ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:09 am

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Some of the important notes:

Quote:
At that time, Griffith had taken one of the initial F-35A test aircraft to 583 KCAS (exceeding Mach 1.2). Now, as the pace of testing continues to accelerate despite earlier delays caused by an inflight dual generator failure, and problems with the integrated power package (IPP), the jet has been flown to Mach 1.61.
Quote:

The aircraft has also been flown to 9.9g – which is 0.9g beyond the operational limits.

On the stealth signature:

Quote:
The aircraft “is meeting or exceeding the low observable requirements, so we know we have a stealthy aircraft which is fantastic.”

It sounds like the F-35 can be pushed pretty hard in terms of performance. It seems like the claims that F-35 won't be able to exceed Mach 1.5 (i.e. from Sweetman) are shot to pieces.
 
L-188
Posts: 29874
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:30 am

But can she hang inverted with a Mig-28 in a four G negative dive?
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:44 am

Yes, it's very slow, by any standard, at least it's incredibly expensive though..
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:47 pm

The US tends to understate military capability. The F-22 was often quoted at M1.6 supercruise, but was hitting M1.78 when tested.
The Janes figures often quoted tended to use those understated figures while using somewhat optimistic numbers for certain other nations hardware.
Anon
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:51 pm

Just as comparison:

The Typhoon has reached during "real-life" tests 10,6G. It can be sustained for indefinte periods even the pilot can give speak commands through the anti G suite dragonfly.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums....php?124670-EF-Typhoon-News/page71

A Rafale pilot has flown the plane over a time of 2min at 10G.
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
wingman
Posts: 2768
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:08 pm

Auto, I think it's safe to say no American made aircraft will ever meet or exceed the performance of European aircraft or that of their European pilots. Why these Yanks even try is beyond me.
 
flagon
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:34 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:52 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The aircraft has also been flown to 9.9g – which is 0.9g beyond the operational limits

I think given the maturity of the program this detail is worth mentioning...

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 4):
The Typhoon has reached during "real-life" tests 10,6G

9g is the usual manoeuvre limit set for combat aircrafts, probably based on the rationale that the human body can not sustain very much in practical terms. That said the actual structure is sized against a load of 9G times an ultimate factor which in civil aviation is 1.5, and may even be greater in military aviation, which means that the structure of any combat aircraft is in principle capable of withstanding loads of about 13-14G.

I remember reading in article where a pilot from the agressor squadron in Miramar pulled its F21 to 13G to avoid a collision with an F14. I know you would probably want a source but I don't have it. Just saying that this kind of event happens more often than one thinks.
Stephane
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:12 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Some of the important notes:

Quote:
At that time, Griffith had taken one of the initial F-35A test aircraft to 583 KCAS (exceeding Mach 1.2). Now, as the pace of testing continues to accelerate despite earlier delays caused by an inflight dual generator failure, and problems with the integrated power package (IPP), the jet has been flown to Mach 1.61.
Quote:

The aircraft has also been flown to 9.9g – which is 0.9g beyond the operational limits.

On the stealth signature:

Quote:
The aircraft “is meeting or exceeding the low observable requirements, so we know we have a stealthy aircraft which is fantastic.”

It sounds like the F-35 can be pushed pretty hard in terms of performance. It seems like the claims that F-35 won't be able to exceed Mach 1.5 (i.e. from Sweetman) are shot to pieces.

All that said, many many problems exist in the F-35 program and are significant enough that DoD itself has recommended a reduction in the LRIP rate. Some of the problems are identified as "major". One of the majors is classified and I would guess (and it is a guess) that it relates to stealth. High angle of attack buffet, the helmet system, and "mission systems" are also identified as major.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ling-early-f-35-production-365933/
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
GST
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:27 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:26 pm

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 4):
A Rafale pilot has flown the plane over a time of 2min at 10G.


eek!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_Coaster

Quote:

The Euthanasia Coaster is an art concept for a steel roller coaster designed to kill its passengers...The ride's seven inversions would inflict 10 g on its passengers for 60 seconds

I know the Rafale pilot is used to the effects of g, and probably trained for this demonstrator mission specifically, and is wearing a g suit but...blimey!
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5181
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:09 pm




Quoting flagon (Reply 6):
I remember reading in article where a pilot from the agressor squadron in Miramar pulled its F21 to 13G to avoid a collision with an F14.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thomas P. McManus
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tyler Rogoway - Hangar Seventy One Aviation Photo Works


It would be very enlightening to see the Kfir doing that.....

http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...cts/kfir-jet/images/2-kfir-jet.jpg
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:13 pm

Quoting flagon (Reply 6):
9g is the usual manoeuvre limit set for combat aircrafts, probably based on the rationale that the human body can not sustain very much in practical terms.

