The F-35 Thread

[mvsgas]

So Rehn

FTIT is more stable? What engine do you fly with?

 

Thanks Nscode, I wonder why is there so little info on the YAK-141 and its engine

Maybe we are looking on the wrong places

[hitman]

Oh, come on now! Just because I'm a pilot, don't treat me like a no-nothing idiot! :smilewink:

 

Jet engine efficiency can be described several ways:

Cycle efficiency, which is what you're talking about.

Propulsive efficiency, which I'm talking about, is based on how well the thrust of the engine approximates the airspeed of the jet - so a jet flying at M1.3 would have a high propulsive efficient engine if the airspeed of the exhaust equals M1.3 - something a high-bypass turbofan will never ever get to.

Energy efficiency, which is the product of Cycle efficiency x Propulsive efficiency.

 

While high-bypass turbofans might have a high cycle efficiency, they can never be propulsive efficient at high speed. Also, an afterburning section is no longer required to sustain mach speeds.

 

i didn't mean it like that, but my point is this: you wouldn't put low bypass engines on large aircraft willingly, would you? else there would be no need of high bypass.off top of my head, the 747 generates 420k hp, right? im just saying...

 

btw i like this discussion; i like learning about this stuff so bear with me...

Edited October 3, 2010 by hitman

[nscode]

horses might pull your boat along the river, but they sure can't fly, so no point in comparing jet engines to horses. ;)

 

It all depends on how you want to fly that airplane. B-52 uses a low bypass, and Concorde used a no-bypass ;)

[hitman]

B52 is 50+ years old, and a (planned) upgrade thats been floating about is to high bypass engines. Dont they use turbojets instead?Same goes for the concorde, it used turbojets as well. 50's tech. and i dont know what you mean about the horses, but hp ISrelevant to efficiency.

 

http://www.concordesst.com/powerplant.html

 

edit:TF33 PW low bypass engines, I stand corrected.

Edited October 3, 2010 by hitman

[nscode]

I mean don't compare them to horses, compare them to mr. Newton :D

 

And by no-bypass I do mean turbojet.

[mvsgas]

F-35C CF-1 rolled out of the F-35 Final Finishes Facility in Fort Worth, Texas, recently

in full color, as it received its highly accurate robot-applied coatings. CF-1 was flown flew

fourteen times before entering an intensive period of ground testing. (See the F-35C image

gallery for a photo of the left side of the aircraft.)

 

US Marine Corps pilot Lt. Col. Matt Kelly completes the fiftieth flight for F-35 BF-2.

The 1.3-hour flight, from NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, involved performing acceleration

and decelerations at 30,000 feet to test the air data system as well as flying quality test

points and envelope expansion.

[Exorcet]

F-35 B axed by UK

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/10/19/348641/cameron-uk-to-swap-jsfs-to-carrier-variant-axe-harrier-and-nimrod.html

[mvsgas]

F-35 Anechoic Chamber Testing

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=57

[mvsgas]

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?item_id=955

[epokha]

F-35's are rubbish. http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

[mvsgas]

F-35's are rubbish. http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

 

:huh: Oh no, I never heard of this before. I will express your concerns to the U.S. D.O.D. and other countries that plan to use the F-35 so they can go ahead and cancel/stop any further development or utilization of all the versions F-35. :pain::blink::smartass::D

[topol-m]

F-35's are rubbish. http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

 

I`m awaiting the following comments in eagerness :D

 

Edit: mvsgas was faster than me :)

[MoGas]

:huh: Oh no, I never heard of this before. I will express your concerns to the U.S. D.O.D. and other countries that plan to use the F-35 so they can go ahead and cancel/stop any further development or utilization of all the versions F-35. :pain::blink::smartass::D

 

They just should get the Carlo`s Flanker's :megalol:

 

:doh:

[nscode]

They should, but they can't :(

[104th_Cobra]

F-35's are rubbish. http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

I had already read that series of documents. The rapid response to F-22 by the appearance of PAK-FA made redundant the F-35.

