The F-35 Thread

[Hummingbird]

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.

 

The F-16 enjoys a blended wing body design, the F-35 does not. The F-16 also enjoys a lower wing loading, and more extensive LERXs. All of this benefits it in a WVR fight.

 

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.

 

You mean Lockheed Martin personnel have claimed such. So far LM has claimed a lot that wasn't true, esp. regarding costs. Thus their trust level is rather abysmal in my book.

 

It's merely a company trying to sell a product, don't be fooled.

[Hummingbird]

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

 

Exact? No, but I can see a clear difference in the flight attitude and compare it to the angle between the wing & nose of the aircraft.

[OutOnTheOP]

The F-16 enjoys a blended wing body design, the F-35 does not. The F-16 also enjoys a lower wing loading, and more extensive LERXs. All of this benefits it in a WVR fight.

 

 

 

You mean Lockheed Martin personnel have claimed such. So far LM has claimed a lot that wasn't true, esp. regarding costs. Thus their trust level is rather abysmal in my book.

 

It's merely a company trying to sell a product, don't be fooled.

 

USAF pilots work for LM now?

[Hummingbird]

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?

 

Nope, the F-16 enjoys a number of key features/advantages that makes it a lot more maneuverable than the F-4 Phantom:

 

1. Camber changing wings (automatic LE flaps & TE flaps)

2. T/W ratio higher than 1:1

3. LERX

4. Blended wing design

 

The LE flaps alone increase the CL_max by over 50% vs a wing with no LE devices, and the effects of LERX, well:

Edited October 23, 2014 by Hummingbird

[OutOnTheOP]

Exact? No, but I can see a clear difference in the flight attitude and compare it to the angle between the wing & nose of the aircraft.

 

You're really arguing that you can visually measure a 2-3 degree difference in the angle the wing- an irregularly curved surface- is set to the fuselage?

 

....ok.

[OutOnTheOP]

Nope, the F-16 enjoys a number of key features/advantages that makes the opposite the case:

 

1. Camber changing wings (automatic LE flaps & TE flaps)

2. T/W ratio higher than 1:1

3. LERX

4. Blended wing design

 

 

Ah, so you admit that advanced aerodynamic features beyond mere wing loading can disproportionately affect the handling and maneuvering characteristics of an aircraft.

 

Fantastic, now we're making some progress.

 

Now, then:

1) Straaaaange, I would swear the F-35 has both slats, and full-span flaps, as compared to slats and partial-span flaps on the F-16. Also, just to note; the F-4 ALSO had slats and flaps, so that comparison doesn't explain the F-16's performance superiority over the F-4. Non-issue, and we don't know enough about their use on the F-35 to compare their effect on performance

 

http://www.modelflying.co.uk/sites/3/images/member_albums/45294/f-35a.jpg

 

2) The F-35 also has a TWR over 1:1, and a superior TWR over the F-16 when both are carrying equivalent stores loads and fuel for equivalent combat radius.

 

3) how do you know that the inlet geometry or other visually-subtle features of the F-35 do not produce equivalent (or even superior) vortex states than the LERX on the F-16? It's not the LERX that really matter, it's the effect they have on airflow at high AOA.

 

4) How, exactly, is a blended wing design inherently more lift-producing? It reduces drag, but does not meaningfully contribute to lift (unless you're talking blended wing designs that are more akin to flying wings... in which case, you're really talking about lifting bodies. The F-16 is NOT a lifting body design). The F-35 appears to have a modestly lifting-body design: without exact blueprints, we cannot compare how much extra lift the F-35 fuselage generates versus the F-16s' wing blending. Given the breadth of the F-35 fuselage, though, my money would be on the F-35.

 

*edit* I would note that in 4, you are essentially arguing that the minor body-lift increase from the blended wing on the F-16 is somehow more significant than the potentially huge body lift generated by the wide F-35 fuselage... lift which you seem keen to just ignore away from any comparison.

 

After all, if you can fly an aircraft using lift generated by ONLY a wide fuselage....

 

http://rmparchive.com/images/hosting/600Border/NS181-600Border.jpg

Edited October 23, 2014 by OutOnTheOP

[USARStarkey]

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?

 

Most definitely. As humming bird has so astutely pointed out, the performance of a plane is directly proportional to how old it is. :smilewink:

[USARStarkey]

Ah, so you admit that advanced aerodynamic features beyond mere wing loading can disproportionately affect the handling and maneuvering characteristics of an aircraft.

 

Fantastic, now we're making some progress.

