Possibility of F-22 production re-start?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL. Well, based on the above, it is YOU, KenV, who has absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about. All of the above aircraft DO nominally conform to the Whitcomb area rule. Only the F-35 does not.
Contrast the F-105's planview above with the F-22's planview below. You agree F-22 has area rule. Can you tell us how area rule is accomplished on F-22 which has no waist to pinch in?
Once you've answered that, look at the F-35 and tell us again how it does not conform to area rule.
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Area 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two questions for you KenV.
1) Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself, and;
2) Why does a F-105 spank a F-35 like a circus monkey?
I know the answer to the second question.
Because the F-35 is not area ruled like every fighter and fighter-bomber since 1952 and the F-102. The below comes from: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...performan.html (FlightGlobal has deleted the Dewline blog, however this is the archived text.)
"The F-35's sustained turn rate requirements have been slashed as have its transonic acceleration requirements. Most impacted is the Navy's F-35C, which has had more than 43 seconds added to its Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 acceleration times. But this wasn't exactly unexpected, as almost exactly one year ago Lockheed's Tom Burbage told me this when I was still at Defense News:
"Based on the original spec, all three of the airplanes are challenged by that spec," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed's program manager for the F-35. "The cross-sectional area of the airplane with the internal weapons bays is quite a bit bigger than the airplanes we're replacing."
The sharp rise in wave drag at speeds between Mach 0.8 and Mach 1.2 is one of the most challenging areas for engineers to conquer. And the F-35's relatively large cross-sectional area means, that as a simple matter of physics, the jet can't quite match its predecessors.
"We're dealing with the laws of physics. You have an airplane that's a certain size, you have a wing that's a certain size, you have an engine that's a certain size, and that basically determines your acceleration characteristics," Burbage said. "I think the biggest question is: are the acceleration characteristics of the airplane operationally suitable?"
Some of the backstory, according to an industry source is that originally the designers had intended the F-35 to be somewhat longer and more slender--in keeping with the principles of the Whitcomb area rule. Back then, the weapons bays were placed one behind the other--AMRAAMs in one bay, JDAMs in another. Apparently, the tail-end of the jet started to get heavy, and Lockheed had to change the configuration as a result--which is how we got the current weapons bays. They were kinda squished together--to use a technical description."
Lockheed Martin readily admits that the F-35 minimally conforms to the area rule. Only KenV and F-35 fanboys dispute this FACT.
1) Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself, and;
2) Why does a F-105 spank a F-35 like a circus monkey?
I know the answer to the second question.
Because the F-35 is not area ruled like every fighter and fighter-bomber since 1952 and the F-102. The below comes from: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...performan.html (FlightGlobal has deleted the Dewline blog, however this is the archived text.)
"The F-35's sustained turn rate requirements have been slashed as have its transonic acceleration requirements. Most impacted is the Navy's F-35C, which has had more than 43 seconds added to its Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 acceleration times. But this wasn't exactly unexpected, as almost exactly one year ago Lockheed's Tom Burbage told me this when I was still at Defense News:
"Based on the original spec, all three of the airplanes are challenged by that spec," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed's program manager for the F-35. "The cross-sectional area of the airplane with the internal weapons bays is quite a bit bigger than the airplanes we're replacing."
The sharp rise in wave drag at speeds between Mach 0.8 and Mach 1.2 is one of the most challenging areas for engineers to conquer. And the F-35's relatively large cross-sectional area means, that as a simple matter of physics, the jet can't quite match its predecessors.
"We're dealing with the laws of physics. You have an airplane that's a certain size, you have a wing that's a certain size, you have an engine that's a certain size, and that basically determines your acceleration characteristics," Burbage said. "I think the biggest question is: are the acceleration characteristics of the airplane operationally suitable?"
Some of the backstory, according to an industry source is that originally the designers had intended the F-35 to be somewhat longer and more slender--in keeping with the principles of the Whitcomb area rule. Back then, the weapons bays were placed one behind the other--AMRAAMs in one bay, JDAMs in another. Apparently, the tail-end of the jet started to get heavy, and Lockheed had to change the configuration as a result--which is how we got the current weapons bays. They were kinda squished together--to use a technical description."
