Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 71314151617
Results 481 to 497 of 497

Thread: 2018 F-35 News and Discussion

  1. #481
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,278
    You qualified in use of the Eyeometer now as well eagle1?
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  2. #482
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,336
    @Eagle1: Everyone but you seems to have in mind the trowel effect so characteristic of a delta wing. How funny.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 16th July 2018 at 13:44.

  3. #483
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    230
    @3:50 that turned looked brutal so I'm guessing that's where he pulled 8.9Gs?

  4. #484
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,668
    And how is it related to f35 (except national ranting against nationality of a forumer?)

  5. #485
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    You qualified in use of the Eyeometer now as well eagle1?
    Eyeometer is perfectly relevant when the difference is so obvious. It is sufficient to grasp some key caretcteristic attributes. We are not talking about eye measuring radius turn in degree etc...

    I think the F35 fans are over reacting. The F35 demo is fine and the FCS and engine do a great job extracting the best possible performance out of this airframe. But in the same time you can still feel the limit of having a high wing loading (due to high fuel fraction & volume for internal weapons). Every fighter jet is a flying compromise and the F35 is no exception.

    Frankly the F35 is already meneuvrable enough and I would rather make some compromise on "energy conservation" and have true stealth instead. I am not an F35 basher, I just want to make a fair assessment.
    Last edited by eagle1; 16th July 2018 at 14:53.

  6. #486
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,939
    What I see in these comments on the display are examples of confirmation bias, both positive and negative.

    The display was different than that of the Paris show. First off, the cloud ceiling appears to be fairly low. Not much point in stringing together a series of dynamic maneuvers at a higher altitude that would have been hard to see. The pilot did a series of low level maneuvers, then climbed under full power. About the only thing apparent in the video is that the F-35 can bleed energy quickly and swing that nose around, and appears to regain energy quickly.

    My one complaint with a lot of displays these days is that they favor those types of low speed pitch up and snap maneuvers to demonstrate low speed, high alpha. The Typhoon/F-16 displays tend to be higher speed and more aggressive with minimum radius turns, aggressive vertical maneuvers, and rolls (which I think are more exciting) What I don’t see is any evidence of “high wingloading” being a factor in the display, it’s the maneuvers, not the aircraft.

  7. #487
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,336
    Man, if you don't have much alpha, that's what you do (your saying).
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 16th July 2018 at 19:50.

  8. #488
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,424
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
    Was just about to post the same link....

    Critical spectator after F-35 pulls a hard, post stall, instantaneous 130 degree turn: “You done lost all your energy!”
    F-35: “Yup” *goes vertical and accelerates*
    First of all i liked the flight display.
    It kind of reminded me of another flightdisplay i once witness at MAKS2011;

    https://youtu.be/Q2tuj4LWEPw

    The F-15E as the F-22 and now the F-35A has a very similar start at the display. They go level after rotation and gear up for a good distance. Then goes vertical.
    Why is there not a display where they do an early rotation followed by a vertical without the energy build-up..?

    Anyway, a liked the "Hook" like turn with the F-35.

  9. #489
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,336
    sometime you can see this but most of the time safety regulations rule it out (for the good ). There is no saying that most that F-22 and 35s display at airshow can be matched by their Russian counterpart, if ever someone has to write it down...

  10. #490
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    230
    Now that I think about it, why would they stress out the airframe of a brand new block 3F F-35..?

  11. #491
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,424
    Quote Originally Posted by SolarWarden View Post
    Now that I think about it, why would they stress out the airframe of a brand new block 3F F-35..?
    Not sure i understand your question..
    Would they get a less beating in any BFM?
    In it there would be konstant turnin nd burnun.

  12. #492
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,939
    One thing to note is that there is no USAF F-35 routine yet. The F-35 still has to complete IOT&E.

    It will be interesting to see what the USAF chooses to display in the program created for US F-35 airshow routine.

  13. #493
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,336
    LM said most of it before (Paris air show)

  14. #494
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,249
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    URF cost of the last few lots has always been expressed as Flight Vehicle + Engine + Contractor Fees. This was true of Lot-10 and is also true of Lot-11. So in sum, collective sum (URF) paid to LM and P&W towards the F-35 (A).
    Thanks for clarifying.
    Reason for my confusion is I thought APUC equals flyaway price, and APUC is also about 89 million, but in 2012 BY dollars, and without engine. Now the numbers make much more sense.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  15. #495
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,132
    Eagle, by definition APUC and PAUC are used across the entire SAR and therefore not specific to a particular procurement Lot. So the current APUC estimate means that the bean counters expect each F-35 purchased by the United States and some partners to cost X Million per Unit, once all the Lot buys currently present in the SAR are procured. So APUC never represents the cost of a particular Lot, that is done only by the URF. Having said that, URF covers fewer items than APUC hence the latter will almost always be a larger number. APUC and PAUC are estimates only (until the last Lot is procured and the POR concludes) while the current Lot URF is a real price paid at a given time.

    http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/...confusion.html
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  16. #496
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,249
    Yeah I got that now, thanks.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  17. #497
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,969
    PAUC and APUC also cover a lot more than just the plane. The cost, especially on an annual basis, for the F-35 & most other fighters has been URF.

    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES