The F-35 Thread

[Hummingbird]

Actually, the F-22 is quite boxy, even with it's "bigger wings", it's the size of a freaking Flanker, so that may help it's apparent lack of "boxy" appearance when looked at.

 

That's different from what I said how exactly?

 

The F-35 is boxy because it's an F-16 sized aircraft with huge amounts internal volume for fuel/weapon bays. And before you go on some rant, I'm quite aware it's no where near the actual empty weight of an F-16. But it IS the F-16 for the supposed "stealthy hi/low mix"

 

So with the F-35 being in the "low" mix, what do you do, when you want an aircraft to be less expensive? You reduce the size... The F-22 is the high end of the mix, it has 2 engines, instead of 1, and requires more money to build because it's a much bigger aircraft.

 

But that isn't good enough, now people want 300 million dollar aircraft for the low end mix. Now people want a 1.50 T/W thrust vectoring F-16 with no stealthy features since stealth aircraft are an apparent "waste" of money (BTW, a patent released about the F-35 shows it's fiber-mat stealth coating works across all bandwidths for radar ranges, including the supposed super duper all seeing low band radar ranges) while somehow having 25,000 pounds of fuel with "off the shelf" technology... You just can't win.

 

I bet you even with it's apparent "crappy" boxy appearance it's still more aerodynamically clean than most 4th gen aircraft loaded with just fuel tanks and A2A missiles.

 

If the F-35 is such a turd by simply looking at it, and you can clearly can do better with all your "expert" opinions. Why aren't you working for the USAF?

 

I seem to have struck a nerve somehow, which is odd because I never called the F-35 a turd or even a poor aircraft. Infact I've only called it a first rate strike aircraft. It's as an airsuperiority or interceptor I fear it might be found wanting, which is important because in particular the latter role is something many countries will be relying upon it in for the next many decades.

 

In short you really ought to read what is being written before replying..

Edited November 14, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Pilotasso]

While the f-35 will replace the f-16 it won't take over its role.

There are no dogfight light fighter on the drawing board any time soon, and before anyone mentions it I know dogfighting is not the only thing the falcon can do, because I'm looking at the design point of view. It's a design philosophy that no longer is the focus of the f-35. The 3 branches no longer see the necessity of a dedicated dog fighter with multirole capability as a design starting point, they want instead a long range striker.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Pilotasso

[Shagbat]

 

That's the whole point of the system, to increase lift.

 

Intake Ramps are for improving TPR at trans/supersonic speeds.

 

The F-15's Variable Intake is also able to improve TPR at high AOA.

 

Do you have a source that they act as lifting devices?

 

AFAIK they don't.

[Hummingbird]

Intake Ramps are for improving TPR at trans/supersonic speeds.

 

The F-15's Variable Intake is also able to improve TPR at high AOA.

 

Do you have a source that they act as lifting devices?

 

AFAIK they don't.

 

They act as both, otherwise they could simply be inside the intake as on other aircraft.

 

If you notice the intake ramps on the F-15 lower as soon as the AoA increases, this has the effect of lowering the pressure over the top of the fuselage and thus increasing lift in the process.

 

As for a source I don't have a specific one for this subject on me atm but I remember watching a 3D airflow demonstration many years ago of the F-15 where the effect of the variable intake on the lift of the airframe was clearly illustrated.

 

Note: The Russians went with a similar and yet more extreme approach with their new T-50 PAK FA aircraft, again to increase lift:

Edited November 14, 2016 by Hummingbird

[garrya]

No I am not refering to that picture or any other picture for that matter, but to video recordings, of the event where that photo was taken amongst others:.As the 2nd vdeo above shows even with 2 EFTs the F-16 flies at a noticably lower AoA than the F-35 when flying in formation with the Spitfire.

In link below F-22 has higher AoA than F-16 ( most noticeable around 0:16)

 

In link below F-35 and F-22 both have comparable AoA and both higher than AoA of spitfire ( very noticeable around 2:19)

 

About their respective AoA , that could be the result of negative stability too, tail may not generate enough lift to counter the CG too far backward

 

Actually the F-22 and F-16 look like they are flying at exactly the same AoA in that picture, so no.

Compared their respective wingloading , F-22 should have lower AoA. But from video it clearly have higher AoA

 

 

 

Garrya you brought up a chart that shows information that pertains to level turns, i.e. strictly horizontal. So again that's the only reason why we are at all talking about this. In short you picked the scenario here, not I.