Lockheed Martin readily admits that the F-35 minimally conforms to the area rule. Only KenV and F-35 fanboys dispute this FACT.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question for you: The F-35 is the only aircraft on KenV's list that ALWAYS flies with a very pronounced and annoying buffet, a buffeting vibration at transonic speeds so strong that it sometimes results in transonic rolloff.
Originally Posted by Channel 2
a buffeting vibration at transonic speeds so strong that it sometimes results in transonic rolloff
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 20th Apr 2016 at 20:10.
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Area 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The JSF program has been dealing with transonic roll-off since at least 2004:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0040110952.pdf
And as of 2013, they were still dealing with a different kind of it:
"Buffet and transonic roll-off—wing drop in high-speed turns, associated with asymmetrical movements of shock waves—still affect all variants of the JSF, despite control law changes. The program will conduct flight tests this year to assess the problem, but has now reached a limit on what can be done with control laws, Gilmore reports. Further changes would degrade maneuverability or overload the structure.
More F-35 Delays Predicted | Defense content from Aviation Week
Courtney Mil wrote, "You've confused me there. Could you just explain the effect of buffet or vibration on the aerodynamics and what transonic roll off is in this sense. Please?"
My apologies. You are entirely correct. That sentence was poorly worded. Transonic buffet in the F-35 is so pronounced (at certain AoA) that it is effecting the flap schedule in the control laws. The two issues are related, but distinct, not a continuum as I implied.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0040110952.pdf
And as of 2013, they were still dealing with a different kind of it:
"Buffet and transonic roll-off—wing drop in high-speed turns, associated with asymmetrical movements of shock waves—still affect all variants of the JSF, despite control law changes. The program will conduct flight tests this year to assess the problem, but has now reached a limit on what can be done with control laws, Gilmore reports. Further changes would degrade maneuverability or overload the structure.
More F-35 Delays Predicted | Defense content from Aviation Week
Courtney Mil wrote, "You've confused me there. Could you just explain the effect of buffet or vibration on the aerodynamics and what transonic roll off is in this sense. Please?"
My apologies. You are entirely correct. That sentence was poorly worded. Transonic buffet in the F-35 is so pronounced (at certain AoA) that it is effecting the flap schedule in the control laws. The two issues are related, but distinct, not a continuum as I implied.
They should never have stopped when they did.
Further comments censored.
Further comments censored.
Channel 2,
Area ruling was of major importance when we were designing aircraft to fly continuously in the transonic region (the speed range where it has an effect on zero lift drag) with engines that had limited power - the Buccaneer was a prime example. However, with modern fast jets, the transonic drag rise became just one of many factors affecting form and the ability to design more efficient and more powerful engines greatly reduced the significance of area ruling.
An important factor to consider is the mission for which an aircraft is designed. Take the F-14 as an example. This is its CAP to supersonic intercept requirement (not dissimilar to a number of other types):
150 miles subsonic cruise to CAP
CAP
Accel M0.7 to M1.35
4 1/2 minutes and 50nm to intercept
RTB or AAR
Time in the transonic region in that scenario would be in the region of 20-30 seconds and drag rise overcome by use of burner.
Whilst there is a degree of area ruling in many modern fighters, it is far less rigorously applied in designs than once was the case and is often only applied where its inclusion fits with other design requirements - F-18 (nearly) vertical stabilisers, for example. The degree to which area ruling is applied is very subtle these days, so much so that it is hard to see and is often only noticeable in the placement of of other features that contribute to cross section - LEX, engine housing, canopy form, even the front end of the 747.
But, where other factors override the need to mitigate transonic drag rise, it is often calculated to be of lesser importance - other sources of drag are available. Installed thrust is no longer the same limitation it was with the Buccaneer or F-105. The last two air-to-air aircraft I flew certainly did not show much evidence of area ruling, particularly behind the wing and one of those didn't have a fixed wing position on which to apply area ruling and its fuselage was basically a long, rectangular box. Transonic performance certainly wasn't a problem with either of those.