Wrong, new anti g suits like the dragon fly G-Multiplus can enable trained pilots to sustain 9g even without pressure breathing and Eurofighter pilots to fly with 10g for a indefinite time.
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
flagon
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:34 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:02 pm

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 10):
Quoting flagon (Reply 6):
9g is the usual manoeuvre limit set for combat aircrafts, probably based on the rationale that the human body can not sustain very much in practical terms.

Wrong, new anti g suits like the dragon fly G-Multiplus can enable trained pilots to sustain 9g even without pressure breathing and Eurofighter pilots to fly with 10g for a indefinite time.

That's not wrong, as 9G is the usual load limit against which most of fighters have been designed to so far (Typhoon may be an exception I don't know but that's not the point). This limit, whether it 7G or 9G or whatever it has to be according to the aircraft specifications, is driven by human limitations since structurally speaking there is nothing preventing the plane designer from designing the structure so that it can withstand silly accelerations like 50G, appart from the fact that this would add ridiculous and unecessary amount of weight in the airframe.

I just wanted to point out that when you see an operational limit of 9G or something quoted for a given aircraft, that does not mean it cannot be exceeded in the real life (providing that the pilot can sustain it one way or another via g-suits or seats "a la F-16" maybe) as there is additional structural margin baked into the design via an ultimate factor as mentioned in my previous post.
Stephane
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:02 pm

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 10):
Wrong, new anti g suits like the dragon fly G-Multiplus can enable trained pilots to sustain 9g even without pressure breathing and Eurofighter pilots to fly with 10g for a indefinite time.

Why it makes the eurofighter the number one choice for airshows.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11764
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:54 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 1):
But can she hang inverted with a Mig-28 in a four G negative dive?

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

  
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
vzlet
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:34 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:24 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
It seems like the claims that F-35 won't be able to exceed Mach 1.5 (i.e. from Sweetman) are shot to pieces.

Mach 1.5 has indeed been met and exceeded, but not without pain:

"Finally, recent testing at Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, revealed excessive structural heating with the afterburner on for extended periods. Flight tests to speeds up to Mach 1.6 with the afterburner engaged for several minutes generated enough heat to damage the horizontal tail (peeling and bubbling of coating about the size of a fist). There was also some degradation of thermal panels in the engine. While solutions are being evaluated, the program office has established aircraft operations limits, reducing the top speed to Mach 1.0 with afterburner operations limited to 1-2 minutes. In order to get full afterburner performance back in the aircraft, it may be necessary to change the material and or add structure to the tail."

(From page 18 of the F-35 Concurrency Review at http://www.pogo.org/resources/nation...y-quick-look-review-20111129.html)
"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:25 pm

Quoting vzlet (Reply 14):
Mach 1.5 has indeed been met and exceeded, but not without pain:

Excellent news. They found and issue during flight testing, you know, what they are supposed to do, and will soon have the problem corrected.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:55 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 15):
Excellent news. They found and issue during flight testing, you know, what they are supposed to do, and will soon have the problem corrected.

When in doubt, rationalize.    This is still a deeply troubled program.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:30 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 15):
They found and issue during flight testing

Once again an obvious engineering miscalculation that should have been identified in computer modeling is found in flight test... so how many airframes will require extensive rebuild.

I'ts time to stop production entirely until all the miscalculations are identified, resolved and tested. what good will 60+ birds waiting for rebuild do anybody.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5181
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:43 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 17):
I'ts time to stop production entirely until all the miscalculations are identified, resolved and tested. what good will 60+ birds waiting for rebuild do anybody.

Apart from price and offset arrangements, could that be the reason why Japan's defense ministry is holding out on making an announcement and confirming its choice?

.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...or-f-x-requirement-reports-365971/

Quote:
"Several major Japanese publications cited sources as saying that Tokyo favoured the F-35A in the 40-aircraft deal, and suggested that the decision will be officially announced on 16 December. The deal is expected to value $8 billion, they said.

