The F-35 Thread

[Hummingbird]

Hummingbird you seem to have an axe to grind regarding the F-35... Did it steal your girlfriend or something? Once again I will point out that the F-35 SYSTEMS and STEALTH will allow the plane to wipeout any adversary BEFORE it gets close in, so for about the 30th time.. What the heck is your POINT? If you want to bring a knife to a gun fight go ahead, but that isn't how the F-35 will ever be used so you are simply wasting space with these videos and unfounded accusations...

 

GIVE IT A REST PLEASE

 

I don't have any axe to grind with the F-35, I'm not even calling it a bad airplane, I however find it amusing when people fall for the claim that it will sustain a turn like an F-16. THAT's my point.

[Hummingbird]

No, not little attention, just less than you deem fit...

We all have our opinions on what the relative merits are and how things SHOULD be designed, but railing about maneuverability when the platform was designed with other parameters (namely stealth and systems reliance) is silly..

 

Besides, we have no idea how it will fair once perfected.. (And I am betting it may not be the most agile in the world but it will be damn good..)

 

I would guess the designers know a bit more about designing a plane than you or I do..

 

Again I have not once even commented on how the aircraft will fair in combat, I have not even expressed an opinion on the aircraft as an overall warmachine. I am merely addressing a claim regarding ONE particular aspect of flight where the F-35 most certainly won't outshine it's predecessors, not that it was ever designed to do so in the first place - it clearly was not.

 

You guys are the ones getting all emotional here, as if the F-35 needs defending, not me.

[USARStarkey]

It's all relative - the thrust and lift must be adequate to counter the drag and weight for a sustained turn at given parameters.

 

Being clean is one major advantage sure.

 

I know its relative. I was doing what he did just to make that point.

[USARStarkey]

Again, 50 deg for how long? Many older & obsolete aircraft can pull more than that, take the Mirage III for example, but how many can keep flying at such an angle?

 

The F-16 can actually fly very slow at a very high alpha, infact the video I just presented demonstrates a 40+ deg flight at a speed that would see an F-35 plummit like a rock.

 

Here you go. Ill watch your opinion change now thank you.

 

 

[Hummingbird]

Here you go. Ill watch your opinion change now thank you.

 

 

 

Hahahaha! :megalol: Thank you very much for proving my point Starkey!

 

As expected the F-35 litterally drops out of the sky when it gets anywhere near the AoA and speed that the F-16 actually flies at in the video I presented! :thumbup: :pilotfly:

 

 

Also here's a video with the two fully laden F-16's flying alongside two clean F-35's:

 

Clearly noticable is how the F-35's are flying at a higher AoA than the F-16's they are flying in formation with, and this comes as no surprise as in order to actually stay in formation the F-35's simply have to fly at a higher AoA to generate a high enough Cl to compensate for their +100 kg/sq.m higher wing loading as compared with the Falcons.

 

 

 

So yeah, sure the F-35 might be able to fly at a high AoA, but it also needs to do so in order to stay aloft at speeds where most other fighters can fly comfortably at much lower AoAs

 

In summation, I'm not even beginning to say that the F-35 is a bad airplane or that it won't fullfill it's intended roles, however it mostly certainly will NOT be doing so by outmaneuvering its competition :D

Edited October 23, 2014 by Hummingbird

[ShalashakaDS]

really... some people see just what they want to see.

[USARStarkey]

Hahahaha! :megalol: Thank you very much for proving my point Starkey!

 

As expected the F-35 litterally drops out of the sky when it gets anywhere near the AoA that the F-16 actually flies at in the video I presented! :thumbup: :pilotfly:

 

 

Also here's a video with the two fully laden F-16's flying alongside two clean F-35's:

 

Clearly noticable is how the F-35's are flying at a higher AoA than the F-16's they are flying in formation with, and this comes as no surprise as the F-35's simply have to fly at a higher AoA in order to generate a high enough Cl to compensate for their +100 kg/sq.m higher wing loading as compared with the Falcons.

 

So yeah, sure the F-35 might be able to fly at a high AoA, but it also needs to do so in order to stay aloft at speeds where most other fighters can fly comfortably at much lower AoAs

 

In summation, I'm not even beginning to say that the F-35 is a bad airplane or that it won't fullfill it's intended roles, however it mostly certainly will NOT be doing so by outmaneuvering its competition :D

 

My gosh.