Area ruling is not a particularly significant issue to use to criticise F-35 (F-22 shows even less evidence of area ruling than F-35), but I am interested by your use of the term "Whitcomb's area rule". Not a term I have ever heard an engineer, designer or aircrew use. More likely a phrase one would see in Wikipedia or other online resources.
As to you comments to KenV, I think you need to look again at the graphics he presented to you. The area ruling, albeit in a non-typical fuselage shaping form, is acheived to some degree by the relative placement of wings, tailplanes and fins. I think you might reconsider your somewhat unneccesary remark:
when all he has done is to respond rather well to your question.
Area ruling was of major importance when we were designing aircraft to fly continuously in the transonic region (the speed range where it has an effect on zero lift drag) with engines that had limited power - the Buccaneer was a prime example. However, with modern fast jets, the transonic drag rise became just one of many factors affecting form and the ability to design more efficient and more powerful engines greatly reduced the significance of area ruling.
An important factor to consider is the mission for which an aircraft is designed. Take the F-14 as an example. This is its CAP to supersonic intercept requirement (not dissimilar to a number of other types):
150 miles subsonic cruise to CAP
CAP
Accel M0.7 to M1.35
4 1/2 minutes and 50nm to intercept
RTB or AAR
Time in the transonic region in that scenario would be in the region of 20-30 seconds and drag rise overcome by use of burner.
Whilst there is a degree of area ruling in many modern fighters, it is far less rigorously applied in designs than once was the case and is often only applied where its inclusion fits with other design requirements - F-18 (nearly) vertical stabilisers, for example. The degree to which area ruling is applied is very subtle these days, so much so that it is hard to see and is often only noticeable in the placement of of other features that contribute to cross section - LEX, engine housing, canopy form, even the front end of the 747.
But, where other factors override the need to mitigate transonic drag rise, it is often calculated to be of lesser importance - other sources of drag are available. Installed thrust is no longer the same limitation it was with the Buccaneer or F-105. The last two air-to-air aircraft I flew certainly did not show much evidence of area ruling, particularly behind the wing and one of those didn't have a fixed wing position on which to apply area ruling and its fuselage was basically a long, rectangular box. Transonic performance certainly wasn't a problem with either of those.
Area ruling is not a particularly significant issue to use to criticise F-35 (F-22 shows even less evidence of area ruling than F-35), but I am interested by your use of the term "Whitcomb's area rule". Not a term I have ever heard an engineer, designer or aircrew use. More likely a phrase one would see in Wikipedia or other online resources.
As to you comments to KenV, I think you need to look again at the graphics he presented to you. The area ruling, albeit in a non-typical fuselage shaping form, is acheived to some degree by the relative placement of wings, tailplanes and fins. I think you might reconsider your somewhat unneccesary remark:
Originally Posted by Channel 2
Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 20th Apr 2016 at 22:13.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had also been wondering why this issue has become Channel 2's latest pet rock. It's not totally irrelevant but it's small beer, that's for sure. More pronounced in the C model actually, but nothing to write home about.
PhilipG,
They did indeed make a lifetime buy a long time ago. I can remember reading about it at the time, marvelling how they were having to make such a purchase before the aircraft had properly entered service!
What Is a Lifetime Buy?
As to what a 'lifetime' buy of CPUs actually is is debatable. They would have purchased according to what was then their best guess at MTBF, mishap rates, etc, and then doubled or tripled that. Now a good few years later they'll be in a good position to assess their actual spares usage. Unless there's been a serious cock up I'd bet they've enough to support re-opening the line.
Use an Upgrade Program to Liberate Old Spares
Even if the spares pile isn't quite as big as all that they could still reopen the line and simultaneously kick-off an avionics update program for the whole fleet.