 

Now, then:

1) Straaaaange, I would swear the F-35 has both slats, and full-span flaps, as compared to slats and partial-span flaps on the F-16. Also, just to note; the F-4 ALSO had slats and flaps, so that comparison doesn't explain the F-16's performance superiority over the F-4. Non-issue, and we don't know enough about their use on the F-35 to compare their effect on performance

 

http://www.modelflying.co.uk/sites/3/images/member_albums/45294/f-35a.jpg

 

2) The F-35 also has a TWR over 1:1, and a superior TWR over the F-16 when both are carrying equivalent stores loads and fuel for equivalent combat radius.

 

3) how do you know that the inlet geometry or other visually-subtle features of the F-35 do not produce equivalent (or even superior) vortex states than the LERX on the F-16? It's not the LERX that really matter, it's the effect they have on airflow at high AOA.

 

4) How, exactly, is a blended wing design inherently more lift-producing? It reduces drag, but does not meaningfully contribute to lift (unless you're talking blended wing designs that are more akin to flying wings... in which case, you're really talking about lifting bodies. The F-16 is NOT a lifting body design). The F-35 appears to have a modestly lifting-body design: without exact blueprints, we cannot compare how much extra lift the F-35 fuselage generates versus the F-16s' wing blending. Given the breadth of the F-35 fuselage, though, my money would be on the F-35. After all, if you can fly an aircraft using lift generated by ONLY a wide fuselage....

 

*edit* I would note that in 4, you are essentially arguing that the minor body-lift increased of the blended wing on the F-16 is somehow more significant than the potentially huge body lift generated by the wide F-35 fuselage... lift which you seem keen to just ignore away from any comparison.

 

http://rmparchive.com/images/hosting/600Border/NS181-600Border.jpg

 

All true, and dont forget its new fly by wire. Many pilots had stated that the avionics of the F-35 allow it to do things that normal aircraft with similar attributes cannot. The F-35s advanced FBW system means the pilot can take it to extremes because the on-board computers ensure absolute maximum use of available resources are used to the limit.

[OutOnTheOP]

All true, and dont forget its new fly by wire. Many pilots had stated that the avionics of the F-35 allow it to do things that normal aircraft with similar attributes cannot. The F-35s advanced FBW system means the pilot can take it to extremes because the on-board computers ensure absolute maximum use of available resources are used to the limit.

 

This may be true, but if it were just the FBW, then software and processor upgrades to F-16s would potentially nullify that advantage. We don't really know much about how the flight control software between the two really differ.

[USARStarkey]

This may be true, but if it were just the FBW, then software and processor upgrades to F-16s would potentially nullify that advantage. We don't really know much about how the flight control software between the two really differ.

 

I know, just pointing out another detail that would matter if we start to compare them in depth.

[Hummingbird]

Ah, so you admit that advanced aerodynamic features beyond mere wing loading can disproportionately affect the handling and maneuvering characteristics of an aircraft.

 

Fantastic, now we're making some progress.

 

That has always been my stance, which you would've known had you read some of my other posts ;)

 

Wing loading says nothing by itself, how efficient the wings are at generating lift matters just as much, hence the term lift coefficient.

 

Now, then:

1) Straaaaange, I would swear the F-35 has both slats, and full-span flaps, as compared to slats and partial-span flaps on the F-16.

 

1. Yes the F-35 features LE flaps, as recognized by moi from the onset.

2. No, the F-16 does not feature slats, it features full span LE flaps: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/p341.jpg

 

Also, just to note; the F-4 ALSO had slats and flaps, so that comparison doesn't explain the F-16's performance superiority over the F-4. Non-issue, and we don't know enough about their use on the F-35 to compare their effect on performance

 

The F-4 does not feature the same automatic full span LE flaps as on the F-16, rather it used a combination of partial span slats and flaps.

 

2) The F-35 also has a TWR over 1:1, and a superior TWR over the F-16 when both are carrying equivalent stores loads and fuel for equivalent combat radius.

 

Now you're assuming that the F-35 is more fuel efficient with similar combat loads.

 

3) how do you know that the inlet geometry or other visually-subtle features of the F-35 do not produce equivalent (or even superior) vortex states than the LERX on the F-16? It's not the LERX that really matter, it's the effect they have on airflow at high AOA.

 

The strength of the vortex is what matters, and the LERX on the F-16 is known to generate very powerful vortices during maneuvers - which is also very visible during airshows.

 

In addition to this LERXs of course add to the lifting area.