And the charts also have the speed that aircraft achieved their respective sustained turn rate.

 

 

Read the manuals and then come back, the discrepancies are too large for that theory to hold any water.

I already said i dont have the 20K chart , if you said he is wrong shouldnt you post the chart to prove your point ???

Edited November 14, 2016 by garrya

[garrya]

Have you looked at the difference in wing loading between those two? The F-22 makes up for the boxy fuselage shape with the sheer amount of wing it has..

F-22 doesnt have better wing loading than F-15 , it has more boxy fuselage and also lack variable intake

 

Also as to why boxy = less lift, it's basic aerodynamics. The less boxy and more airfoil shaped the object, the more lift and vice versa..

I would really need a source for this " basic aerodynamic " you talking about. I dont see the wing shaped F-16 or F-15 body any more than it does to F-35. If the subject is something like B-2 then fair enough but i just dont see it the case for tube body

 

 

That's the whole point of the system, to increase lift.

The point of variable intake is to create shock wave thus recover pressure for engine at high speed , this is the first time anyone tell me variable intake is for better dogfighting capabilities

Edited November 14, 2016 by garrya

[GGTharos]

Sure it's for increasing dogfight capability - it increases thrust at altitude. As a side-effect it does also generate lift, yes, but that's not the primary purpose as you pointed out.

[Hummingbird]

Sure it's for increasing dogfight capability - it increases thrust at altitude. As a side-effect it does also generate lift, yes, but that's not the primary purpose as you pointed out.

 

If that was the case they might as well have placed the ramps internally, so I don't really buy that premis. But be that as it may, it doesn't really change anything.

[Tirak]

If that was the case they might as well have placed the ramps internally, so I don't really buy that premis. But be that as it may, it doesn't really change anything.

 

I can't find anywhere that says that the intake ramps are external specifically to produce lift. Can you link the article or reference you're using to indicate this?

[Hummingbird]

In link below F-22 has higher AoA than F-16 ( most noticeable around 0:16)

 

Again they seem to be flying at about the same AoA...

 

You're just proving my point.

 

In link below F-35 and F-22 both have comparable AoA and both higher than AoA of spitfire ( very noticeable around 2:19)

 

Err, yes? The P-51 might be going a lot faster, it usually does compared to the Spitfire. But even so the F-35 looks to be at a slightly higher AoA, also notice the visible vapor trails formed from the F-35's wings, again when do you usually see those? When the wing is producing a lot of lift.

 

About their respective AoA , that could be the result of negative stability too, tail may not generate enough lift to counter the CG too far backward

 

No, that's not how it works.

 

Compared their respective wingloading , F-22 should have lower AoA. But from video it clearly have higher AoA

 

No wing loading is only part of the equation, the F-16 benefits a lot from body lift due to its blended wing design (IIRC ~40%), the F-22 less so hence it was given a lot of wing. So overall the lift loading is probably very similar for both.

 

The F-16's blended wing body design is very visible:

 

 

 

This is a big part of the reason the F-16 is such a sublime dogfighter, it's quite simply an aerodynamically very slick aircraft. The F-22 (& esp. the F-35) sacrificed some of this for stealth, but it was given a ton of wing to make up for it, as well as TV ofcourse.

 

And the charts also have the speed that aircraft achieved their respective sustained turn rate.

 

Yes and? EM charts show you the performance at all speeds, so it's very easy to check.

 

I already said i dont have the 20K chart , if you said he is wrong shouldnt you post the chart to prove your point ???

 

And neither does he because he's using the 25 kft chart for the ITR, it's 14.1 deg/sec @ M 0.8 with the same loadout he specifies. His figure is 14.3 deg/sec at 20 kft, i.e. pretty much the same just 5,000 feet lower. The rest of his figures for that alt also completely miss the mark.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

I can't find anywhere that says that the intake ramps are external specifically to produce lift. Can you link the article or reference you're using to indicate this?

 

 

Do you even follow the conversation?

Edited November 14, 2016 by Hummingbird

[garrya]

Again they seem to be flying at about the same AoA...

You're just proving my point.