Read:

 

Assessing the Sukhoi PAK-FA

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html

 

PAK-FA, F-35, F-22 and “Capability Surprise”

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230210-1.html

 

Flanker AESA Radars

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html#mozTocId533477

 

Russia’s PAK-FA versus the F-22 and F-35

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html

[GGTharos]

Anything you read on ausairpower is basically BS :)

 

He makes statements based on some very suspiciously chosen values and capabilities for say, one side vs. the other.

[104th_Cobra]

Anything you read on ausairpower is basically BS :)

 

He makes statements based on some very suspiciously chosen values and capabilities for say, one side vs. the other.

You are right :) This data must be interpreted in the context of counter-intelligence.

These guys on ausairpower can also be lobbying for any economic group with interests in related economic trades.

John 18: 38 Pilate said: "What is truth?"

[GGTharos]

Not even. He's deliberately not using currently available real data for Russian missiles for example, nor correcting his articles.

He gives non-existent capabilities to Russian planes, including some rather made up IRST capabilities, and effectively ignores stealth on the west side, as well as other advantages.

 

Basically not ONLY does he not have access to classified information, he isn't even using the information that is available and unclassified - he's just using the most advantageous numbers for the Russian planes that he can find on the internet. Don't even need to bring counter-intelligence into it ... he's simply a dishonest liar :)

Edited October 30, 2010 by GGTharos

[104th_Cobra]

Yes, I assumed that he doesn't have access to real data. I noted that the data about Russian missiles wasn't very congruent.

He's only spamming to draw attention on him. He do that for a living.

[GGTharos]

That is correct ... I -almost- wish I had a job like this guy. Almost :D

[Pilotasso]

buahahaha true true

[epokha]

I stand corrected! :P

[Antartis]

White House Commission: Kill The F-35B

 

A draft document issued by the two chairmen of the White House commission on reducing the federal deficit recommends scrapping the F-35B short-take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) fighter outright, along with the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, and curtailing production of the MV-22 Osprey as part of a 15 per cent DoD procurement cut.

 

The proposals, contained in a supplement to a $3.8 trillion plan unveiled today, are not final and do not have any legislative force but represent another setback for the STOVL fighter.

 

 

 

The F-35B is not the only Joint Strike Fighter version to be hit. The chairmen calls for production of the USAF F-35A and Navy F-35C to be cut in half in the years up to FY2015, with the cancelled buys to be replaced by F-16s and F/A-18s.

 

The chairmen also recommend scrapping the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle and Joint Tactical Radio System, and sends the Army back to square one in its search for a new armored vehicle by scrapping the Ground Combat Vehicle, the ill-defined follow-on to the armored segment of the Future Combat Systems project.

 

In the case of the F-35B, the commission notes that it is the most trouble-prone F-35 variant and that its demise could speed the development of the F-35A and F-35C. However, the dual footnotes DTI's reporting of potential changes to Marine tactics and operations that could eliminate plans to use the F-35B's unique characteristics in austere land bases. (More discussion here.)

 

The chairmen would cap the V-22 at 288 aircraft and re-equip remaining Marine units with MH-60 helicopters, saving $1.1 billion. Less surprising is the recommendation to terminate the gremlin-infested, late and hugely over-budget EFV. The JLTV cancellation is influenced by the fact that a major potential user, the U.S. Army, has reported to Congress that it has all the wheeled vehicles that it needs through 2017.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a8e2f6473-f31c-4d55-abf1-beb011a073c8&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

 

Looks like the marine's are going to be taking a big hit.

[power5]

 

Well the good news is that if DCS makes a F105 sim, we will be flying the F35. I mean just look at the empirical data. All the critical flight parameters are identical. :doh:

[GGTharos]

Ahh, Carlo ... how we love thee.

 

(Might as well compare a B-2 to a B-29 now).