marcos

The difference between turbojet and turbofan is more semantics these days. Technically an EJ200 isn't a pure turbojet because it has a bypass stream (BPR 0.4:1 vs 0.36:1 for F-15's F100-X). The NK-32 has a BPR of 1.4:1 but a higher SFC than an Olympus 593 (BPR 0:1). So don't get too hung up on the difference. Besides, the more air you bypass, the less likely you are to achieve a good supercruise speed. The SFC for the F100-PW-232 is on page 10. Does nobody read links anymore?:D http://maecourses.ucsd.edu/~adrake/mae155b-sp09/marauder/marauder_1.pdf It was 0.76. Near as damnit same as EJ200. EJ200 is 10-15% better (less) on reheat 1.91 vs 1.65lb/lbf.hr). Relevant to transonic dash. SFC EJ200s SFC is 0.74-0.8lb/lbf.hr based on 21-23g/kNs dry vs 0.76 for F100-PW-232 EJ200 SFC is 1.65-1.72lbf/lb.hr on reheat vs 1.91 for F100-PW-232 Diameter - think drag EJ200 - 0.737m F100-PW-232 - 0.90mm (1.181m max. external) Length EJ200 - 4m F100 - 4.8m The F100 has the benefit of variable BPR - 0.34-1:1 but the cruise condition is at a constant high supersonic speed and acceleration will mostly be on reheat, so maybe not that useful for an airliner. Weight EJ200 - 2180lbs F100 - 3740lbs So you can have 3 EJ200s for 2 F100s. Area 5.11m^2 total vs 4.91m^2. That is based on internal diameter. The variable bypass F100 will have a relatively larger outer diameter. Thrust-to-Weight EJ200 - 9.175:1 F100 - 7.8:1 Thrust - 5 EJ200s ~ 4 F100s. Other considerations. 1)EJ200 has an existing intake design for Mach 2 flight. F100 has the same for other versions but not the 232. 2) EJ230.:D

Ah well. Still cool. Thought the fireball was a bit dodgy.

Replied to all this. It's mostly incorrect, as usual, ask Groove to send you the post if you want it. Drag index 50 - very little affect on aircraft performance. http://forums.airforce.ru/attachments/holodnaya-voina/7591d1183937649-f-16c-acceleration0.gif/ F-16C - not as good at sustained turns. http://forums.airforce.ru/attachments/holodnaya-voina/7667d1184402615-f-16c-sustained-turn0.gif/ F-15C better. http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/7035/f15str.png Weapons smaller, not as much payload required for satisfactory affect on enemy vehicles. F-22 in comparison with etc.... No.

The brown line is roughly where the the F-35's zero SEP is.

Could you please undelete my post taking out whichever bits you deem inappropriate. If I post anything inappropriate it's because I've got a guy with no supporting evidence just hacking keys.

Well the Busemann Biplanes that I've seen don't look to have accommodation for 150 passengers. The only other in-production engine I can think of for supercruise is the F119. But wrt Mach 2 supercruise. I honestly believe the Olympus 593 and the GE Y93-GE-3 from the XB-70 are the only engines that would have a chance. Mach 2 supercruise is a radically design requirement than that of any engine currently in production, so you'd just be hammering square pegs into round holes. Even the likes of the Typhoon, Rafale and F-22 engines aren't designed to peak in performance as late as Mach 2. In fact most fighter engines are designed to peak in the transonic region.

Wow. You added 2,000lb of fuel and the result is still the same. The F-15 can pull 9g across a far broader range of speeds. What? The F-16 is at 26,000lbs. That's internal fuel only. It has 7,000lb of fuel, the F-15 has 9,000lb. The difference that 2,000lb makes is also minimal as you can see. Any other graphs? If you check out the acceleration times, distance and fuel consumption between Clean and DI=50, there's very little difference at Mach 0.83. 2.5% extra fuel consumption. Not something that would explain away only sustaining 9g from Mach 0.82 to Mach 0.9 vs 0.72 to 1.02 for the F-15. FFS. Shut up. At least find something to back up your claims other than the keys on your keyboard. I guess a 747 with really long wings must have a great roll rate. Evidence? Clearly not. Howabout you read the page before it instead of trying to change the subject. So... that means nothing to you? This explains why you're still typing. You don't understand anything. You don't read, you just type. But we're playing the 'if' game. And I reckon you could probably add space for internal AAM carriage next to the intakes without weight going up. You have to change the geometry of nearly everything though. This started as a conversation about range - you were shit out of luck there. Then an article revealed how the F-35 was failing wrt sustained turn rate. Then you start comparing the F-16 with the F-15. Seriously, just give up.