I dont see how i proving your point given that F-22 have slightly higher AoA than F-16 in the video

 

 

Err, yes? The P-51 might be going a lot faster, it usually does compared to the Spitfire. But even so the F-35 looks to be at a slightly higher AoA,

So now you just disproved your own argument

Basically ,from the video ,when a F-16 with 2 EFT and F-35 follow a slow spitfire, they both have smaller AoA than F-22 and F-35 follow a fast P-51

So how your lift loading and AoA theory fit in here ???? F-16 with 2 EFT has less lift loading than a clean F-22 ?? doesnt make sense

 

also notice the visible vapor trails formed from the F-35's wings, again when do you usually see those? When the wing is producing a lot of lift.

vapor trail form due to vortex and those vortex reduce lift AFAIK , anyway , it doesnot make sense if we combined the 2 video ( as stated above)

No, that's not how it works.

well negative stability = centre of gravity behind centre of lift. If i recall correctly centre of lift move to the rear as aircraft flying faster , so negative stability would mean your nose will tend to pitch up more when you about to stall

 

No wing loading is only part of the equation, the F-16 benefits a lot from body lift due to its blended wing design (IIRC ~40%), the F-22 less so hence it was given a lot of wing. So overall the lift loading is probably very similar for both.

 

The F-16's blended wing body design is very visible:

 

 

 

F-16 benefit alot from body lift due to the LERX , it create vortex at AoA.Again that has nothing to do with boxy vs tube body. You still havenot cite the source for " boxy body mean less body lift compared to conventional one ''

 

 

And neither does he because he's using the 25 kft chart for the ITR, it's 14.1 deg/sec @ M 0.8 with the same loadout he specifies. His figure is 14.3 deg/sec at 20 kft, i.e. pretty much the same just 5,000 feet lower.

Actually, now that i paid attention to it , ITR of F-14 at 10K feet , Mach 0.8 is 14 degrees/second. So if i took your word for it then that mean F-14 ITR between 10-25k feet is limited due to structure limit ( or alternatively it could be structure limited at 10k feet and lift limited at 20-25k feet ). Regardless , i dont see how the different is so big that it cant be due to fuel load

 

 

The rest of his figures for that alt also completely miss the mark.

I fail to see how they missed the mark here, you said the different is too big for the fuel theory to hold water , but still havent made any calculation to show otherwise????

Edited November 14, 2016 by garrya

[Hummingbird]

I dont see how i proving your point given that F-22 have slightly higher AoA than F-16 in the video

 

Again I really don't see a difference.

 

So now you just disproved your own argument

Basically ,from the video ,when a F-16 with 2 EFT and F-35 follow a slow spitfire, they both have smaller AoA than F-22 and F-35 follow a fast P-51

So how your lift loading and AoA theory fit in here ???? F-16 with 2 EFT has less lift loading than a clean F-22 ?? doesnt make sense

 

Point is we don't know how fast they were flying, and with no F-16 side by side we can't compare. Also again the F-35 seems to be flying at a higher AoA than the F-22, which is esp. visible from the back.

 

vapor trail form due to vortex and those vortex reduce lift AFAIK , anyway , it doesnot make sense if we combined the 2 video ( as stated above)

 

The strong wing tip vortices (so strong they generate a vapor trail) are a sign that the wing is working at high capacity generating lift (high pressure air spills upwards past the tips at increased speeds), you see the same effect when aircraft enter sharp turns where maximum lift is required.

 

well negative stability = centre of gravity behind centre of lift. If i recall correctly centre of lift move to the rear as aircraft flying faster , so negative stability would mean your nose will tend to pitch up more when you about to stall

 

The F-16 is very negatively stable. So where would that put your theory?

 

F-16 benefit alot from body lift due to the LERX , it create vortex at AoA.Again that has nothing to do with boxy vs tube body. You still havenot cite the source for " boxy body mean less body lift compared to conventional one ''

 

No it's not just the LERX, it's the shape of the fuselage and how it joins with the wing, it doesn't need to be at high AoA to generate lift.

 

As for boxy vs airfoil shape, if don't know why the latter generates more lift then you don't understand how lift is generated, the shape of the leading edge has a very big importance here. You want a surface that effectively & smoothly accelerates the air over the top and a relatively obstruction free surface at the bottom.

 

Actually, now that i paid attention to it , ITR of F-14 at 10K feet , Mach 0.8 is 14 degrees/second. So if i took your word for it then that mean F-14 ITR between 10-25k feet is limited due to structure limit ( or alternatively it could be structure limited at 10k feet and lift limited at 20-25k feet ). Regardless , i dont see how the different is so big that it cant be due to fuel load

 

Yes, this is due to the G limit, but as the author of the paper correctly points out the F-14 can be safely flown to 9.5 G's, which is what Grumman recommended based on their extensive testing of the aircraft. Due to the low number purchased however average service life had to double and this first reduced the recommended G limit to 7.5 G's, and then later when it became clear that no more aircraft would be purchased it was reduced again to 6.5 G's.

