PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
View Single Post
Old 17th Jun 2012, 15:03
  #1090 (permalink)  
ICBM
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Yes, you may well be correct that I am misinformed, if you would care to elucidate further that would indeed be of benefit to this "thread".
Perhaps you would like to direct your assertion to the Integrated Test Force at Pax River and ask the question 'can the -B only pull 5g and does it also fail to accelerate transonically?' Then you will have elucidated everything you need to on that subject. From my perspective I can tell you that your statement in incorrect, however I did caveat it that if you load the jet up enough, and fly high enough, you will get to a point where you will only be able to pull 5g due to Ps and induced drag which brings me on to.....

The C should be the version with the best turn rates of all three. Especially at high altitudes. It has a pretty low wing loading and span loading and a quite moderate sweep. Despite being limited at 7,5g it should have excellent STR and ITR. I expect it to be a good rate and an excellent radius fighter.
At lower altitudes it should be a quite capable low speed performer with relatively little energy bleed in turns thus mitigating the probably less than stellar transonic acceleration in straight and level flight.

I expect the 'A' to have acceptable but not terribly good turn rates, due to 9g capability and relatively high wing loading best turn performance being at rather high speeds (probably even higher than F-16). Fits at least to USAF 'speed is life' paradigm. Will bleed energy significantly in hard turns.
The 'B' combines worst of both worlds: Even higher wing loading than the 'A' (starfighter like wing loading ) and lowest g limit of all three being detrimental in high speed energy fight. Neither rate nor radius fighter.
I see virtually no part in the envelope where I expect it to be competiive against a capable oppenent wrt kinematic performance.
This aircraft isn't a high-g, high SEP dogfighter - I say again, this isn't a high-g, high SEP dogfighter. It was never touted as such, wasn't designed as such, wasn't required as such and won't end up as such. You want that then get LM to re-open the production line and make the F-22 (Air Supremacy Fighter) carrier capable, somehow finding the inordinate amount of money and American 'will to sell' along the way. Additionally, the huge quantity of internal fuel that -C carries (with the same sized donk as -B and -A) means, simply, that yes it's ITR will be fantastic however at mid-high fuel weights it will quickly bleed energy and the STR will be inferior. Light-weight is a different matter.

It does two tricks: press-ups and it's Klingon cloaking device.

"Request radar vectors"

"Sorry, Mate. Can't see you.
That is priceless!
ICBM is offline