Japan's defence ministry declined to confirm when an announcement will be made, adding: 'the government has not yet decided the type of aircraft'."



Of course, the reports did not mention which year.  
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1491
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:43 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 15):
Excellent news. They found and issue during flight testing, you know, what they are supposed to do, and will soon have the problem corrected.

You must be joking. "Several minutes" of afterburner use that may end up forcing you to add *structure* to the tail. You call that a routine oversight?...sigh...

In the words of connies4ever: deeply troubled. The quicker the program is put out of its misery the better for everyone.

Faro
The chalice not my son
 
flagon
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:34 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:15 pm

I could easily understand if the programme was troubled by various software and system issues. However the amount of fatigue and crack issues they seem to have to deal with at this stage of the programme still amazes me as nowadays you would expect this kind of things to be a lot more under control, especially with the experience and the lessons learnt from the F22 which I believe uses roughly the same airframe design phylosphy (internal parts metallic, external parts composite wherever possible).
I guess the complexity of the programme does not help, the F35B variant alone with all the moveables everywhere must be quite challenging....
Stephane
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:34 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 17):
Once again an obvious engineering miscalculation
Quoting faro (Reply 19):
You must be joking.

Oh, here we go again, people who think they are smarter or can do a better job than the engineers at Lockheed. There hasn't been ONE single aircraft in production since the beginning of time that hasn't had issues during testing. I guess they should have cancelled the Raptor program when it landed wheels up. Somehow, the anti-jsf fanboi's think the F35 should be PERFECT after the first rivet is installed.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:36 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 21):
Oh, here we go again, people who think they are smarter or can do a better job than the engineers at Lockheed. There hasn't been ONE single aircraft in production since the beginning of time that hasn't had issues during testing. I guess they should have cancelled the Raptor program when it landed wheels up. Somehow, the anti-jsf fanboi's think the F35 should be PERFECT after the first rivet is installed.

How long since FF ? How many prototype, SDD, and LRIP a/c produced and flying ? And there are still so many issues that the DoD itself is recommending cutting back production so the problems can (possibly) be sorted out. The 'secret' problem we don't know. So, as Rummy would have said, it's an unknown unknown.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:40 am

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 22):
And there are still so many issues that the DoD itself is recommending cutting back production so the problems can (possibly) be sorted out

You say this like it's a bad thing.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:15 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 23):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 22):
And there are still so many issues that the DoD itself is recommending cutting back production so the problems can (possibly) be sorted out

You say this like it's a bad thing.

After this long long period of testing, and now using production a/c, yes, it is a bad thing. It's an indicator that the overall design is possibly not robust, and that the production process is not well controlled, if controlled at all.

This was supposed to be a "super fighter", best in brand, produced by the smartest brains money could buy (money apparently not being an object in this exercise), and using the best computer-aided design and production tools available.

And what is the result to date ? Oh, well, near the afterburner there is evidence of heat damage. Who would have ever thought surfaces near the AB would get hot ? The helmet system not working. High AoA buffet, high AoA ability being touted as one of the a/c's strengths. And of course the "classified" problem - whatever that might be.

Where/when does this end and how much more will civilians, who foot the military bill, be soaked for ? {Apologies for my dangling participle}
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:00 am

Every past fighter has had issues. The F-15 had buffet problems until the wing tips were raked. The F-22 had software and thermal problems. These issues may be typical of modern aircraft development.


However think of it this way; the F-35 is not one fighter program: its three... so its aggregating the problems inherent in three different macro requirements into a single airframe. Given the in depth coverage of this fighter, I think alot of people are going OMG ITS A DISASTER! without understanding that #1 this is not exceptional, #2 the program is 1/5th of the way through its development process when you're probably going to see the most issues crop up.

I think for people who are most concerned about the structural issue should re-read this line in the report:

Although major failures have occurred early in fatigue testing, they are not remarkable when viewed against the background of other tactical aircraft programs. They appear to be individual engineering failures of the kind routinely discovered in fatigue testing. (page 13)
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6409
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:12 am

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 24):
After this long long period of testing, and now using production a/c, yes, it is a bad thing. It's an indicator that the overall design is possibly not robust, and that the production process is not well controlled, if controlled at all.

