F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

[BON PLAN]

So basically you can't find a video to support your claim, you can't give any flight manual either so you put up some random number hoping that everyone else will be deceived?

False. You can at least edit your message.

 

[BON PLAN]

LERX can energize the flow on top of straight /trapezoid wing too, the canard is just a way to reduce pressure through vortex generation, but it can't eliminate the trail characteristic of delta which is lower lift generated per area at the same AoA

Indeed.
You forget to add 2 very interesting quality of Delta : a stronger airframe + the possibility to add more fuel in the wing than a classical design.

 

[StealthFlanker]

LOL. Big LOL.

In your very mathematical analysis (congrats ! High level mathematics) the F35 made a 180° in the vertical plan (thank you gravity) when Rafale made it's one in pure horizontal plan....

Lol, you want horizontal turn?
Here you go, F-35 completed horizontal 180 degrees turn between 2:46-2:53 average out to 25.7 degrees/second, exactly the same as Rafale

In your video, the F35 never made more than 90° (if not 80°) in the horizontal plan.... The last turn is not seen competely on the video. Strange isn't it? .... You know why? Because despite 18T engine the Fat turkey is degrading energy deeply.

What a load of nonsense, the last turn is called a pedal turn aka offensive spiral aka helicopter/fire hole turn, something Rafale can't even perform.

It is the same as this turn

In my video, from a straight flight, the Rafale turn begin at 0.40. At 0.46 the 180° is made => 30°/sec in average (a initial high turn thanks to ITR of 32° minimum, and a STR in the 26° region).

Actually no, Rafale didn't complete the 180 degrees turn until 0:47, at 0:46 the direction of travel of Rafale is not yet perpendicular to the observer, that is quite obvious given that at 0:46 the belly of Rafale have no sun reflection (because it is shielded by the top), but at 0:47, you can see the sun light up the belly evenly

to better illustrate my point

After 0.46 it's pure STR. 25.6°/sec is validated.

Really? a pure STR 25.6 °/sec is how it needs nearly 10 seconds to finish 180 degrees ?
From 0:47-0:57 clearly seen on video, Rafale can only complete 180 degrees => barely 18 degrees/seconds

 

[BON PLAN]

Lol, you want horizontal turn?
Here you go, F-35 completed horizontal 180 degrees turn between 2:46-2:53 average out to 25.7 degrees/second, exactly the same as Rafale

What a load of nonsense, the last turn is called a pedal turn aka offensive spiral aka helicopter/fire hole turn, something Rafale can't even perform.

It is the same as this turn


Actually no, Rafale didn't complete the 180 degrees turn until 0:47, at 0:46 the direction of travel of Rafale is not yet perpendicular to the observer, that is quite obvious given that at 0:46 the belly of Rafale have no sun reflection (because it is shielded by the top), but at 0:47, you can see the sun light up the belly evenly

to better illustrate my point

Really? a pure STR 25.6 °/sec is how it needs nearly 10 seconds to finish 180 degrees ?
From 0:47-0:57 clearly seen on video, Rafale can only complete 180 degrees => barely 18 degrees/seconds

another big LOL.

The Fat Turkey in NL started at 2.43 and even before (low roll authority) and lasted its 180° not at 2.53 but at 2.57 (the end is long long.... to many energy dilapidated before). => it don't mastered 20°/sec.

Pedal turn : you only have this figure in mind. It is then a marvellous target in the sky. So usefull than a Cobra !

 

[StealthFlanker]

another big LOL.

The Fat Turkey in NL started at 2.43 and even before (low roll authority) and lasted its 180° not at 2.53 but at 2.57 (the end is long long.... to many energy dilapidated before). => it don't mastered 20°/sec.

Not only that you can't comprehend English, but you also can't comprehend a simple Video.
I can sympathy that you don't know anything about aerodynamic but seriously, how is that possible that even the concept of angle is lost on you?
Do you even understand what is a 180 degrees change in direction of travel?, i choose 2:46-2:53 because even a retard can see the 180 degrees change in direction of travel, you know since one fly to the left and the other to the right and their direction of travel is perpendicular to the observer

If you started at 2:43 then it isn't a 180 degrees turn anymore but significantly more since the aircraft clearly flying toward the observer at 2:43 while at 2:53 traveling perpendicular to the observer, so that is closer to 270 degrees.

and it isn't important what the pilot does after 1:53 because 180 degrees is achieved, and he already roll back, not attempt a full circle

Pedal turn : you only have this figure in mind. It is then a marvellous target in the sky. So usefull than a Cobra !