Use more of them. The XB-70 had 6 engines. The Rolls-Royce Olympus 593 is about the only engine capable of Mach 2+ supercruise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce/Snecma_Olympus_593 And my $0.02. If a cost effective supersonic airliner could be built, it already would have been. That's the perfect argument for using the Olympus 593. This has some info. on specific fuel consumption for F110-X: http://maecourses.ucsd.edu/~adrake/mae155b-sp09/marauder/marauder_1.pdf

And if the Typhoon was stealth.....

Just in case curiosity got the best of you (see blue line, SEP=0):

Village removal?

Propulsion system of the Buyan class corvettes (project 21630 and 21631) Recent photo of submarine Alrosa

Pretty Not so much

Topol being silo'd Assoerted Russian Military Stuff

AS550 C3 with Nexter 20mm cannon pod and FZ rocket pod AW101 with two FN RMP .50/rocket pods A1 A7 F-4

Has it become too expensive to blow-up insurgents?

By the time you hear it, it's too late. In fact you'll never hear it. Another cool A-10 video:

Because you don't understand physics. Consider a change in direction as well as moving in one direction only. Also consider the affect of wingspan and wing load distribution on roll rate. BTW - The Typhoon and F-35 have approximately the same wingspan and the Typhoon's wing load is centred nearer the fuselage due to the delta shape. It's roll rate is unparalled. So this doesn't help you much. If you spend all day typing instead of reading then yes, it will imply that, even though the failure to meet the F-16-derived specification proves otherwise. Nope. Doesn't work that way. That's like saying a scaled up 2 ton F1 car could perform as well as a current 600kg one. No, it's still a fairly good method used extensively during the Cold War to evaluate enemy fighter designs. You just don't like the result. Why wouldn't it be? I can take out the same number of vehicles with the same number of far lighter, far smaller weapons. It's not like an F-35 could even carry more than 12 Brimstones internally anyway. The B might not even manage that. Yup. Very long document criticising the short-comings of the specification that the F-35 can't even meet.

Umm no. The F-16 has an advantage over the F-15 in some dogfight situations, not because of better STR but because of have less inertia (18900lb vs 28000lb). The F-35 is heavier than both aircraft and has poor wing loading and a large fuselage cross-section. For equal inertia, it nearly always is. If the F-16 weighed as much as an F-15, but its wing loading was unchanged, it wouldn't prevail in any situation. It's fairly indicative for designs of the same type though. Why not 12 500lb bombs = 6000lb vs 1320lb worth of Brimstones or 120lb of SABERs or 360lb of rocket-boosted SABERs, or 480lb of Viper Strikes. CAS loads are becoming more effective and less significant in terms of their affect on performance. Gone are the days of using 500lb munitions to take out tanks (unless the EPWII is your only qualified A2G weapon, then it's 1000lb a time and you take out the entire street too). It does if you read carefully and thoroughly. It also mentions that it's unlikley to make a good CAS aircraft and why.

Yup. Rockingham International F1 experience. More is possible but pulling over 3g at 0ft worrying about grip and walls is different to doing it mid-air above 5000ft. I believe the pros achieve about 6g at Suzuka.

So the F-16 is still slightly better even at empty than the F-35A. What about the F-35B? What about a TWR comparison against the F-16? Big difference between carrying 6 180mm wide Brimstones weighing 648lb in total and 6 500lb GBUs or 6 Mavericks 305mm wide and about 3000lb in weight. With even smaller weapons like SABER and Viper Strike the affect of an effective CAS payload on drag is even smaller. And the Typhoon has 2 engines and a cannon with far better range and effect too as an aside. This is the problem. You don't read and understand stuff, which is why you're still posting and my responses are now merely cursory. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1666429&postcount=122 So in SUMMARY: 1) Ignore published range figures; 2) Ignore published engine SFC figures; 3) Ignore calculations showing a gigantic difference in lift drag; 4) Ignore calculations and reasoning showing how CfA won't compensate for this; 5) Ignore the fact that the affects of wave drag will only have minor affects on cruise speeds and virtually none on maximum range; 6) Ignore the fact that reports show the F-35 to be failing to meet its threshold STR specification that is also dependent on L/D (the same spec. that the range figures were drafted against); 7) Ignore the fact that scholars have deemed that threshold spec. unacceptable; and 8) Post no counter figures or reasoned calculations; 9) Ignore linked reports; and 10 Continue posting

I thought there were some good points and some exaggerated points. The missile kill probability is definitely relevant although the figure seems exaggerated.

I was hoping for details on the AMRAAM kills over Serbia.