That way they could build and fly a new batch having pinched what they have in stock, and use the upgrade program to completely replace the diminished spares stockpile. That means running the spares pile a bit thin, but that is offset by the situation hopefully being short term.
Also as the upgrade rolls out they can put old systems from upgraded aircraft back into store. Of course, if the upgrade development program goes wrong they could have a serious shortfall!
Make the Chips Again
Yet another option is to go along to the semicon fabs who specialise in re-manufacturing old parts. It's actually quite cheap (like under $1million easy). These fabs have bought the masks for old designs and stored them, and can easily put them back into limited production should anyone ask. They can do it because whilst a 5 year old fab is no longer state of the art and so can't make modern designs, it is easily capable of making an i960 from the 1990s. Of course that assumes that the masks for all the important chips are still in existence; Intel might have been a bit more possessive of them than other manufacturers and not sold them on. I've heard this approach has been taken by some other defence equipment programs.
Just Port It Anyway!
I believe back in the early days (mid 1990s?) of Eurofighter they had the same problem, and AFAIK they did port the software to a newer CPU. Provided the operating system environment is the same there's no particular risk, just a bunch of testing. Things only get really nasty when the operating system has gone obsolete too and isn't available on a more modern CPU. Then you have to change the source code itself, and that can be very painful.
It'll be interesting to see if they do decide to restart production, and the manner in which they do it.
Even if the jigs etc are all available, there will be a lot of work involved in redesigning the IT systems on the F22 as the original processors etc are no longer available, yes the USAF has a stock of them for repairs etc to the present fleet.
What Is a Lifetime Buy?
As to what a 'lifetime' buy of CPUs actually is is debatable. They would have purchased according to what was then their best guess at MTBF, mishap rates, etc, and then doubled or tripled that. Now a good few years later they'll be in a good position to assess their actual spares usage. Unless there's been a serious cock up I'd bet they've enough to support re-opening the line.
Use an Upgrade Program to Liberate Old Spares
Even if the spares pile isn't quite as big as all that they could still reopen the line and simultaneously kick-off an avionics update program for the whole fleet.
That way they could build and fly a new batch having pinched what they have in stock, and use the upgrade program to completely replace the diminished spares stockpile. That means running the spares pile a bit thin, but that is offset by the situation hopefully being short term.
Also as the upgrade rolls out they can put old systems from upgraded aircraft back into store. Of course, if the upgrade development program goes wrong they could have a serious shortfall!
Make the Chips Again
Yet another option is to go along to the semicon fabs who specialise in re-manufacturing old parts. It's actually quite cheap (like under $1million easy). These fabs have bought the masks for old designs and stored them, and can easily put them back into limited production should anyone ask. They can do it because whilst a 5 year old fab is no longer state of the art and so can't make modern designs, it is easily capable of making an i960 from the 1990s. Of course that assumes that the masks for all the important chips are still in existence; Intel might have been a bit more possessive of them than other manufacturers and not sold them on. I've heard this approach has been taken by some other defence equipment programs.
Just Port It Anyway!
I believe back in the early days (mid 1990s?) of Eurofighter they had the same problem, and AFAIK they did port the software to a newer CPU. Provided the operating system environment is the same there's no particular risk, just a bunch of testing. Things only get really nasty when the operating system has gone obsolete too and isn't available on a more modern CPU. Then you have to change the source code itself, and that can be very painful.
It'll be interesting to see if they do decide to restart production, and the manner in which they do it.
Gender Faculty Specialist
Specific to "lifting body" aerodynamics area ruling is used in shape and location of the canopy, among others, and this is probably the case on the F35 - it is the case on the F22.
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Area 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh my God.
I specifically used the term, “Whitcomb area rule” so people would look it up. Intentionally. Because it’s so readily apparent that A LOT of people posting on this issue have no idea what area ruling means. (The F-105 vs F-35A thread went on for days, and days, and days. And I was leaving hint, after hint, after hint—and literally shaking my head in disbelief.) --> And regardless of how or why I used the term, "Whitcomb area rule" how does that in any way negate the FACT that Tom Burbage, Lockheed's former JSF project manager, confessed that the F-35 minimally conforms to said rule?