 

I fail to see how they missed the mark here, you said the different is too big for the fuel theory to hold water , but still havent made any calculation to show otherwise????

 

Calculation? Why would I need to show a calculation when I have the EM charts? I can tell you the exact figures, and he got them wrong, for several aircraft.

 

I invite you to read through the F-16's manual for one to see if you can find matching figures there.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Wizard_03]

 

The Sensors are what makes the F-35 Lethal, not it's Sustain Gs, Max Gs or Turning Radius, the "Analysts" and "Field Experts" that claim the F-35 is a failure, never had any experience with the sensor suite and assume that any engagement would be a conventional 3rd/4th Generation Style turning fight.

 

Nope..

 

 

(Quite a few pages back I know) But he's right. With systems like LOAL, HOBS, DAS, and stealth what would be the point of even looking at EM charts for the F-35. Why would maneuverability matter when now a days you can shoot at someone from essentially any direction in WVR? Assuming of course that some future enemy can even get that close, since certainly no 4th gen fighter can right now.

[GGTharos]

Because you can Rmin the missile with the correct positioning and ACM/BFM entry.

 

If you guys recall the whole 'we ate raptor salad' bruhaha ... those guys got about even scores in BFM, the raptors would enter the fight while executing maneuvers to Rmin IRIS-T or similar. AFAIK, 3-4th hand source, take a grain of salt, but you get the jist.

 

(Quite a few pages back I know) But he's right. With systems like LOAL, HOBS, DAS, and stealth what would be the point of even looking at EM charts for the F-35. Why would maneuverability matter when now a days you can shoot at someone from essentially any direction in WVR? Assuming of course that some future enemy can even get that close, since certainly no 4th gen fighter can right now.

[Wizard_03]

Because you can Rmin the missile with the correct positioning and ACM/BFM entry.

 

Assuming you survive the initial merge. Because I doubt your going to get better entry position then the F-35 it has a huge advantage in SA

[GGTharos]

There are ways and circumstances. These fights don't happen in isolation. This is very important because both sides plan for these engagements.

 

Your F-35 might not be hauling 9Xs when this happens. It's all very circumstantial. Sure, I'm not convinced that anything short of a PAK-FA or J-20 could get close enough to bother them to begin with, but that's not what you plan for in BFM school :)

 

Assuming you survive the initial merge. Because I doubt your going to get better entry position then the F-35 it has a huge advantage in SA

[Boagrius]

There are ways and circumstances. These fights don't happen in isolation. This is very important because both sides plan for these engagements.

 

Your F-35 might not be hauling 9Xs when this happens. It's all very circumstantial. Sure, I'm not convinced that anything short of a PAK-FA or J-20 could get close enough to bother them to begin with, but that's not what you plan for in BFM school :)

 

I imagine that is what SACM and possibly even MSDM will be for. If you can shrink down that Rmin range to the point of negligibility then there's not much point in red team pushing to the merge/phonebooth anymore.

 

EODAS has to be a big asset here - why risk chasing the tail of a jet that can kill you just as dead from its 6 o'clock as its 12?

Edited November 15, 2016 by Boagrius

[GGTharos]

Nothing is perfect; if that was the case, the 'arms race' would have been done :)

[Boagrius]

Nothing is perfect; if that was the case, the 'arms race' would have been done :)

 

Of course, but that knife cuts both ways now doesn't it? :smilewink:

Edited November 15, 2016 by Boagrius

[garrya]

Again I really don't see a difference.

Now we are just arguing circle really.

 

 

Point is we don't know how fast they were flying, and with no F-16 side by side we can't compare.

well the lead aircraft is piston and they are at sea level so they wouldnt be moving so fast. And like you said P-51 have higher top and cruise speed than Spitfire.

 

 

Also again the F-35 seems to be flying at a higher AoA than the F-22, which is esp. visible from the back.

So you can distinguish the AoA different between F-35 and F-22 but not the AoA different between F-22 and F-16 ???

 

 

The strong wing tip vortices (so strong they generate a vapor trail) are a sign that the wing is working at high capacity generating lift.