 

Did you not see the difference in altitude? The F-16 was on the deck. That F-35 was way up there. You conveniently chose not to notice that. More evidence that you are incapable of more than highly generalized comparisons.

 

Second. You also failed to notice the controlled flat spin it was doing at one point. Or listen to any of the pilot remarks. The F-16 can even come close to doing a controlled rotating spin like that. Every pilot I've seen has described the F-35 as flying similar to a F-16, yet when the F-35 is carry a full payload.

 

 

Lastly: You said you'd change your opinion when it "flew like that." Well, its clearly maintaining high aoa for more than a mere moment in those videos, and demonstrated at least one maneuver the F-16 cannot do at all.

 

 

ALSO: your video shows exactly nothing. It is practically impossible to tell what AoA those planes are at compared to each other. In a single shot the two in the foreground seem slightly juxtaposed but the ones in the back appear to virtually indistinguishable. We don't know what fuel loads or weapons they are carrying there either. For all you know that F-35 might be much more highly loaded than those falcons. And in every other frame their AoAs are practically indistinguishable.

Edited October 23, 2014 by USARStarkey

[OutOnTheOP]

Hahahaha! :megalol: Thank you very much for proving my point Starkey!

 

As expected the F-35 litterally drops out of the sky when it gets anywhere near the AoA and speed that the F-16 actually flies at in the video I presented! :thumbup: :pilotfly:

 

 

Also here's a video with the two fully laden F-16's flying alongside two clean F-35's:

 

Clearly noticable is how the F-35's are flying at a higher AoA than the F-16's they are flying in formation with, and this comes as no surprise as in order to actually stay in formation the F-35's simply have to fly at a higher AoA to generate a high enough Cl to compensate for their +100 kg/sq.m higher wing loading as compared with the Falcons.

 

So yeah, sure the F-35 might be able to fly at a high AoA, but it also needs to do so in order to stay aloft at speeds where most other fighters can fly comfortably at much lower AoAs

 

In summation, I'm not even beginning to say that the F-35 is a bad airplane or that it won't fullfill it's intended roles, however it mostly certainly will NOT be doing so by outmaneuvering its competition :D

 

The fuselage being at a higher angle nose-up only means that the aircraft was optimized for cruise at a higher airspeed. That, in turn, to me indicates that the F-35 is absurdly more aerodynamically efficient and has a far, far higher thrust-to-drag ratio.

 

None of that points to the F-35 being inferior in maneuvering; only that it is capable of realistically sustaining much higher speeds.

[OutOnTheOP]

My gosh.

 

Did you not see the difference in altitude? The F-16 was on the deck. That F-35 was way up there. You conveniently chose not to notice that. More evidence that you are incapable of more than highly generalized comparisons.

 

Second. You also failed to notice the controlled flat spin it was doing at one point. Or listen to any of the pilot remarks. The F-16 can even come close to doing a controlled rotating spin like that. Every pilot I've seen has described the F-35 as flying similar to a F-16, yet when the F-35 is carry a full payload.

 

 

Lastly: You said you'd change your opinion when it "flew like that." Well, its clearly maintaining high aoa for more than a mere moment in those videos, and demonstrated at least one maneuver the F-16 cannot do at all.

 

Clearly, what he's trying to say is that, yeah, while the F-35 has control authority to maintain control at 50+degrees AOA, it OBVIOUSLY doesn't have the thrust-to-weight or thrust-to-drag to maintain level flight.

 

 

:doh::lol::lol::lol:

[Exorcet]

Clearly noticable is how the F-35's are flying at a higher AoA than the F-16's they are flying in formation with, and this comes as no surprise as in order to actually stay in formation the F-35's simply have to fly at a higher AoA to generate a high enough Cl to compensate for their +100 kg/sq.m higher wing loading as compared with the Falcons.

I wouldn't say that video is the clearest measure though. I took a screenshot at 3:46 and drew rough lines from center of nozzle to tip of nose.

 

The fore F-16 line had a height of 12 pixels, compared to 15 for the background F-16. The fore F-35 was at about 12 (hard to get exactly where the nozzle is) while the background one is at 17.

 

In any case, the wing loading should be the same for both planes for a given mission. The F-35 has a much higher fuel fraction can be clean when loaded. They also both have similar aerodynamics. The F-35 might even have more lifting surface (while possibly also having a draggier fuselage).

 

In a turn fight I don't see any reason why it wouldn't keep up with the F-16. Maybe the 16 pulls a bit more DPS when you actually measure it, but not enough to put it in another class.

