|
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 06:53 PM by FredT
|
Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
Not only that, but if we have an admitted F-35 project, we have it developed. It has been black for awhile now.
[edit on 13-10-2008 by Jay-in-AR]
Not many "black" programs have a website eh? With video no less
www.jsf.mil...
[edit on 10/13/08 by FredT]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 06:57 PM by Jay-in-AR
|
reply to post by Zaphod58
No the sonic boom is just as prevalent on any given day whether the speed is 650mph or 730mph... Depends on the barometric pressure. You are quite
correct.
However, the ease at which the plane achieves that pressure overload depends on a number of factors, one of which being the speed at which an observer
measures it.
eh, nevermind. I'm done here. I concede anything I didn't cover.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 07:00 PM by _Del_
|
Hypersonic refers to Mach5 and above if you're talking to anyone in aviation. I don't think I've ever run across an alternative definition.
I'm not sure why you're talking about head- or tail-winds when we are discussing speeds in the several thousand miles per hour range.
As for the project, you could fund it (or pre-fund it) completely in the black for a variety of reasons. For example, if you thought the project was
vital, and the next administration was likely to kill it.
Alternatively, you might fund an existing SAP on a shoe string or place it on life-support giving it just enough funding to keep the heart beating,
but not enough to really proceed forward in the hopes of reviving it later in happier times or when it might be deemed vital.
Or you could just cut it.
I won't pretend to know which happened here, but I'm inclined to think that we're too close to the finish line with too much invested to kill it
outright. But Waynos may be right, it may be sentimentality clouding my judgement.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 07:01 PM by Zaphod58
|
As Waynos said, hypersonic is defined as Mach 5 by the ENTIRE AVIATION WORLD.
As for a sonic boom changing speeds, the only time it changes IS barometric pressure changes, but at lower altitudes it's not going to make a huge
jump in the speed. It is much lower at higher altitudes where you have a much lower pressure. Wind speed has nothing to do with going supersonic.
Wind speed does have lots to do with how soon you can get airborne, and at what speed though.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 07:05 PM by Jay-in-AR
|
reply to post by FredT
I never said that the F-35 is still black. Neh, it is a continuation, or spinoff, of the F-22 project, with public competitive funding. However, these
things are brought to us from the black budgets.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 07:08 PM by Zaphod58
|
Where are you getting that from? There is no way that the F-35 and F-22 would have come from the same place. They were never black. Even in the
1980s when they were doing the ATF designs the entire process was pretty transparent. The black budget is used for the Special Access Projects, which
neither of these were.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 07:12 PM by Jay-in-AR
|
Look, the entire crux of the issue, and I admit I am guilty of mencing words here, is that the speed of sound is quite frankly, measured by the
velocity of sound itself. Obviously, when faced with a headwind, the breaking of said speed requires more energy as it must overcome the opposing
"currents", if you will, of sound-movement.
The point is that when you are dealing with supposed speeds of "secret" military jets, it may be better, at this time, to deal with objects we KNOW
exist and measure THEIR capabilities vs. their potential mission.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 07:14 PM by Jay-in-AR
|
The F-22 and the F-35 are NEARLY the same jet!
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 07:16 PM by Zaphod58
|
Except that just by looking at the F-35 there IS a lot that we know about it. You can make a pretty good estimate of the top speed by the shape, and
by the materials it's made out of. We know combat radius, we know weapons loadout...... We know a lot about it already.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 07:19 PM by Jay-in-AR
|
reply to post by Zaphod58
Pray tell, what would YOU guess, by looking at the F-35s shape is its potential TOP SPEED?!
[edit on 13-10-2008 by Jay-in-AR]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 07:23 PM by Zaphod58
|
  
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
PLEASE tell me you're not serious. My fiancee who knows that planes have two wings, and crash sometimes, and that's about it as far as her aviation
skills go, can tell they're not even close to the same. Oh wait, they're both stealth, they have internal weapons bays, and they have two tails.
