Wow. Flynn sure has a
big mouth! One little tweet about snowboarding prompts pages upon pages of teeth gnashing and clothes rending over how "I wish the A had the C wing" --or-- "I wish the C could accelerate like the A, then ittud be purrfekt!"
I don't think I've seen internet bloviators so argue with bona fide nasal radiators and not simply
take them at their word. Pressing the nasal radiator to "prove" his point relating to Aerodynamics 101 and Basic Aircraft Design Performance 101 --
priceless!!!
Thanks to QS and EllBeeKay for taking the time to patiently respond to these questions -- MORE than once. But if it hasn't sunk in by now... not sure if it ever will. EllBeeKay, thank you especially for your earlier BFM energy "point" treatise. It put words to thoughts I've had for a while.
ZeekOne, do you lack basic reading comprehension abilities? You recently wrote:
ZeroOne wrote:No wait, I understand the requirement for increased lift as an obvious benefit for carrier bring back loads. What I'm saying is why did Boeing get compelled to add a tail?
I mean correct me if I'm wrong but the tail, specifically the tail design of the X-32 which extends far back from the aircraft's CG is used to increase the momentum arm, increasing pitch authority and pitch rates.
Because I'm curious what part of QS' patient explanation, especially the emboldended part, you do not understand?
quicksilver wrote:"The most influential requirement was the Navy's insistence on a large bring-back payload. By the time JIRD 3 was issued in 1998, the Navy had increased its total bring-back weight comprising fuel and weapons from 8000 to 9000 pounds and specified approach speed which had previously been left to the contractors discretion."
"Lockheed Martin could deal with this problem by enlarging the carrier-based JSF's wing, gaining low speed performance at the expense of transonic acceleration and speed. Boeing's tailless delta was in a more difficult position. The Navy requirements drove the size of the trailing edge controls upwards, but as Boeing sought to increase pitch authority with larger ailerons, the weight of the actuation system became unacceptable. The only answer was to add separate stabilizers and change the wing to a trapezoidal planform"
From page 71 of "Ultimate Fighter" by Bill Sweetman, Zenith Press, 2004
So here is a case where NOT a 9gee gee-whiz-better-dogfighting-requirement, but a basic
get-back-on-the-boat-safely requirement necessitated not just a wing size change, but an entire planform arrangement change.
Before I became a private piston-poppin' pilot, all I wanted to learn was how to design airfoils. Airfoil design was where it's at. Nothing else matters. Performance? Phooey. Takes a back seat to airfoils. Once I learned to fly, gee, it was really nice that the wings stay attached. I guess
structures is kind of important too. Man, it's taking
forever to get to Sioux City from Denver in this Cessna 172. A BIGGER motor (
powerplant / performance) sure would be nice. Once I finally crawled into a Bonanza... WOW, these
controls are SO much nicer than that Cessna that drove like a truck with loose steering. But... my son did puke halfway to Ogden because of that Bonanza boogey. A wee bit more
stability would be nice in the Bo. I guess that's just the price to pay for fantastic roll feel. Hmmm... Josh, you'll just have to learn to suck it up...
There IS A LOT MORE to aircraft design / analysis / performance than just 9gees or getting to 1.2 Mach in XX seconds.
For those that wish the Cee monster could get the go-juice like the Aye stubby... well, as long as the jets remain kissing cousins, any bigger motor you stuff in the Cee will just make the Aye go that much faster. So the Cee will NEVER catch the Aye.
Regarding bigger motors... if memory serves, the GO 1.0 F135 block upgrade proposed by P&W had in its genesis a program by the Navy to improve the engine's hot section (increased turbine temps, I think) which yielded NOT more engine thrust, but increased fuel efficiency that the Navy was (and is) after. It didn't sound like much, only 2-3% (though it may have been 5%), for which the Navy gladly spent millions of dollars. I could ask... why did the Navy spend so much money on increasing fuel efficiency, and not making the Cee accelerate more like the Aye...
--OR-- making it
dogfight better. But they didn't. They wanted better gas mileage.
The Navy could have specified a 9g aircraft in the C. Why didn't they? They could have made that a spec. Maybe it's not all that important to them. Maybe the trade-off's necessary to get their would have broken the bank, engineering-wise -- or the program, $$-wise, to make it happen.
Watching a bloviator tell a nasal radiator to "prove" his point that the bigger C's wing was enlarged to meet a (mundane) land-on-the-boat requirement and not to improve "dogfight" performance is really rich. Can't make this stuff up. How audacious can you be?
Keep up this obtuseness, though, and these great resources who are patiently willing to share their experience, wisdom, and knowledge will decide they have better things to do with their time than beat their head (and keyboard fingers) against an internet rock.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.