I think that few people realize the magnitude of work which goes into developing a modern fighter which really has a performance edge on existing planes. How many years did the Typhoon take? Roughly two decades.

There is one other major difference compared to earlier days. During the Cold War new planes were often rushed into production. We can begin with the F-100. How many pilots did the F-100A unnecessarily kill? It wasn't until the F-100D that the worst shortcomings had been ironed out. Many planes got far out in the alphabet with their suffix version identification or Mark number before the initial performance specs were met. Early versions were often fast either scrapped, rebuilt into newer versions, or sometimes handed over to training units.

Today is different. It has no meaning to produce production F-35s which are just as good or marginally better than an F-16 (which is a magnificent plane). Better keep the F-16 flying and finish off the F-35 development completely.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2104
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:30 am

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 26):
I think that few people realize the magnitude of work which goes into developing a modern fighter which really has a performance edge on existing planes. How many years did the Typhoon take? Roughly two decades.

There is one other major difference compared to earlier days. During the Cold War new planes were often rushed into production. We can begin with the F-100. How many pilots did the F-100A unnecessarily kill? It wasn't until the F-100D that the worst shortcomings had been ironed out. Many planes got far out in the alphabet with their suffix version identification or Mark number before the initial performance specs were met. Early versions were often fast either scrapped, rebuilt into newer versions, or sometimes handed over to training units.

Today is different. It has no meaning to produce production F-35s which are just as good or marginally better than an F-16 (which is a magnificent plane). Better keep the F-16 flying and finish off the F-35 development completely.

Thank you for a great counterpoint to the naysayers. Any program is going to have its share of difficulties, but all the more so when pushing the edge and especially when combining different service requirements. How much teething problems did the Harrier have? The V-22? Anyone on this forum should have a pretty good idea of the various military aviation programs that went thru numerous problems but wound up being great and viable airframes.

I for one hope the F-35 keeps pushing thru. And here's the biggest point I think some people are missing... it's not like if we scrapped it and started another replacement aircraft program to replace the same 4th gen fighters that that program is going to be flawless, on time and on budget. It would have its own share of problems, so why waste all the capitol and experience invested in the F-35? That would be the colossal waste, not continuing on and fine tuning this bird.
Here Here for Severe Clear!
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:45 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 21):
Oh, here we go again, people who think they are smarter or can do a better job than the engineers at Lockheed.


Maybe it's the pot calling the kettle black... I have 35 years in the business... if your profile age is correct, I wonder where the "knowledge" comes from that's constantly spouted. Simple things like swapping AL for TI without stress checks, failing to profile afterburner heat patterns impact on adjacent surfaces, etc. are not things to be caught on line 20 in flight test.. They are basic engineering. Yes they can all be fixed, but the point is they should never have happened. As this story goes on, it appears that the company was so busy selling the plane to the government that they skimped on the design end and will be playing catch up at added taxpayer cost for some time.

When I suggest the stop production until they have the issues resolved, it's not because I dislike the plane, it's because I dislike the cost escalation.
 
L-188
Posts: 29874
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:19 am

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 24):
Oh, well, near the afterburner there is evidence of heat damage. Who would have ever thought surfaces near the AB would get hot ?

Take a look at some of the photos of the F-100. All of them pretty much have heat discoloration on the fuselage forward of the empanage from the engine. Some of the aircraft in Nam the SEATAC paint is litterally burned off.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 25):
Every past fighter has had issues. The F-15 had buffet problems until the wing tips were raked. The F-22 had software and thermal problems. These issues may be typical of modern aircraft development.

Agreed and not just modern aircraft.

The YP38 crashed
The YP51 crashed
The YB17 crashed
The YB29 crashed
The F4U-1 prototype crashed
The F-14 prototype crashed
The Saab Griffen crashed
The F-16 prototype crashed

One of the reasons you fly prototypes is to find out flaws. I think it was Bud Anderson who said, "Never Fly the A model of ANYTHING!!!"

Quoting flagon (Reply 20):
However the amount of fatigue and crack issues they seem to have to deal with at this stage of the programme still amazes me as nowadays you would expect this kind of things to be a lot more under control, especially with the experience and the lessons learnt from the F22 which I believe uses roughly the same airframe design phylosphy (internal parts metallic, external parts composite wherever possible).