Iam not quite sure what you are going with this , so assuming F-35 wing produce more lift per area than F-22 wing ? and ??? their sweep angle is not even the same to begin with

 

 

The F-16 is very negatively stable. So where would that put your theory?

Not all negative stable aircraft have the same amount of negative stability , even between F-16 version there is different in stability

 

 

 

No it's not just the LERX, it's the shape of the fuselage and how it joins with the wing,

The part that joined the fuselage and the wing is LERX , hence they are called leading-edge extension

it doesn't need to be at high AoA to generate lift.

This is new , the first time i heard that F-16 body can generate lift at 0 AoA , can you give the source for that ?. AFAIK , F-16 only start to generate body lift at positive AoA ( same for F-35 )

 

As for boxy vs airfoil shape, if don't know why the latter generates more lift then you don't understand how lift is generated

I understand it fine

, you still haven't been able to reference the source for " boxy fuselage design generate less body lift than tube design "

 

 

 

the shape of the leading edge has a very big importance here. You want a surface that effectively & smoothly accelerates the air over the top

Yes that the point of LERX , F-35 doesnt have LERX but it has it own way to generate vortex too

and a relatively obstruction free surface at the bottom.

In which case i dont see how F-16 can be considered better

 

Yes, this is due to the G limit,

So basically his number is correct

 

 

but as the author of the paper correctly points out the F-14 can be safely flown to 9.5 G's, which is what Grumman recommended based on their extensive testing of the aircraft.

Which the same case go for F-15 , F-35 , F-4 , Rafale ..etc basically all aircraft because their ultimate G limited must be higher than recomended G limit by a certain factor. But we dont draw a new ITR curve for all those do we ?. Either we treated all aircraft as able to excess their recommended G limit or we used the recommended G limit value in manual for all of them

 

Calculation? Why would I need to show a calculation when I have the EM charts? I can tell you the exact figures, and

Did you not paid attention to the discussion ?

he have to calculated those value because flight manual only give performance value when internal fuel load is a general percentage such as 50-100% , it wont give turn rate value when fuel load is at 28% or 73% or 46% or any similar value. The problem with a general value like 50 or 100% percentage is that they dont show the whole picture. If you have F-16 , F-15 , F-18 , F-35 , F-14 . All loaded with 50% internal fuel , their maximum afterburning time and combat radius would be very different. Hence the reason for him to equalize their fuel load based on same mission requirement.

 

he got them wrong, for several aircraft.

And you still haven't shown exactly where is his mistakes . First you written value for 10K feet and Mach 0.4-0.7 while his chart is at 20K feet , mach 0.8. Then you said he wrong because ITR at 20K feet is the same as value in 25K feet chart. But then a closer look shown that ITR at 10K feet is also a similar value because it is structure limited at lower altitude.

Edited November 15, 2016 by garrya

[garrya]

Anyway regarding the issue of body lift and AoA. I took the question to Johnwill. To anyone here who not familiar , he is one of those engineers in F-16 program. Here is his answer

 

 

tube vs boxy design and body lift

[Bushmanni]

I imagine that is what SACM and possibly even MSDM will be for. If you can shrink down that Rmin range to the point of negligibility then there's not much point in red team pushing to the merge/phonebooth anymore.

 

EODAS has to be a big asset here - why risk chasing the tail of a jet that can kill you just as dead from its 6 o'clock as its 12?

 

T-50 is planned to have DIRCM, ie. a laser that blinds seeker heads of IR guided missiles so it would be essentially invulnerable against AIM-9X or similar missiles. It could also be invulnerable to radar missiles using combination of tactics, stealth and jammers. If you really need to kill it then how would you do it besides gunning it down? Adding all that gadgetry also into F-35 is possible and relatively easy but you can't improve it's performance in gunzo with similar ease.

 

Anyways it could be premature to declare dogfights to be history as new methods for disabling missiles are becoming reality. It could be possible to build missiles that are resistant to these methods but to me it seems uncertain at this moment if things will stay as is or not.

 

I don't think there's any doubt that F-35 is going to own any non stealthy plane but that's not the threat it needs to be able to deal with in the future. This is especially true for the nations that don't have F-22. F-35 needs to stay relevant weapons platform for some 30 years into the future.

[Hummingbird]

Anyway regarding the issue of body lift and AoA. I took the question to Johnwill. To anyone here who not familiar , he is one of those engineers in F-16 program. Here is his answer

 

 

tube vs boxy design and body lift

 

Well you certainly know how to ask mr. Johnwill misleading questions Garrya :doh:

 

1. His first answer neither confirms nor denies anything I've said, he simply states what we already know = the F-35 has a higher AoA limit than the F-16 and thus can generate a higher initial turn rate at low speeds, that's no secret.

 

2. I never compared tubular vs boxy in terms of lift, that's once again entirely you're own creation. What I said was "airfoil shape vs boxy". Why? Because I was talking about the F-16's lifting body:

 

[Hummingbird]

Iam not quite sure what you are going with this , so assuming F-35 wing produce more lift per area than F-22 wing ? and ??? their sweep angle is not even the same to begin with

 

No, what it likely means is that the F-35's wing is working at high capacity to generate enough lift pr. square area to keep the F-35 airborne. Meanwhile the F-22's wing doesn't need to be pushed to the same lift coefficient to keep the F-22 aloft thanks to the lower wing loading.

 

 

Not all negative stable aircraft have the same amount of negative stability , even between F-16 version there is different in stability

 

You're not helping yourself garrya....

 

The part that joined the fuselage and the wing is LERX , hence they are called leading-edge extension

 

LEADING EDGE garrya, i.e. it's the area infront of the wing. I am talking about the entire blending of wing and fuselage. LERX only makes up the front part.

 

This is new , the first time i heard that F-16 body can generate lift at 0 AoA , can you give the source for that ?. AFAIK , F-16 only start to generate body lift at positive AoA ( same for F-35 )

 

Back to basic aerodynamics, an assymetric airfoil generates lift at 0 AoA, which is the shape of the F-16's body (aside from the engine ofcource, the part you somehow like to focus on, also in your questions for mr Johnwill).

 

I understand it fine

 

, you still haven't been able to reference the source for " boxy fuselage design generate less body lift than tube design "

 

Would you forget about the tube already! The F-16 is not a bloody tube!! :wallbash:

 

Airfoil shape vs box shape garrya, that's the discussion, please write it down for yourself to remember this time.

 

Yes that the point of LERX , F-35 doesnt have LERX but it has it own way to generate vortex too

 

 

In which case i dont see how F-16 can be considered better

 

Why are we talking about LERX vortices now??

 

So basically his number is correct

 

*sigh* No, because you see said doghouse plot actually moves around with altitude....

 

Which the same case go for F-15 , F-35 , F-4 , Rafale ..etc basically all aircraft because their ultimate G limited must be higher than recomended G limit by a certain factor. But we dont draw a new ITR curve for all those do we ?. Either we treated all aircraft as able to excess their recommended G limit or we used the recommended G limit value in manual for all of them

 

 

Mein gott in himmel, lord our saviour..... No'one "drew" a new ITR line, the line continues on its curve up to the ultimate load factor, it doesn't just suddenly go *boob* and takes a bend. I've already showed you the lift curve up to 7.5 G's earlier, extrapolating that line to 9.5's isn't a problem and it's not drawing something that isn't there - infact it's exactly what the person who made the strike fighters comparison paper did, hence his mention of the 9.5 G recommended load limit. I hope you eventually will understand this.

 

 

Did you not paid attention to the discussion ?

he have to calculated those value because flight manual only give performance value when internal fuel load is a general percentage such as 50-100% , it wont give turn rate value when fuel load is at 28% or 73% or 46% or any similar value. The problem with a general value like 50 or 100% percentage is that they dont show the whole picture. If you have F-16 , F-15 , F-18 , F-35 , F-14 . All loaded with 50% internal fuel , their maximum afterburning time and combat radius would be very different. Hence the reason for him to equalize their fuel load based on same mission requirement.

 

Again the figures won't be off by such an amount even when this is considered, and I'm talking specifically about the G figures.

 

 

And you still haven't shown exactly where is his mistakes . First you written value for 10K feet and Mach 0.4-0.7 while his chart is at 20K feet , mach 0.8. Then you said he wrong because ITR at 20K feet is the same as value in 25K feet chart. But then a closer look shown that ITR at 10K feet is also a similar value because it is structure limited at lower altitude.

 

I didn't show a value for 10 kft garrya, I showed one for 25 kft at Mach 0.8.

 

 

Do you see now how a doghouse plot moves with altitude?

Edited November 15, 2016 by Hummingbird