PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Possibility of F-22 production re-start?
View Single Post
Old 20th Apr 2016, 19:20
  #23 (permalink)  
Channel 2
 
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.
Channel 2 is offline