Part of me wants to agree with you but by the same token I also think that a lot of the reason it hasn't is that the engineers are using the electronics to cut a sharper blade then was possible in draft paper days. In other words rather then using the computers to build a more rugged aircraft, they are using it to get closer to the failure point for better performace.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 13):
Quoting L-188 (Reply 1):
But can she hang inverted with a Mig-28 in a four G negative dive?

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you

Ok, I am secure enough in my manhood to read the Meg Ryan/Kelly McGillis lines.....Take me to bed or loose me forever
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:07 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 29):
Part of me wants to agree with you but by the same token I also think that a lot of the reason it hasn't is that the engineers are using the electronics to cut a sharper blade then was possible in draft paper days. In other words rather then using the computers to build a more rugged aircraft, they are using it to get closer to the failure point for better performace.

Indeed.

Finding cracks during testing is normal and is to be expected. If you aren't finding cracks during testing, then you have heavily overbuilt the airplane, and haven't gotten the most structural efficiency you could. Practically every fighter design in current service has had issues structurally that were discovered during testing, and fixed then. The testing phase is the best time to fix issues that are discovered then, as you don't want to IOC a type and then discover major structural flaws down the road (like the F/A-18), or many years down the road (like the F-15).
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:36 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 30):
Finding cracks during testing is normal


some at the envelope extremes yes, those within the "really safe" end of the envelope no... the bulkhead cracking is the latter, not the former.

We are so to conditioned to expect modification/repair programs to make new military planes meet specs, and the associated cost overruns, that we see it as the 'normal' way of doing business. Most of these items come from skimping on engineering analysis and computer modeling. Yes some things require actual flight test to locate, but too many of the F-35's problems I believe result from the old "government will pay for the modifications if they want the product" syndrome. Some on the electronic side appear to be from pushing lab technology before it is robust enough for production and mission use. Yes everybody wants the latest.. and some test results look great, but let's limit the test fleet size until both the plane and the equipment are robust enough for production.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:02 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 28):
but the point is they should never have happened.

Nothing is built perfect the first time. This is why the first F35 off the line didn't go straight into service. This program is no different than any other fighter jet that was developed in the last 100 years. Thinking it should be perfect and problems shouldn't exist is ignorant and asinine.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:16 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 25):
Every past fighter has had issues. The F-15 had buffet problems until the wing tips were raked. The F-22 had software and thermal problems. These issues may be typical of modern aircraft development.
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 26):
During the Cold War new planes were often rushed into production. We can begin with the F-100. How many pilots did the F-100A unnecessarily kill? It wasn't until the F-100D that the worst shortcomings had been ironed out.
Quoting L-188 (Reply 29):
The YP38 crashed
The YP51 crashed
The YB17 crashed
The YB29 crashed
The F4U-1 prototype crashed
The F-14 prototype crashed
The Saab Griffen crashed
The F-16 prototype crashed

Quite. And none of these a/c were designed using CAD and numerical windtunnels. Edge issues will often bite you and that's what the two tools aforementioned are supposed to protect you from, in addition to giving you a sound design. Apparently not with the F-35.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:43 pm

At least there have been no instances of the pilot's O2 supply being lethally deficient, several years AFTER entering service.

It's the same with the A400M, some seem to be unaware or choose to forget, that the C-17 had major developmental problems, faced cancellation, had significant opponents on Capitol Hill.
Though one opponent who tried hard to cancel it, the then Defence Secretary, Dick Cheney, might have the additional motivation of the C-17 being built in his political enemies backyard, as we saw at the time with a range of other programs he went after, even if they were, like the C-17, important for the post Cold War military rather then just a hangover from it.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6663
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:57 pm

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 26):
I think that few people realize the magnitude of work which goes into developing a modern fighter which really has a performance edge on existing planes. How many years did the Typhoon take? Roughly two decades.

Here's the issue I have with this principle being applied wholesale to all new programs. We are supposed to be in the age of computers when complex shapes are modelled in software, built to the specifications in different locations, and when bought together they fit like a glove, in most instances with minimal if any adjustments.