 

 

EDIT

 

The image for comparison

 

http://i58.tinypic.com/2z9mmq8.png

Edited October 23, 2014 by Exorcet

[USARStarkey]

Clearly, what he's trying to say is that, yeah, while the F-35 has control authority to maintain control at 50+degrees AOA, it OBVIOUSLY doesn't have the thrust-to-weight or thrust-to-drag to maintain level flight.

 

 

:doh::lol::lol::lol:

 

Thats why I noted the altitude difference(which would massively effect sustained level flight at high aoa compared to low altitude), or are you being sarcastic. I seriously cant tell man.

[OutOnTheOP]

Thats why I noted the altitude difference(which would massively effect sustained level flight at high aoa compared to low altitude), or are you being sarcastic. I seriously cant tell man.

 

I was being sarcastic. Given that the F-35, with a comparable combat-range fuel load, has comparable or superior TWR, and VASTLY superior TDR, it is highly, HIGHLY likely that it can very easily maintain level flight. In fact, given it's TWR, it should be able to CLIMB out of 50 degree level flight with ease. I mean, if it has greater than 1:1 TWR, the only thing preventing it from hanging stationary on it's tail is lack of airflow past control surfaces, and possibly an engine stall from insufficient feed air.

[USARStarkey]

I was being sarcastic. Given that the F-35, with a comparable combat-range fuel load, has comparable or superior TWR, and VASTLY superior TDR, it is highly, HIGHLY likely that it can very easily maintain level flight. In fact, given it's TWR, it should be able to CLIMB out of 50 degree level flight with ease. I mean, if it has greater than 1:1 TWR, the only thing preventing it from hanging stationary on it's tail is lack of airflow past control surfaces, and possibly an engine stall from insufficient feed air.

 

Ok I kinda thought you might be being sarcastic, thats why I asked. Im not very good sometimes at reading peoples inflections in text. :)

[USARStarkey]

Wow do you guys really believe the USA would make a new fighter with today's technology that doesn't fly as well as one designed in the 70s???

 

Seriously?

 

No, just hummingbird.

[Exorcet]

Wow do you guys really believe the USA would make a new fighter with today's technology that doesn't fly as well as one designed in the 70s???

 

Seriously?

It depends on the mission. The F-22 is fast, but it's slower than some planes from the 60's.

 

EDIT

 

Also, it's pretty clear that the F-35 was not meant to be as far ahead of current planes in agility as it is in stealth and avionics. It's intended as a relatively cheap entry into 5th gen technology.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Exorcet

[USARStarkey]

It depends on the mission. The F-22 is fast, but it's slower than some planes from the 60's.

 

Granted. But very likely it is faster than anything that isnt a foxbat. Ive seen test pilots elude to speeds exceeding 1600-1800mph.

[Hummingbird]

I wouldn't say that video is the clearest measure though. I took a screenshot at 3:46 and drew rough lines from center of nozzle to tip of nose.

 

The fore F-16 line had a height of 12 pixels, compared to 15 for the background F-16. The fore F-35 was at about 12 (hard to get exactly where the nozzle is) while the background one is at 17.

 

In any case, the wing loading should be the same for both planes for a given mission. The F-35 has a much higher fuel fraction can be clean when loaded. They also both have similar aerodynamics. The F-35 might even have more lifting surface (while possibly also having a draggier fuselage).

 

In a turn fight I don't see any reason why it wouldn't keep up with the F-16. Maybe the 16 pulls a bit more DPS when you actually measure it, but not enough to put it in another class.

 

 

EDIT

 

The image for comparison

 

http://i58.tinypic.com/2z9mmq8.png

 

This picture shows it more clearly:

[OutOnTheOP]

It depends on the mission. The F-22 is fast, but it's slower than some planes from the 60's.

 

This depends on one's definition of "fast". It may not have the dash speeds of some of the '60s interceptors, but it has a much higher sustained speed.

 

Exception for the SR71, which, well, isn't exactly a fighter, now is it? (no, it's not. Not even in YF12 guise) It's huge, for one. Besides, it's all fuel!

[OutOnTheOP]

This picture shows it more clearly:

 

Again, all that "shows" is that the nose appears to be at a higher angle in a static photo. Even assuming that the F-35 wasn't porpoising at the exact instant of the picture, that only speaks to fuselage angle, and not wing angle. All aircraft have a built-in AOA designed into the wing, so that the body sits level at a designed cruise airspeed. At lower than that speed, it will be nose-high. Higher than that speed, it will be nose-low. They intentionally set it to an airspeed selected deliberately during the design phase, so that the fuselage is most-level (IE, most aerodynamic) at a certain airspeed.