Other than that they're not even close.
F-22:
F-35:
Ok, now show me how theyre almost the same plane. One uses 2D thrust vectoring, is a twin engine, and has four weapons bays. The other is a single
engine, with minimal thrust vectoring if any, and dual weapons bays on the belly. One is an air superiority fighter, the other is a multirole
tactical fighter/bomber.....
Please, point out how they're almost the same.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 07:30 PM by Zaphod58
|
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
You can't get an exact number for the top speed based on shape, but I'd say in the low Mach 2 range. It's too big, and has too much drag for much
more than that. Certainly not in the Mach 3 or higher range, just by looking at the general shape.
If you look at the SR-71 it's obvious that it was built for speed. It has a very low head on silhouette, and the general shape just screams speed.
The F-35 on the other hand is fairly bulky and has a lot of drag looking at it head on.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 07:34 PM by Jay-in-AR
|
The only difference between the two of those planes is that the 35 is more broad-winged. Meaning, it can flare up with thrusters for vertical
capability. Other than that, they have the same dimensions.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 07:40 PM by Zaphod58
|
So how does that make them the same plane?
As to dimensions......
F-22:
Length: 62 feet 1 inch
Wingspan: 44 feet 6 inches
Height: 16 feet 5 inches
Speed: Mach 2 class
F-35:
Length:
A- 50 feet 5 inches
B- 50 feet 5 inches
C- 50 feet 8 inches
Wingspan:
A- 35 feet 0 inches
B- 35 feet 0 inches
C- 43 feet 0 inches
29.83 feet folded
Height:
A- 15 feet 0 inches
B- 15 feet 0 inches
C- 15 feet 5 inches
Max level speed at altitude: At least Mach 1.5
You're right! They're exactly the same! [/sarcasm]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 07:43 PM by FredT
|
Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
The only difference between the two of those planes is that the 35 is more broad-winged. Meaning, it can flare up with thrusters for vertical
capability. Other than that, they have the same dimensions.
You really beleive that?
F-22
Length 62.08 feet, 18.90 meters
Height 16.67 feet, 5.08 meters
Wingspan 44.5 feet, 13.56 meters
Wing Area 840 square feet
Horizontal Tailspan 29 feet, 8.84 meters
F-35
(specs for A,B,C)
Length 50.5-51.4 ft
Wingspan 35.0 ft (10.7 m) 35.0 ft (10.7 m) 43.0 ft (13.1 m)
Height 15.0 ft (4.6 m) 15.0 ft (4.6 m) 15.5 ft (4.7 m)
Wing Area 460 ft2 (42.7 m2) 460 ft2 (42.7 m2) 620-628 ft2 (57.6 m2)
MTOW 60000lbs
its not even close. The F-35 has a single engine as well.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 07:44 PM by Shugo
|
Wow...22 and 35 the same jet? That's like saying F-18, and the F-16 are the same jet, they're completely different aircraft. I could list many MANY
ways they are different. What makes you think they're the same? You've looked at the dimensions...what makes them the same plane..."nearly"?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 07:46 PM by FredT
|
reply to post by Shugo
I think, think mind you that since they have two verticle stabilizers, internal weapons storage, and stealth they have to be the same???
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 07:48 PM by Jay-in-AR
|
"Nearly" being ratios to size. Go down the list, the dimensions ratio the same, with minor exceptions.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 07:49 PM by Shugo
|
reply to post by FredT
"That must be it"
Sarcasm much.
There are plenty of craft that somewhat resemble each other, doesn't make them the same aircraft. Anyone with a bit of aviation knowledge could tell
you that.
Good info btw Zap/Fred, hopefully said poster will read the dimensions now.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 07:50 PM by Shugo
|
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
Nearly same dimensions does not make them the same plane. Don't you know anything about roles, payloads, and range?
[edit on 13.10.2008 by Shugo]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |