Jump to content

The F-35 Thread


Groove

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If some translations are needed, just ask... there are dutch people around... :)

MSI 870A-G54, AMD Phenom II X2 555 @Phenom II X4 B55 BE, 3.2 GHz quad-core, Asus EAH4870 DK/HTDI/512MD5, OCZ Gold Edition DDR3 1333MHz 4GB Kit Low-Voltage. Budget = Cheap = Good :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool groove. Guys look at the difference in power of the engine WoW

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-35 has the most powerfull fighter mounted engine ever (F135 I believe) . Later on they will use an even more powerfull engine, the F-136 If Im not mistakened.

 

F-35 quoted thrust to weight ratio is modest but take in consideration the ammount of fuel it carries.

 

Overal dogfighting capabilites right now is a big mistery. Pilots say it will sustain turns better than the f-16 and has a better climb ratio. After that its pretty much unknown.

 

 

The only thing that realy stands out in this fighter to others is its stealth features and cockpit-pilot interface.

 

 

Comparing the gripen to the F-35 seems a bit unfair. the 35 is more on the F-18 class while the gripen is even smaller than the F-16.

 

The Gripen will have one small advantage though. It will be carrying the meteor missile long before anyone else gets to use it on the 35.

 

Gripen is a bit expensive but 35 is considerably more, plus there might be complications regarding maintaining the stealth skin. Not all users can take care of it lovingly. Many airforces end up with their planes with paint flaking and surface scratches, wear etc.

 

It also remains to be seen how much of the special features the americans will hold for just their own comparing to the export custumers.


Edited by Pilotasso

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Towed decoys on the 35 would attract unwanted atention the the plane defeating the whole point of being stealth.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Gripen is a bit expensive but 35 is considerably more, plus there might be complications regarding maintaining the stealth skin. Not all users can take care of it lovingly. Many airforces end up with their planes with paint flaking and surface scratches, wear etc.

 

Not all users have enough money to maintain (take care of) it properly :music_whistling:!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know the USAF programs don't have any intentions of using the Canard Wings on Aircraft. I agree with not using them. It appears both the Europeans and Russians like the Canard wings. I find that they need too much fly by wire input for stability. The USAF fighters, even the F-22 and F-35 apparently can still Outmanuever aircraft that use the Canard.

 

But, since I am not a pilot (I have flown a piper cub) and a USAF Veteran, I have many hours in and around many aircraft and used to build stunt and combat scaled aircraft when I was youger. (up to 4ft. wingspan with 60ft. wire control and handles, these were before r/c control with engines). other than that, why is it that some countries use it and others don't?

Just asking...

:joystick:

ASUS Strix Z790-H, i9-13900, WartHog HOTAS and MFG Crosswind

G.Skill 64 GB Ram, 2TB SSD

EVGA Nvidia RTX 2080-TI

55" Sony OLED TV, Oculus VR

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

I think that delta + canard design is something specific to Swedish design features. Besides, one of the basic requirements made by Swedish Air Force was that planes should be STOL capable and the canard design is the best one to achieve this without compromising the aerodynamic smoothness and maneuverability. This design provides more lift, because both canards and wings both produce a positive (upwards) lift.

 

I'd like to correct your opinion about thinking that deltas with canards require some extra attention regarding fly-by-wire system; in fact, for instance on the Gripen, the canards work as a de-stabilizer in order to make the aircraft more maneuverable and responsive. If canards go afloat, the aircraft actually becomes naturally stable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The JSF uses a 48000lbs engine. That, coupled with a nominal combat load that puts it in the 45000lbs class, gives it a better TWR than an F-15C. This only gets better when the aircraft sheds some fuel and gains even more in TWR. In a turning fight, it fights in a clean configuration, thus making its effective TWR even -better- because it doesn't suffer from stores drag.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have all learn while flying in Black Shark, that just because an aircraft can carry "x" amount of weight (fuel or weapons) it does not mean that it should. I try to fly in Black Shark as light as possible so the Helicopter is easier to handle and fly, I am sure the F-35 would do the same. What I mean is, F-35 may be able to fly fully loaded, and it may be a 48000lbs (give or take) aircraft, but it does not mean that it will carry all that weight in combat, all the time and during the entire flight.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know the USAF programs don't have any intentions of using the Canard Wings on Aircraft. I agree with not using them. It appears both the Europeans and Russians like the Canard wings. I find that they need too much fly by wire input for stability. The USAF fighters, even the F-22 and F-35 apparently can still Outmanuever aircraft that use the Canard.

 

But, since I am not a pilot (I have flown a piper cub) and a USAF Veteran, I have many hours in and around many aircraft and used to build stunt and combat scaled aircraft when I was youger. (up to 4ft. wingspan with 60ft. wire control and handles, these were before r/c control with engines). other than that, why is it that some countries use it and others don't?

Just asking...

:joystick:

 

Russians and europens do not "like canards". The cannards found on deltas and Su-30 derivatives achieve totaly different goals.

 

Canards on the flanker were there when they used analog fly by wire, and only for pitch, they served as stabilizers. the latest Su-35 had the cannards deleted for the use of digital FBW with superior response and precision. As for the canards on the deltas they are there for both relaxed (unstable) digital fly by wire setups and for turning authority adding lift instead of downlift.

 

 

F-35 maneuverability is much a mistery right now so I find your speculation of the 35 agility vs eurocanards to be completely unfounded. If the manufacturers hold their promise to make the 35 as agfile as the F-16 then I would say the contest woul be very much even.


Edited by Pilotasso

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russians and europens do not "like canards". The cannards found on deltas and Su-30 derivatives achieve totaly different goals.

 

Canards on the flanker were there when they used analog fly by wire, and only for pitch, they served as stabilizers. the latest Su-35 had the cannards deleted for the use of digital FBW with superior response and precision. As for the canards on the deltas they are there for both relaxed (unstable) digital fly by wire setups and for turning authority adding lift instead of downlift.

 

 

F-35 maneuverability is much a mistery right now so I find your speculation of the 35 agility vs eurocanards to be completely unfounded. If the manufacturers hold their promise to make the 35 as agfile as the F-16 then I would say the contest woul be very much even.

 

 

I never said the F-35 is more maneuverable than the F-16. In fact the F-35, and before that the F-22 blew the F-16 handling away. They literally fly circles around the old F16. But the F16 is no slouch. Just different roles to play.

 

**I was only asking why some countries use the Canard and other don't. I was watching some test flight and dogfight videos where I watched the F-22 and F-16 matched up over Nevada in dogfights. (nothing about the Canard wing here).

 

But, when matching planes with the Canard wing against those without the Canard wing , I found the Canard wing taking too much effort for trim and handling. Though, adjusting the Canard wing for Air to Ground Weapons (extreme close up A-G fighting and support) seemed to hold an advantage (This is in LockOn:FC), but other than that it just took to much work to find the stable sweet spots.. but a computer would do all that work in fly by wire.

 

These are my thoughts on what I have seen and experienced. That's all.

:joystick:

ASUS Strix Z790-H, i9-13900, WartHog HOTAS and MFG Crosswind

G.Skill 64 GB Ram, 2TB SSD

EVGA Nvidia RTX 2080-TI

55" Sony OLED TV, Oculus VR

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...