As to your comment: “Area ruling is not a particularly significant issue to use to criticise F-35 (F-22 shows even less evidence of area ruling than F-35.)” Unfortunately, and most respectfully, that’s just crazy talk.
1. The 2012 DOT&E report notes the following about the F-35 acceleration from .8M to 1.2M:
A) A Model: Specifications retroactively decreased: time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach increased by 8 seconds,
B) B Model: Specifications retroactively decreased: time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach increased by 16 seconds,
C) C Model: Specifications retroactively decreased: time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach increased by “at least” 43 seconds.
Quoting FlightGlobal: Most egregious is the F-35C-model's drastically reduced transonic acceleration capabilities. "That [43 seconds] is a massive amount of time, and assuming you are in afterburner for acceleration, it's going to cost you even more gas," the pilot says. "This will directly impact tactical execution, and not in a good way." Pilots typically make the decision to trade a very high rate of fuel consumption for supersonic airspeeds for one of two reasons. "They are either getting ready to kill something or they are trying to defend against something [that's trying to kill] them," the pilot says. "Every second counts in both of those scenarios. The longer it takes, the more compressed the battle space gets. That is not a good thing."
Why the spec change? Because the F-35A/B/C ain’t ever going to achieve the original spec. Why? Because the F-35A/B/C minimally conforms to Whitcomb’s area rule.
And the above is going to get waaaaaay worse when they start hanging externals on the aircraft.
--> The F-22 does/did not struggle with acceleration performance, and it’s performance specifications were not retroactively decreased.
2) The 2012 DOT&E report also notes:
“Turn performance for the F-35A was reduced from 5.3 sustained g's to 4.6 sustained g's. The F-35B had its sustained g's cut from 5 to 4.5 g's, while the ‘C’ variant had its turn performance truncated from 5.1 to 5 sustained g's.”
FlightGlobal: "Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalent of an [McDonnell Douglas] F-4 or an [Northrop] F-5," another highly experienced fighter pilot says. "[It's] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft."
At higher altitudes, the reduced performance will directly impact survivability against advanced Russian-designed "double-digit" surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems such as the Almaz-Antey S-300PMU2 (also called the SA-20 Gargoyle by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), the pilot says. At lower altitudes, where fighters might operate in for the close air support or forward air control role, the reduced airframe performance will place pilots at increased risk against shorter-range SAMs and anti-aircraft artillery."
Why? Because the F-35A/B/C ain’t ever going to achieve the original spec. Why? Because the F-35A/B/C minimally conforms to Whitcomb’s area rule.
And the above is going to get waaaaaay worse when they start hanging externals on the aircraft.
--> The F-22 does/did not struggle with turn performance, and it’s performance specifications were not retroactively decreased.
Citation for both above: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...tional-381683/
3. The 2012 DOT&E report also notes:
"Buffet and transonic roll-off—wing drop in high-speed turns, associated with asymmetrical movements of shock waves—still affect all variants of the JSF, despite control law changes. The program will conduct flight tests this year to assess the problem, but has now reached a limit on what can be done with control laws, Gilmore reports. Further changes would degrade maneuverability or overload the structure.
Why? Because the F-35A/B/C minimally conforms to Whitcomb’s area rule.
And the above is going to get waaaaaay worse when they start hanging externals on the aircraft.
--> The F-22 does/did not struggle with buffet and transonic roll-off.
4. Top speed, cruise, range, climb, payload--the whole shooting match—it’s all fundamentally compromised because this aircraft minimally conforms to area ruling. Period. It’s so blatantly obvious. And it always has been.
And Lockheed Martin has freely admited to all of this. Good grief.
