America's Future Interceptor

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 11:30 AM
link   
We are not talking about the Harrier. The Harrier is a special case. It can stop in midair. Not many other fighters can match that except a few Russian and the F-35 STOL version.




posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Question.....The F-35 start its enigne turn its nozzle and can lift up (like the harrier), it can also transition while flying that way it can land like a helo, but what I dont get is why cant it take off vertically then transition to normal flight? This would seem well in its capabilities.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I believe it is in the way it lifts off. It uses a system that is much different than the Harrier. The Harrier's system is not the greatest and has had problems. It uses hot exaust gases which causes lift problems. The F-35 uses a lift fan which eliminates some of the problems with hot gases.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetsetter
We are not talking about the Harrier. The Harrier is a special case. It can stop in midair. Not many other fighters can match that except a few Russian and the F-35 STOL version.

yeah but think you are travelling forward but slower and the enemy is still going at the same speed.
i am showing one exsample of that kind of tactic.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetsetter
I believe it is in the way it lifts off. It uses a system that is much different than the Harrier. The Harrier's system is not the greatest and has had problems. It uses hot exaust gases which causes lift problems. The F-35 uses a lift fan which eliminates some of the problems with hot gases.


Exactly my point, the F-35's lift fan brings cool are down so the engine doesn't choke on itself (which the harrier occasionally does). So there should be no problem in the transformation.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 12:20 PM
link   
It may be because the engine nozzel has to move from one position to another while the Harrier's does not.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   
You are both quite wide of the mark here. The only reason the F-35 will not be able to lift off vertically harrier style is the fact that it will be too heavy in most mission profiles. an unarmed and lightly fuelled F-35 MAY be able to perform the manoevre but the requirement is not there for it to do so.

When you say that the Harrier uses hot exhaust gases while the F-35 doesn't you are mistaken. Actually both aircraft are almost identical in this respect as the Harriers front nozzles exhaust cool air directly from the front fan whilst the exhaust from the combustion chamber is ejected out of the rear pair. In this way the Harriers susceptibility to heat seeking missiles is reduced as, in forward flight, the exhaust from the front pair helps to mask the hot gases coming out of the rear nozzles.

Where you get the idea that the Harrier system 'isn't the greatest' from I don't know. The Harriers V/STOL planform is the most efficient ever flown simply because it utilises the entire engine for 100% of the time with no redundant features acting as dead weight at any time, ie lift engines in the Yak 38 or the lift fan of the F-35. As far as I know the reason it was not pursued for the F-35 was purely because of the amount of workshare Lockheed would be forced to give the UK in order to use it.

It is also wrong to say that the Harriers exhaust nozzzle does not move, the Harrier has four moving nozzles.

When it was first developed into the GR-5 (or Av-8B) it was reported that the Harrier had lost its ability to pwerform VTOL operations in exchange for greater payloads, to some extent further development of the Pegasus revived some of that capability but in essence what you see with the F-35 is basically the same thing, its all down to weight.

Separately, I have also read that the F-35 cannot perform VIFFing manoevres but why this is I don't know.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   
jettseller, i will not disscuss with you, you are a guy that maybe likes those stupids americans holywood movies

Capavatar, Engieneer

yes, the f15 suck accelerating above 5000mts,i have a huge cuantify of colaborators that said that, the reason is tha .8-.9 bybass turbofan, that saturn 5 afirmation is only propaganda..., the f100 -110 works good at low level

Engieneer, the cannard-delta DONT make a plane unstable, the gravity center change position does, the cannard induces lift vortex over the main wing, there some missinterpretations about that....

sucker navy planes, f14,f18,f4,etc.... the problem is that almost always the designs are original for the air force, the navy requierements are secundary


any modern plane can do the cobra (hell even the Orao), the problem is in wich speed-heigh and how many energy lost, that maneuvvre is very risky in an f15

unstable design only works good on the f16 in vertical turns

Mig29-f18 and maybe f14 have an limited supercruiser capacity

the best configuration for an unstable plane is delta-cannard thats the "bad/unstable airframe relation" of the f16

vectorial thrust only works with an fraction of the power (forget to use afterburners-at least in american designs-)

the f22 looks like an f15-mig25 son, it not use low wing configuration, and have an big proportion of its area pointing donwn, it have an big nose, and a wing designed for supercruiser, is stealth ,yes, but mainly by RAM, yes it also have details stealth design.


I don't know you even bother Jetsetter, these guys are not interested in truth - only in slamming the US anytime they can

pathetic....



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   
grunt, can you really be so uninformed? Go look on google and try to research sometimes. Buy books and watch as much TV about aircraft as you can. Spend hours looking through websites and then come back and say that I am wrong. Has anyone here even agreed with you on any of your so called "facts"? I don't think so. I am an objective person. I respect the Su and Mig series for its power. I know they are great aircraft. I never said otherwise. Your facts are wrong though and I thought that I should correct them.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
You are both quite wide of the mark here. The only reason the F-35 will not be able to lift off vertically harrier style is the fact that it will be too heavy in most mission profiles.