Somehow, computers do not seem to have reduced cost or time to market for these programs but in every other facet of live they have improved efficiency, speed and productivity. Example the F-22, as much as persons today are talking about continuing production, the F-35 is presently a mirror of the F-22 program, by the time the a/c gets into the hands of the services, its technology will be obsolete. The F-22 went from pure fighter, to attack a/c and one and one, does anyone today really know the reason why it took over a decade to get the a/c into production?

The F-35 like all current programs suffers from high cost, this was before it was even selected, hence one frame being selected to perform a multitude of functions across three different services, folks shudder to think of the cost if 3 seperate a/c were selected.

That's an idea, rather than selecting one frame the bid should have been to see which company could produce a frame at a lower cost and let the services select. Dreaming I know, no one makes prototypes and offers them up, what you make is a sale pitch and let the government pay for the prototype.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:38 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 32):
Nothing is built perfect the first time. This is why the first F35 off the line didn't go straight into service. This program is no different than any other fighter jet that was developed in the last 100 years. Thinking it should be perfect and problems shouldn't exist is ignorant and asinine.



Look nobody is saying items don't crop up in a test program, what I'm saying is some of the problems in this program should not have cropped up.. They are a result of shoddy engineering and company management policies... Now maybe your expectations based on a limited life experience make it OK. It's not OK with me. I also believe that your 100 years of precedence is equally faulty. The idea that we keep building these planes with defects that must be repaired at great cost is stupid.
 
L-188
Posts: 29874
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:10 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 33):
The F-16 prototype crashed

Quite. And none of these a/c were designed using CAD and numerical windtunnels.

I think the guys from Saab might disagree
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:18 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 37):
I think the guys from Saab might disagree

Got me on that one.   I missed it in the list.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6409
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:38 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 29):
I think it was Bud Anderson who said, "Never Fly the A model of ANYTHING!!!"

Ha ha! And he sure knows what he is talking about.

That same Bud Anderson, throughout his professional career, when he didn't fly an A model, then it was usually something even worse, an X or Y thing.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:58 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 21):
I guess they should have cancelled the Raptor program when it landed wheels up.

I guess I'm slow in the mornings...since no F-22 has landed wheels up (as far as I know), what is the meaning behind the statement?
 
GST
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:27 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:12 am

Quoting checksixx (Reply 40):

I guess I'm slow in the mornings...since no F-22 has landed wheels up (as far as I know), what is the meaning behind the statement?

One has in flight testing after computer problems affecting flight controls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faB5bIdksi8
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:19 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 35):
Here's the issue I have with this principle being applied wholesale to all new programs. We are supposed to be in the age of computers when complex shapes are modelled in software, built to the specifications in different locations, and when bought together they fit like a glove, in most instances with minimal if any adjustments.

I think you have unrealistic expectations. Computer designs takes away a lot of uncertainty but not all.

Quoting par13del (Reply 35):
Somehow, computers do not seem to have reduced cost or time to market for these programs but in every other facet of live they have improved efficiency, speed and productivity

They have provided all of that. But then it has been directed towards additional performance.

Quoting kanban (Reply 36):
Look nobody is saying items don't crop up in a test program, what I'm saying is some of the problems in this program should not have cropped up.. They are a result of shoddy engineering and company management policies...

I think this is fair.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:41 pm

Quoting wingman (Reply 5):
I think it's safe to say no American made aircraft will ever meet or exceed the performance of European aircraft or that of their European pilots. Why these Yanks even try is beyond me.

I guess that is why Europeans bought so many F-86s, F-104s, F-4s, and F-16s? France also bought several F-100s. Also, what is the actual kill ratio of European pilots over enemy pilots vs. US pilots over enemy pilots? That is the true standard for fighter pilot performance world wide.

The US flies to the edge of the envelope so Europe doesn't have to.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 9862
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:00 pm

Quoting faro (Reply 19):
You must be joking. "Several minutes" of afterburner use that may end up forcing you to add *structure* to the tail. You call that a routine oversight?...sigh...

You can say whatever you like to Powerslide but he's the biggest fanboy I've ever seen, this program could be canned and he would still sing it praises.

It's now being re-examined in Norway, the opposition and the press are starting to make a lot of noise, even the normally sheep like Norwegians public are questioning the cost of this purchase; IMO sooner or later some country is going to cancel and others will follow.
 
zanl188
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:20 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):
France also bought several F-100s.