I specifically used the term, “Whitcomb area rule” so people would look it up. Intentionally. Because it’s so readily apparent that A LOT of people posting on this issue have no idea what area ruling means. (The F-105 vs F-35A thread went on for days, and days, and days. And I was leaving hint, after hint, after hint—and literally shaking my head in disbelief.) --> And regardless of how or why I used the term, "Whitcomb area rule" how does that in any way negate the FACT that Tom Burbage, Lockheed's former JSF project manager, confessed that the F-35 minimally conforms to said rule?
As to your comment: “Area ruling is not a particularly significant issue to use to criticise F-35 (F-22 shows even less evidence of area ruling than F-35.)” Unfortunately, and most respectfully, that’s just crazy talk.
The Following Are: “Will Have a Significant Operational Impact” Issues
1. The 2012 DOT&E report notes the following about the F-35 acceleration from .8M to 1.2M:
A) A Model: Specifications retroactively decreased: time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach increased by 8 seconds,
B) B Model: Specifications retroactively decreased: time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach increased by 16 seconds,
C) C Model: Specifications retroactively decreased: time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach increased by “at least” 43 seconds.
Quoting FlightGlobal: Most egregious is the F-35C-model's drastically reduced transonic acceleration capabilities. "That [43 seconds] is a massive amount of time, and assuming you are in afterburner for acceleration, it's going to cost you even more gas," the pilot says. "This will directly impact tactical execution, and not in a good way." Pilots typically make the decision to trade a very high rate of fuel consumption for supersonic airspeeds for one of two reasons. "They are either getting ready to kill something or they are trying to defend against something [that's trying to kill] them," the pilot says. "Every second counts in both of those scenarios. The longer it takes, the more compressed the battle space gets. That is not a good thing."
Why the spec change? Because the F-35A/B/C ain’t ever going to achieve the original spec. Why? Because the F-35A/B/C minimally conforms to Whitcomb’s area rule.
And the above is going to get waaaaaay worse when they start hanging externals on the aircraft.
--> The F-22 does/did not struggle with acceleration performance, and it’s performance specifications were not retroactively decreased.
2) The 2012 DOT&E report also notes:
“Turn performance for the F-35A was reduced from 5.3 sustained g's to 4.6 sustained g's. The F-35B had its sustained g's cut from 5 to 4.5 g's, while the ‘C’ variant had its turn performance truncated from 5.1 to 5 sustained g's.”
FlightGlobal: "Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalent of an [McDonnell Douglas] F-4 or an [Northrop] F-5," another highly experienced fighter pilot says. "[It's] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft."
At higher altitudes, the reduced performance will directly impact survivability against advanced Russian-designed "double-digit" surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems such as the Almaz-Antey S-300PMU2 (also called the SA-20 Gargoyle by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), the pilot says. At lower altitudes, where fighters might operate in for the close air support or forward air control role, the reduced airframe performance will place pilots at increased risk against shorter-range SAMs and anti-aircraft artillery."
Why? Because the F-35A/B/C ain’t ever going to achieve the original spec. Why? Because the F-35A/B/C minimally conforms to Whitcomb’s area rule.
And the above is going to get waaaaaay worse when they start hanging externals on the aircraft.
--> The F-22 does/did not struggle with turn performance, and it’s performance specifications were not retroactively decreased.
Citation for both above: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...tional-381683/
3. The 2012 DOT&E report also notes:
"Buffet and transonic roll-off—wing drop in high-speed turns, associated with asymmetrical movements of shock waves—still affect all variants of the JSF, despite control law changes. The program will conduct flight tests this year to assess the problem, but has now reached a limit on what can be done with control laws, Gilmore reports. Further changes would degrade maneuverability or overload the structure.
Why? Because the F-35A/B/C minimally conforms to Whitcomb’s area rule.
And the above is going to get waaaaaay worse when they start hanging externals on the aircraft.
--> The F-22 does/did not struggle with buffet and transonic roll-off.
4. Top speed, cruise, range, climb, payload--the whole shooting match—it’s all fundamentally compromised because this aircraft minimally conforms to area ruling. Period. It’s so blatantly obvious. And it always has been.
And Lockheed Martin has freely admited to all of this. Good grief.