*DING* *DING* *DING*

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have a winner!


Grunt

You are so wrong, on so many different levels.....

Ahhh, never mind - I couldn't say it any better then Bios



[edit on 4-12-2004 by American Mad Man]



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
sucker navy planes, f14,f18,f4,etc.... the problem is that almost always the designs are original for the air force, the navy requierements are secundary
pathetic....


Did anyone else catch this one?

Obviously someone did not bother to do any research about these planes before spewing out his observations on them.


He makes my head hurt.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 06:56 PM
link   

that saturn 5 afirmation is only propaganda...,


"...the "Streak Eagle" was able to outclimb a Saturn V Moon Rocket to almost 60,000 feet. This same aircraft flew to 98,430 feet (30,000 meters) in 207.80 second..."
Global Security . Org
Seeing how Global Security is a reliable web site I'd say your post lacks credibility - and in fact demonstrates what I said before about your prejudice against anything American - which in turn calls into question all of your statements.

So rather than spew groundless information that has no references why don't you do a little research and get with the program buddy.

Pathetic you say?

Statement still goes - your prejudice is evident to all - vi paltsem delaniy.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Ok, no one likes to admit they are wrong but right is right - especially in the pursuit of truth.

Therefore I must say that I believe I was wrong in my estimate of the F-22's top speed ...

Yesterday I spoke to a guy from Lockheed who would know information like this and although he was vague in most of what he said, he did inform me that the F-22's top speed suggested by the manufacturer (Lockheed) to the client (the USAF) was right under Mach 2 with "the usual upward variance of 10 - 15%", which I think could equate to Mach 2.2 or 2.3...




[edit on 4-12-2004 by intelgurl]



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Yes, I agree, Grunt you need to do your research. And you need to type better english, it is difficult to make out the words due to dramatic typo's.

Much of your information is off. The F/A-22(I am aware the A was never removed, sorry for that missinformation) is a stealth design and is very manueverable at that. The F/A-22 is more than qualified to perform and sustain a Cobra Manuever because it has advanced avionics and the thrust vectoring does help its performance.

The F-15 is also a very capable plane.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
...with "the usual upward variance of 10 - 15%", which I think could equate to Mach 2.2 or 2.3...

intelgurl, that is in line with what I understand about the AC. The "usual variance" is dependent on loadout, altitude, fuel state, etc, and is somewhat conservative, but generally accurate.

I was going to comment about your previous estimate, but didn't want to add fuel to the fire.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   
As long as we're busting myths here, let me just add.

The manouver in the video was not a Cobra, sorry to have to say. It was closer to a Bell. The 22 will not perform the cobra to AOA's of 120, not because the platform is incapable, but because the DFC will not permit it.

The manouvers by F-15's and F-14's would better be described as "limited cobra's". That is to say, you can pitch up to 60 deg. AOA's or so and still come back down on line, but you can't safely go much further.

This takes nothing away from the platform, it only means that the 22 is not optimized for airshow manouvers.

Incidentally, the manouver is not without risk. Very high G-loads can happen in a very short time. More than one pilot and AC have been lost attempting a cobra. 15G's is not good for you or your AC.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by engineer
15G's is not good for you or your AC.

I had a rare opportunity to ride in an F-16 once and the pilot pulled an 8g turn, I did as they told me before the flight and regulated my breathing and all that - I didn't barf but I damn near passed out. Everything just went into tunnelvision and got sorta dark... (I thank dramamine for the not barfing part).
Anyway, if that's what 8g's does to someone - I don't think anyone could survive 15g's.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
I had a rare opportunity to ride in an F-16 once and the pilot pulled an 8g turn,

Lucky you! Lol, I don't even like that carnival ride, the one that's a giant centrifuge? haha, I don't want to get anywhere near 8 G's, I'm getting too old for that stuff.

I will stick to my 182's, King Airs, and Boeing simulators, thank you...



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   
engineer, where'd u get that info that a plane does 15 G's when doing a cobra, because the most G's any person has done was 11, it was on Discovery channel, bur he was in an old plane and wasn't carrying that device that regulates the blood between your legs and u're head, so, i guess i just answered my own question sry



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   
when i was in Moldova, there was this guy with a machine, u strap the person, or two in and he spins u around, i'm not sure what its called, i think its the centrifuge that engineer waas talkng about, anyways, so we went in, he truned the machine on, and he kept making it spin faster and faster, then he asked me and my cousin if we wanted it faster, i quickly said yes, and before i knew it, my head was stuck to the side panels, and i couldn't move my legs or my arms, i couldn't even open my mouth, he said we were pulling like 7 or 8 G's, it was exciting but i'll never do it again





 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join