 

 

4) How, exactly, is a blended wing design inherently more lift-producing? It reduces drag, but does not meaningfully contribute to lift (unless you're talking blended wing designs that are more akin to flying wings... in which case, you're really talking about lifting bodies. The F-16 is NOT a lifting body design). The F-35 appears to have a modestly lifting-body design: without exact blueprints, we cannot compare how much extra lift the F-35 fuselage generates versus the F-16s' wing blending. Given the breadth of the F-35 fuselage, though, my money would be on the F-35. After all, if you can fly an aircraft using lift generated by ONLY a wide fuselage....

 

I suggest:

https://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/CentennialofAviation/TechnologyandtheF-16FightingFalconJetFighter.aspx

 

"The most visible of the selected technologies and design innovations was the blended wing-body configuration that maximizes the total vehicle lift with a minimum increase in drag. The wing-body blending and forebody strakes are significant beneficial features of the airplane that represent radical departures from other airplane configurations and give the aircraft its unique look. The F-16 has a smooth fairing, or blending, of the body (fuselage) into the wing, rather than the usual sharp intersection; the fuselage blends into the wing cross-sectionally and longitudinally, or lengthwise. Although more of the wing is covered up, the lift lost in that area is more than regained from body lift at high angles of attack when the lift generated by the wing begins to diminish because of flow separation. The forebody strakes generate a strong vortex flow that improves directional stability, delays flow separation over the wing (thus extending life), and gives a more favorable center of lift."

Edited October 23, 2014 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

Most definitely. As humming bird has so astutely pointed out, the performance of a plane is directly proportional to how old it is. :smilewink:

 

Why resort to lies? :huh:

[USARStarkey]

That has always been my stance, which you would've known had you read some of my other posts ;)

 

Wing loading says nothing by itself, it's how efficient the wings are at generating lift which matters, hence the term lift coefficient.

 

 

 

1. Yes the F-35 features LE flaps, as recognized by moi from the onset.

2. No, the F-16 does not feature slats, it features full span LE flaps.

 

Also, just to note; the F-4 ALSO had slats and flaps, so that comparison doesn't explain the F-16's performance superiority over the F-4. Non-issue, and we don't know enough about their use on the F-35 to compare their effect on performance

 

The F-4 does not feature the same automatic full span LE flaps as on the F-16, rather it used a combination of partial span slats and flaps.

 

 

 

Now you're assuming that the F-35 is more fuel efficient with similar combat loads.

 

 

 

The strength of the vortex is what matters, and the LERX on the F-16 is known to generate very powerful vortices during maneuvers - which is also very visible during airshows.

 

In addition to this LERXs of course add to the lifting area.

 

 

 

 

I suggest:

https://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/CentennialofAviation/TechnologyandtheF-16FightingFalconJetFighter.aspx

 

 

Well for one, the 48,000lbs thrust F-135 is only slightly more fuel hungry than the -229 in the strike eagle. Given that it clearly has a engine that is quite efficient at both wet and dry powers, and that at combat load it will be carrying everything internally it is almost certainly more fuel efficient. It has a better T/W at comparable fuel load in terms of time. It has a fantastically better T/D ratio considering no external stores and nearly 50k thrust. Pilot accounts of flying by each other confirm this. I have seen F-35 pilots say that during tests the F-35 flew like a clean F-16 with full weapons and that the F-16 had to tap the after burner to keep up with the F-35 at military power. So yeah, Id say its more fuel efficient.

[USARStarkey]

Why resort to lies? :huh:

 

Its called satire. You know full well I wasn't actually implying that.

[Hummingbird]

The F-35's internal load out is not impressive, once operational you'll more likely see it outfitted as such:

[Hummingbird]

Its called satire. You know full well I wasn't actually implying that.

 

Satire used in an attempt to ridicule is no better Starkey, and definitely counter productive towards maintaining a civil debate.

[Hummingbird]

 

 

Well for one, the 48,000lbs thrust F-135 is only slightly more fuel hungry than the -229 in the strike eagle. Given that it clearly has a engine that is quite efficient at both wet and dry powers, and that at combat load it will be carrying everything internally it is almost certainly more fuel efficient. It has a better T/W at comparable fuel load in terms of time. It has a fantastically better T/D ratio considering no external stores and nearly 50k thrust. Pilot accounts of flying by each other confirm this. I have seen F-35 pilots say that during tests the F-35 flew like a clean F-16 with full weapons and that the F-16 had to tap the after burner to keep up with the F-35 at military power. So yeah, Id say its more fuel efficient.

 

Really? Then how come it's slower than the F-16 despite a rather significant advantage in thrust ? ;)

 

To me this rather screams: More drag! :D

Edited October 23, 2014 by Hummingbird

[NineLine]

The F-35's internal load out is not impressive, once operational you'll more likely see it outfitted as such:

image

 

The US seems fine with it, so what is your point now? This is an info thread not a my plane is better than yours. I'll ask nicely one more time, stay on topic, its starting to feel a little trollish up in here....