It is far more useful than cobra as NASA found out on their test with X-31

 

[BON PLAN]

Not only that you can't comprehend English, but you also can't comprehend a simple Video.
I can sympathy that you don't know anything about aerodynamic but seriously, how is that possible that even the concept of angle is lost on you?
Do you even understand what is a 180 degrees change in direction of travel?, i choose 2:46-2:53 because even a retard can see the 180 degrees change in direction of travel, you know since one fly to the left and the other to the right and their direction of travel is perpendicular to the observer

If you started at 2:43 then it isn't a 180 degrees turn anymore but significantly more since the aircraft clearly flying toward the observer at 2:43 while at 2:53 traveling perpendicular to the observer, so that is closer to 270 degrees.

and it isn't important what the pilot does after 1:53 because 180 degrees is achieved, and he already roll back, not attempt a full circle


It is far more useful than cobra as NASA found out on their test with X-31

1) My english is understandable by everyone, including some puppets like you (if you answered, than means you understand it).

2) With the exception of the publication of pretty formulas and some articles, you have not even shown the slightest mastery of the topic aerodynamic.

3) Pedal turn is a so predicable manoeuver than operationnaly it is useless. A plane in such a situation is a so nice target in the sky. For canon fire (so non from a F35 whose canon accuracy is bad) or WVR IR missile.

 

[BON PLAN]

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2018/December 2018/F-35-Officially-Enters-IOTE.aspx

« It is typical that IOT&E reveals flaws and shortcomings in new systems; test pilots invariably rate new aircraft as “unsuitable” until all the bugs have been worked out. »

and

The JPO said the DOT&E will “analyze the data from the testing and prepare a report for Congress and the Secretary of Defense evaluating the results and adequacy of the test.” The F-35 “enterprise” will work to “understand and holistically address any findings.”

 

[BON PLAN]

F-35 Program Still Cutting Corners to ‘Complete’ Development
LOL. For a plane intended to be FOC in 2010...

https://warisboring.com/f-35-program-still-cutting-corners-to-complete-development/

 

[BON PLAN]

https://www.navalnews.com/news/2019...trike-at-sea-with-externally-mounted-weapons/

Another big LOL.

Why using externally stored weapons? This plane isn't supposed to be a stealthy one?

 

[vampyrbladez]

Lol, you want horizontal turn?
Here you go, F-35 completed horizontal 180 degrees turn between 2:46-2:53 average out to 25.7 degrees/second, exactly the same as Rafale

What a load of nonsense, the last turn is called a pedal turn aka offensive spiral aka helicopter/fire hole turn, something Rafale can't even perform.

It is the same as this turn


Actually no, Rafale didn't complete the 180 degrees turn until 0:47, at 0:46 the direction of travel of Rafale is not yet perpendicular to the observer, that is quite obvious given that at 0:46 the belly of Rafale have no sun reflection (because it is shielded by the top), but at 0:47, you can see the sun light up the belly evenly

to better illustrate my point

Really? a pure STR 25.6 °/sec is how it needs nearly 10 seconds to finish 180 degrees ?
From 0:47-0:57 clearly seen on video, Rafale can only complete 180 degrees => barely 18 degrees/seconds

Dude you are mistaking slat length by not accounting for parallax effect. 25.6 deg STR is indeed verified at 0:46 here.

I would say F 35 has maneuverability equal to Su 30M series minus TVC.

 

[StealthFlanker]

1) My english is understandable by everyone, including some puppets like you (if you answered, than means you understand it).

2) With the exception of the publication of pretty formulas and some articles, you have not even shown the slightest mastery of the topic aerodynamic.

3) Pedal turn is a so predicable manoeuver than operationnaly it is useless. A plane in such a situation is a so nice target in the sky. For canon fire (so non from a F35 whose canon accuracy is bad) or WVR IR missile.

1) I said you comprehend others
2) call it what you want, i have actually demonstrated that i understand lift, STR, ITR, post stall maneuver, and i can back up my point with flight manual or calculation, whereas, you literally, reuse the same tiring and meaningless argument that get debunked every single time you tried to brought them up
3) Funny how when they let F-18 dogfight with X-31, the so-called "useless" post stall maneuver actually proved to be useful, maybe you can tech actual pilot how predictable these maneuvers are

 

[StealthFlanker]

Dude you are mistaking slat length by not accounting for parallax effect. 25.6 deg STR is indeed verified at 0:46 here

What parallax effect? it is one camera recording.
Besides, it is not an STR, because, in a sustained turn, aircraft don't lose altitude or speed, and can constaintly keep the same turn rate for the full circle, even indefinitely until its fuel is running out. You can clearly see in video from 0:47-0:57 turn much slower, if 25.6 degrees/second was Rafale sustained turn rate, it must be able to keep it at least for 1 circle turn, if not several circle, not losing the rate right after the first 180 degrees

 

[BON PLAN]

1) I said you comprehend others
2) call it what you want, i have actually demonstrated that i understand lift, STR, ITR, post stall maneuver, and i can back up my point with flight manual or calculation, whereas, you literally, reuse the same tiring and meaningless argument that get debunked every single time you tried to brought them up
3) Funny how when they let F-18 dogfight with X-31, the so-called "useless" post stall maneuver actually proved to be useful, maybe you can tech actual pilot how predictable these maneuvers are

I know perfectly what AoA, ITR, STR, stall... Are.

F18 is less agile than F16...

 

[asianobserve]

I know perfectly what AoA, ITR, STR, stall... Are.

F18 is less agile than F16...

How is F-18 (which I would take you mean the legacy Hornet) less agile than F-16. And what do you mean by agile?

 

[BON PLAN]

How is F-18 (which I would take you mean the legacy Hornet) less agile than F-16. And what do you mean by agile?

It was the result of :
1) field test betwwen YF16 and YF17 : YF17 was less agile.
2) returns from french pilots of M2000 and Rafale after trainings against Spanish and Swiss FA18 and Belgium, NL and USAF F16.
Specially from Rafale pilots : FA18 is overcome in 2 x 180° turns, when F16 is a little bit coriace.

 

[asianobserve]

It was the result of :
1) field test betwwen YF16 and YF17 : YF17 was less agile.
2) returns from french pilots of M2000 and Rafale after trainings against Spanish and Swiss FA18 and Belgium, NL and USAF F16.
Specially from Rafale pilots : FA18 is overcome in 2 x 180° turns, when F16 is a little bit coriace.

Agile is a generic term for maneuverability. The F-16 no doubt has better STR at high speeds but the F-28 has better ITR and better nose-pointing ability at slow speeds. I call it even in terms of maneuverability.

 

[DAC O DAC]

Really? and that base on what? you have EM diagram to support that? or that your opinion as usual?
You know what, action speaks louder than words,
In the video below F-35 turn 90 degrees between 0:09 and 0:12 that equal to ITR of at least 30 degrees/second. Now you find me a video of Rafale , a video of Eurofighter and a video of Gripen turning faster than that. If their ITR is so much better than F-35 like you prefer to think, it should be very simple to find a video.


No, the sole problem of delta is lower CL/alpha curve than a straight and trapezoid wing, hence, when at the same AoA, the lift per unit area of delta is less than straight wing.

Pedal turn....
F35 seem only able to realise that dedicated manoeuver.
A totally useless one....

 

[DAC O DAC]

It is far more useful than cobra as NASA found out on their test with X-31

As useless.

it's just made to entertain tourists like you

 

[BON PLAN]

CHAMPAGNE !!!!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ght-upgraded-boeing-fighters-along-with-f-35s

"The U.S. Air Force’s next budget will request funds for eight new F-15 fighter-bombers from Boeing Co., beefing up its inventory with an upgraded version of a plane it last bought in 2001"


The F-15s will be proposed in the fiscal 2020 budget, expected around March 11, as the first of a potential 80-plane purchase over the next five years, said people familiar with the Air Force’s plan.


Even though the request has White House support, it’s likely to raise questions from skeptical lawmakers about why the Air Force, which has spent years saying it needs the “fifth-generation” F-35, now wants more F-15s as well.

 

[DAC O DAC]

CHAMPAGNE !!!!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ght-upgraded-boeing-fighters-along-with-f-35s

"The U.S. Air Force’s next budget will request funds for eight new F-15 fighter-bombers from Boeing Co., beefing up its inventory with an upgraded version of a plane it last bought in 2001"


The F-15s will be proposed in the fiscal 2020 budget, expected around March 11, as the first of a potential 80-plane purchase over the next five years, said people familiar with the Air Force’s plan.


Even though the request has White House support, it’s likely to raise questions from skeptical lawmakers about why the Air Force, which has spent years saying it needs the “fifth-generation” F-35, now wants more F-15s as well.

The begginning of the USAF orders reduction....

It is clearly said in the news : with exports sells, there is enough support for the F35 (so as to cut the orders...)