Last edited by Channel 2; 21st Apr 2016 at 03:32.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-RP
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Visiting The Military Aviation site is becoming more and more confusing.
So you click on the Possibility of F-22 production re-start thread and you get a lecture on F-35 aerodynamics, e.g. the "Whitcomb area rule".
Then you click on the F-35 Cancelled, then what? thread and you get a debate as to which tanker is better, the KDC-10, the Airbus A330 multi-role tanker or the Boeing 767 tanker.
Then you click on the A400M engine problems thread and you get a debate involving the A400M, the C-130 and the C-17.
What the hell is going on?
@ Channel 2,
Take your anti-F-35A/B/C stuff to the F-35 Cancelled, then what? thread. Keep in mind that most of what you post that you think is technically brilliant, is double cancelled by the politically astute arrangement that will keep this program floating onward and upward regardless of anything you might think or post. In other words you are wasting your time. If you think differently, there are 9,202 posts that indicate reality which you can peruse in your spare time. Also, there is no need to post the same subject into two or more different threads, we will find it in one.
So you click on the Possibility of F-22 production re-start thread and you get a lecture on F-35 aerodynamics, e.g. the "Whitcomb area rule".
Then you click on the F-35 Cancelled, then what? thread and you get a debate as to which tanker is better, the KDC-10, the Airbus A330 multi-role tanker or the Boeing 767 tanker.
Then you click on the A400M engine problems thread and you get a debate involving the A400M, the C-130 and the C-17.
What the hell is going on?
@ Channel 2,
Take your anti-F-35A/B/C stuff to the F-35 Cancelled, then what? thread. Keep in mind that most of what you post that you think is technically brilliant, is double cancelled by the politically astute arrangement that will keep this program floating onward and upward regardless of anything you might think or post. In other words you are wasting your time. If you think differently, there are 9,202 posts that indicate reality which you can peruse in your spare time. Also, there is no need to post the same subject into two or more different threads, we will find it in one.
Visiting The Military Aviation site is becoming more and more confusing.
the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.
Channel 2,
So you completely ignored the content of my post and instead launched into your own head-shaking, exasperated lecture based mainly around stuff we've been discussing for the best part of six years now and focussed on F-35 - in a F-22 thread.
I wonder if there's any wisdom in the concept that if you ignore what is said to you and just keep posting the same thing over and over again in as many places as possible it will eventually become true.
Sorry you're so frustrated by the stupidity of everyone here, maybe it's time to change the Channel. I've lost interest in what you have to say. Bye.
So you completely ignored the content of my post and instead launched into your own head-shaking, exasperated lecture based mainly around stuff we've been discussing for the best part of six years now and focussed on F-35 - in a F-22 thread.
I wonder if there's any wisdom in the concept that if you ignore what is said to you and just keep posting the same thing over and over again in as many places as possible it will eventually become true.
Sorry you're so frustrated by the stupidity of everyone here, maybe it's time to change the Channel. I've lost interest in what you have to say. Bye.
Gender Faculty Specialist
Originally Posted by KenV
You agree F-22 has area rule. Can you tell us how area rule is accomplished on F-22 which has no waist to pinch in?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two questions for you KenV.
1) Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself, and;
2) Why does a F-105 spank a F-35 like a circus monkey?
1) Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself, and;
2) Why does a F-105 spank a F-35 like a circus monkey?
As for transonic roll off:
You stated: "Buffet and transonic roll-off—wing drop in high-speed turns, associated with asymmetrical movements of shock waves..." Do you really believe area ruling affects/reduces "asymmetrical movements of shock waves". In fact, it's cause is complex, but it is not caused by a lack of area ruling nor is it fixed by adhering to area ruling. The F-18E suffered from it early in its design. One of the reasons the Super Hornet has a dog tooth leading edge is to resolve roll instabilities in the transonic region and at high AoA.
You have completely ignored two questions I asked.
1. How does the F-22 achieve area ruling when it has no waist to pinch in?
2. On what do you base your claim that F-35 suffers from severe transonic buffet?