[GGTharos]

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:

 

Actually no, that isn't what it shows. But you need to know what you're talking about to understand this.

 

You showed a video of a clean, airshow-weight F-16 doing a 28deg AoA pass (if that). The limiter on the Viper is 28 deg. No, they're not allowed to disable it.

 

The F-16 CANNOT FLY at the AoA's and speeds that the F-35 is still controllable at. It's exactly the opposite of your claim.

 

A High AoA test at high altitude is not the same as a high AoA pass at low altitude. Jet engines lose a lot of power with altitude for ANY aircraft, and you can bet the F-16 would be dropping like a rock too under the same circumstances.

 

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.

 

What's clearly noticeable is that you don't understand what you're looking at. The F-16's wingtip launchers are turned down slightly. The wings of the aircraft are pretty much parallel. If you can't see the gauges on the aircraft, you can't compare anything but very gross differences in AoA from a picture.

 

Those F-16's cannot keep up with the F-35's in that configuration. And that's a fact borne out of test flights.

 

But once more ... you have to actually read the stuff that doesn't just support your own point of view.

 

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

 

Interesting theory, based on ... what?

 

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

 

In summation, you're pretending that your speculation is an educated guess, but your education on the subject is below that of armchair aerodynamicist :D

[USARStarkey]

Satire used in an attempt to ridicule is no better Starkey, and definitely counter productive towards maintaining a civil debate.

 

Yes. But I was ridiculing your logic using hyperbole, not you as a person. It its much better than claiming "lies"

[GGTharos]

It has more transonic drag due to its huge frontal crossection, yep. That's how you pay for the internal bays.

 

The F-16 makes up for it quickly the moment you stick weapons on it.

 

As for the F-35 top speed, there are other possible considerations also, such as inlet optimization. The engine is also not of the best type to give the most thrust at high speeds (high bypass turbofan compared to other fighters).

But see, the F-35 can super-cruise at M1.2. The F-16 ... can't.

 

It's a design choice, and there are likely more factors involved than just drag.

 

Really? Then how come it's slower than the F-16 despite a rather significant advantage in thrust ? ;)

 

To me this rather screams: More drag! :D

[Hummingbird]

I like how we've gone from "fly like that" regarding sustained AoA's to now needing a video showing a specifically low speed low alt pass. As GG pointed out, you werent eve right about the AoA in your own video....45+ degrees...as if.

 

I stated 40 deg AoA, which is approx. what it looks like without going about drawing lines. Not that it matters, what matters more is the speed at which the maneuver is pulled off.

 

 

Second, how exactly have you interpreted all the counter-arguments posted by 3-4 people aside from myself as "it all speaks against it." Several people here have pointed out the errors of your analysis, oversimplification of concepts, misinformation, and consistent ignoring of factors that do not favor your opinion in your posts. And somehow "it all speaks against it."

 

Thirdly, Your last paragraph just emphasized that you have not heard 1 iota of what has been said here. You keep pointing to the same old aspects of flight design as if they exist in some kind of vacuum. To hell with the fact that the F-35 has demonstrated a much higher max angle of attack(and what that might mean about its design,) that it has a much higher T/W at combat load, that it is a much cleaner aircraft at combat load, that there could be many design elements that you have not noticed or cared to, that the fuselage of the F-35 could produce enough lift to compensate. ETC. LERX, BLENDED WING, random videos.....nothing else matters....etc.

 

In short you're trying to argue that if the F-16 in the video I posted doesn't fly at exactly 40 deg AoA then that ruins my argument... Haha, sorry but that is silly. There have been misinformation coming from both sides, incl. some of your own.

 

Fact is no'one has provided ANY proof that the F-35 should be able to turn as well as the F-16 at loads resulting in equal combat range and striking power.

 

Keep in mind that there's probably a reason that the Navy version of the F-35 (the C variant) needed a massive new wing in order to allow the aircraft to operate off of a carrier, whilst the F/A-18E is perfectly capable with a wing loading even higher than that of the F-35A variant.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

Oh, didn't see the other posts were removed..

[Bucic]

https://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/CentennialofAviation/TechnologyandtheF-16FightingFalconJetFighter.aspx

Is there a similar publication on F-35 already?

[Rangi]

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141023/DEFREG02/310230034/First-Weapons-Crew-Certified-F-35A

 

I like the Staff Sgts. comment “Before us, there was no weapons capability,” Watts said in a 33rd Fighter Wing release. “We’re making it from an airline into the Air Force.”

That's one very expensive airline......