 

SO. The nose may be higher, but that doesn't mean the wing's AOA actually is; you cannot inherently measure one from the other. It likely just means that the designers, realizing the F-35 will spend most of it's time at a higher cruise airspeed than the F-16 (no surprise here; the F-35, combat-loaded, is much less draggy), designed it with less built-in AOA in the wings.

 

Wanna see what happens when an aircraft is designed for low-speed cruise, with a very high built-in AOA?

 

Higher cruise speed makes the aircraft MORE combat effective, not LESS.

Edited October 23, 2014 by OutOnTheOP

[Hummingbird]

The F-22 is an entirely different beast from the F-35.

 

The F-22 was designed to be super maneuverable from the onset, it was one of the primary requirements along with stealth. Not so with the F-35.

 

The F-22 has several things going for it that the F-35 does not, for one A WHOLE LOT more wing for its weight.

[Hummingbird]

Why do people go on about combat effectiveness *sigh*

 

I am not argueing wether or not the F-35 is going to be a great military aircraft, it might very well be thanks to its supposedly far superior avionic systems. However it was clearly NOT designed to dominate the skies via aerial agility, which is ALL I am saying.

[OutOnTheOP]

Why do people go on about combat effectiveness *sigh*

 

I am not argueing wether or not the F-35 is going to be a great military aircraft, it might very well be thanks to its supposedly far superior avionic systems. However it was clearly NOT designed to dominate the skies via aerial agility, which is ALL I am saying.

 

False equivalence. Just because I am stating it makes it more combat effective, does not mean it is not ALSO more maneuverable. It has equal or superior TWR in combat loading, much superior TDR in combat loading, and you have not actually shown any comparisons of lift-versus-drag (the calculation that actually matters for sustained turns), because the "wing" on the F-35 is not the only lift-producing surface.

 

Pilots that have flown it state that it turns as well as or superior to an F-16, and there is no hard evidence to counter those claims; wing-area-versus-assumed-(but always full fuel!)-combat-weight comparisons are entirely unconvincing.

[Hummingbird]

Again, all that "shows" is that the nose appears to be at a higher angle in a static photo. Even assuming that the F-35 wasn't porpoising at the exact instant of the picture, that only speaks to fuselage angle, and not wing angle. All aircraft have a built-in AOA designed into the wing, so that the body sits level at a designed cruise airspeed. At lower than that speed, it will be nose-high. Higher than that speed, it will be nose-low. They intentionally set it to an airspeed selected deliberately during the design phase, so that the fuselage is most-level (IE, most aerodynamic) at a certain airspeed.

 

SO. The nose may be higher, but that doesn't mean the wing's AOA actually is; you cannot inherently measure one from the other. It likely just means that the designers, realizing the F-35 will spend most of it's time at a higher cruise airspeed than the F-16 (no surprise here; the F-35, combat-loaded, is much less draggy), designed it with less built-in AOA in the wings.

 

Wanna see what happens when an aircraft is designed for low-speed cruise, with a very high built-in AOA?

 

Higher cruise speed makes the aircraft MORE combat effective, not LESS.

 

Looking at the wing of the F-35 & F-16 I don't see a noticable difference in the wing to fuselage angle of the two aircraft, and both feature wings with a slight amount of washout near the tips.

[OutOnTheOP]

The F-22 is an entirely different beast from the F-35.

 

The F-22 was designed to be super maneuverable from the onset, it was one of the primary requirements along with stealth. Not so with the F-35.

 

The F-22 has several things going for it that the F-35 does not, for one A WHOLE LOT more wing for its weight.

 

Oh, in that case, clearly the F-4 should outmaneuver the F-16; after all, the F-16 has a wing loading of 88.3 lb/ft^2, while the F-4 has a superior 78 lb/ft^2 (according to whatever arbitrary weight statuses wikipedia assumed).

 

Does the Phantom II outperform the F-16?

[OutOnTheOP]

Looking at the wing of the F-35 & F-16 I don't see a noticable difference in the wing to fuselage angle of the two aircraft, and both feature wings with a slight amount of washout near the tips.

 

Oh, ok. I concede; clearly your calibrated eyeball can tell the exact AOA and profile of the wings from a mere photograph. :megalol: