fourth gen” fighters. The F-35 “compares favorably in any area of the envelope,” he asserted."

Source: http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... ghter.aspx

SUPAdupaSPEED quote on last page of the seven page PDF attached.
Attachments
The F-35’s Race Against Time Nov2012pp7.pdf
(409.41 KiB) Downloaded 1180 times
Last edited by spazsinbad on 20 Aug 2015, 03:49, edited 3 times in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post20 Aug 2015, 02:55

spazsinbad wrote:QUE? '' please explain.

He basically said "You can have two points of view but mine is right".
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3409
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post20 Aug 2015, 03:36

No, the pilots are 'right', and I choose to accept their first-hand experience in the matter.

What you choose to believe is up to you.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post20 Aug 2015, 06:28

I choose to believe that since there was no detailed CONTEXT to either quote, they BOTH can be right in their own way.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3862
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post20 Aug 2015, 09:44

I wonder what kind of aircraft F-35 would've been if F-22 like supercruise (Mach 1.5+) was also required? I think it would've sacrificed much of the internal fuel and weapons capacity (to make it sleeker and more aerodynamic for supersonic flight) and thus range and combat effectiveness (especially A/G). Maybe having about half the internal fuel and maybe only couple of AMRAAMs. A/G stores would've probably been all external or only couple of SDBs internal. Probably not a good idea overall...
Offline

borg

Banned

  • Posts: 471
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 10:11

Unread post20 Aug 2015, 10:42

Thats easy Hornetfin..

Its one of two, wither there would not exist a Navy and Marines Version, and only USAF Version With M 1.5 SC.

Or it would started as a requirement, but quicly got killed due to insanly costly program(see F-22).
Offline

bring_it_on

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1007
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post20 Aug 2015, 11:39

hornetfinn wrote:I wonder what kind of aircraft F-35 would've been if F-22 like supercruise (Mach 1.5+) was also required? I think it would've sacrificed much of the internal fuel and weapons capacity (to make it sleeker and more aerodynamic for supersonic flight) and thus range and combat effectiveness (especially A/G). Maybe having about half the internal fuel and maybe only couple of AMRAAMs. A/G stores would've probably been all external or only couple of SDBs internal. Probably not a good idea overall...


If the F-35 had required mach 1.5 super-cruise over and above the 600-700 nm subsonic radius? and the 2 x 2000lb internal capacity? Perhaps a slightly smaller version of this...
Attachments
FB-22.jpg
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3409
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post20 Aug 2015, 12:51

hornetfinn wrote:I wonder what kind of aircraft F-35 would've been if F-22 like supercruise (Mach 1.5+) was also required? I think it would've sacrificed much of the internal fuel and weapons capacity (to make it sleeker and more aerodynamic for supersonic flight) and thus range and combat effectiveness (especially A/G). Maybe having about half the internal fuel and maybe only couple of AMRAAMs. A/G stores would've probably been all external or only couple of SDBs internal. Probably not a good idea overall...


X-jet was a supercruiser but not close to M1.5. It also didnt carry any weapons.

Principle change to F-35 would be an improvement in the fineness ratio. 2K weapon would likely be first casualty of such a change. Draw a plumb line from the lower outboard lip of the intake to the tailboom and notice the weapons bay volume that extends below it.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: falcon.16 and 47 guests