Not to mention the F-8s...
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:41 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 29):
Take a look at some of the photos of the F-100. All of them pretty much have heat discoloration on the fuselage forward of the empanage from the engine. Some of the aircraft in Nam the SEATAC paint is litterally burned off.

That area you say is "heat discoloration" is in fact titanium. Titanium was used because of the heat produced by the afterburner.
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:06 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):
The US flies to the edge of the envelope so Europe doesn't have to.

British and French veterans of Suez might disagree - an action (rightly) stopped by US pressure.
Then the RN and RAF pilots in 1982, even with aircraft not really designed for the job, with minimal numbers and support and the nearest friendly base 3000 miles away - THAT is edge of the envelope, in human factors at least.

What if the RAAF had sent Mirage IIIE aircraft to Vietnam as well as Australian troops? Unknowable though we can reference the performance of the same aircraft in the Middle East at the time.
(Though range and endurance might have been an issue in SE Asia).

I believe the only air to air in Kosovo in 1999 - against a Mig-29 not an long obsolete model - was by the Dutch.
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:35 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 47):

And let's not forget the UK's contribution to Top Gun (the real thing, not the movie) - "the RN shows the US how to fly to the edge of the envelope".  
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1428
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's

Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:43 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):
guess that is why Europeans bought so many F-86s, F-104s, F-4s, and F-16s? France also bought several F-100s. Also, what is the actual kill ratio of European pilots over enemy pilots vs. US pilots over enemy pilots? That is the true standard for fighter pilot performance world wide.
.

Common, let's put things in perspective here,
The kill ratio of both US and European pilots is next to negligible post WWII and Korea, fact is that most
important big aerial wars have been fought outside of Europe and the US and without the use of their respective pilots.

The US almost had air dominance from day one over most of Vietnam during the entire span of the conflict, besides
Vietnam there hasn't been one serious War that needed the full force of both the USAF and the NAVY/MARINES.
Same can be said about Europe, besides the Falklands and the UK and a number of small interventions their hasn't
been one serious War European nations where involved in until the 2nd Gulf War in '91.

That War was a joint effort between many nations whereby we had such an overweight against the Iraqis that an "air-war" would be serious overstatement, it was more an air-bombardment campaign that lead to a 100hr ground campaign and a subsequent overwhelming victory.
In the 3rd Gulf WAR between the USA/UK and IRAQ there wasn't even talk of IRAQI airborne resistance anymore.

Most post WWII full scale air-wars where fought between IRAQ-IRAN, ISRAEL and its neighbours, INDIA-PAKISTAN
and some other smaller conflicts around the globe, none of them directly involving both US and EUROPEAN forces.
Making a comparison as to their effectiveness is virtually impossible, if not completely absurd knowing that training
methodology, weapon systems, and level of available technology is as good as on par, besides I don't think the US
perceives any real threat coming from its European partners, it sure hasn't restructured its military so that they plan
for another war on European soil.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):

The US flies to the edge of the envelope so Europe doesn't have to.

Correction;
The US is willing to fly/fight to the edge if their own interests are at stake, same as other nations they do nothing
or the least possible if there is nothing to gain or protect something they would otherwise loose, eg Oil-Gas or other important supplies, strategic locations, important trade opportunities-partners.

What's true for the US and before the collapse of the Warsaw pact also the USSR is that the US is bend on setting
up big important strategically placed military posts outside of the US, they realize that being a superpower means
that you want to bring the fight to the opposers territory, preferably fighting its wars as far away as possible from US soil, best on the opposers grounds and if need be on an allie's territory.
Just look at how they now invest in tighter relations with Australia as such being able to set up a new big military
base on Australian ground ,again strategically placed to fight new conflicts protecting its interests in the new rising
economical centers of SE ASIA.

Don't get me wrong, I don't object to the US being in so many locations outside of its own borders, they are good
friends and good allies and I must admit that usually we all can count on you guys if needs be.
However I think we all need to realize that the umbrella they provide is always dependent on its own interests therefor
a healthy level of skepticism is a sound approach (Eg the last IRAQ war).
There are always a number of nations that want to be "the boss" and all things being equal I believe that the US is a better "boss" than many other candidates.

[Edited 2011-12-17 11:46:02]

[Edited 2011-12-17 11:46:30]
[edit post]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sierra3tango and 12 guests