Author Topic: F-35 "lighting II"? (Read 2748 times)

Reynolds · « **Reply #45 on:** July 03, 2006, 01:28:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
One large engine is more efficient than two medium engines. Extra engines= extra weight, more fuel consumption, and less room for fuel.

Having two engines increases reliability, but just by a tiny margin. When do most engines fail, level flight? No. Engines fail when an aircraft is in unusual situations, take-off, extreme maneuvering, etc. These are times when the remaining engine has the least chance of providing sufficient power to help the aircraft recover (ex: Mig29 airshow crashes, F-14 crashes).

There is one thing that adding a backseater really improves however. That is reducing the chances of friendly fire. The airforce had more friendly fire incidents than the Navy in the Serbian Air War in the late 90s. This was attributed to Navy F-14s having two sets of eyes compared to the Airforces A-10s and F-16s one set.

I have an old quote, which IS outdated, but it makes sense:

"One day in 1945 cries of distress were heard over the radio somewhere above the south china sea. "My engine's hit, im losing coolant - what'll i do?" Savvy P-38 pilots [veterans of the 8th Fighter Group] in the air at the time tried to advise the obviously green fellow in distress. "Calm down and feather it." Then came the dejected reply, "Feather, hell. I'm flying a P-51!" - John Stanaway, P-38 historian

Yeah. I always like that extra engine!

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #46 on:** July 03, 2006, 06:02:58 AM »

Just compare the F-16 and F/A-18. They are very good examples of the single engine vs twin engine concept. The F-16 has better performance in top speed, climb rate, turning, range, etc.

eagl · « **Reply #47 on:** July 03, 2006, 07:27:16 AM »

Shrimp, if you were right then the F-22, Mig-29, Su-27, Rafale, Eurofighter, B-1, B-2, and B-52 would all be single engine designs.

You're not right, sorry.

The only thing you get from a single engine design is a lower cost per airframe. The cost savings can be up to 25% per aircraft, and that looks very attractive to people who are concerned with the financial bottom line. You can't even use simplicity as an argument because single engine planes have lots of other redundancy built in to counter the fact that if that one enigne goes, then the plane has no primary electrical or hydraulic power. The F-16 is a great example, having a costly and hazardous hydrazine powered auxiliary generator.

Personally, I'd rather have fewer twin engine dual-seat aircraft than more single engine single seat aircraft, but that's because I almost always favor quality over quantity.

The fact that I've always flown twin engine jets in my career makes me a bit biased, but I thought a long time about it and decided that I wanted two engines before I graduated pilot training.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #48 on:** July 03, 2006, 09:42:39 AM »

What reynolds is forgetting is the STOVL version is designed to replace the Marine Corps and Royal navy Harriers which are at the end and then some of their usfull life span. The STOVL version is third or fourth generation using this technology so I'm pretty sure they've figured out by now how to prevent coorosion on planes going out to sea.

The Harrier is ingrained in the MAGTF concept (Marine Air to Ground Task Force) so just swichting them over or boxing up the engines isn't an option without completly redisigning how US Marines storm a beach head.

There's a few things I agree with eagl on this but he's an eagle driver so I do beleive he is inherently biased (sorry sir just my opinion)

I don't think the JSF is an end all answer but a good start. I just recently read where the A10 might be upgraded and kept around. Everytime they think about retiring that plane a war happens and they realize it's usfullness.

Elfie · « **Reply #49 on:** July 03, 2006, 01:19:23 PM »

Quote

I just recently read where the A10 might be upgraded and kept around. Everytime they think about retiring that plane a war happens and they realize it's usfullness.

What is the Air Force gonna use for a tank buster if they retire the A-10? Or will they leave tank busting to the Army's Apache helicopters?

Reynolds · « **Reply #50 on:** July 03, 2006, 01:33:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
What reynolds is forgetting is the STOVL version is designed to replace the Marine Corps and Royal navy Harriers which are at the end and then some of their usfull life span. The STOVL version is third or fourth generation using this technology so I'm pretty sure they've figured out by now how to prevent coorosion on planes going out to sea.

The Harrier is ingrained in the MAGTF concept (Marine Air to Ground Task Force) so just swichting them over or boxing up the engines isn't an option without completly redisigning how US Marines storm a beach head.

There's a few things I agree with eagl on this but he's an eagle driver so I do beleive he is inherently biased (sorry sir just my opinion)

I don't think the JSF is an end all answer but a good start. I just recently read where the A10 might be upgraded and kept around. Everytime they think about retiring that plane a war happens and they realize it's usfullness.

Now, unless they have changed the system for STOVL, (which they might have, its been a while since i looked...) the whole engine twists and rotates into a downward facing direction. Now, i know the harrier's engines turned... but they just rotated on a swivel! This whole twist turn face open system, this is NEW. I really think that is going to have trouble with corrosion, because there are soo Golly-geened many slits and slats that water can get into.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #51 on:** July 03, 2006, 01:57:19 PM »

The whole engine does not twist down, that would be something like the Osprey.

The F-35 exhaust nozzle vectors down and a lift fan engages.

Similarly on the Harrier, four nozzles twist down to shove the air vertically to lift the a/c. Its engine is firmly fixed within the airframe.

Reschke · « **Reply #52 on:** July 03, 2006, 01:57:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Reynolds
If they complain enough, and start crashing, im sure someone higher up but not too high (ie: squadron commander or even carrier comander) will say "I know how you feel, go ahead, ill back you up on it"

This isn't Battlestar Galatica where they can build a spaceship out of bailing wire, duck tape and plexiglass with two rockets strapped down on the frame. These machines actually have to be fitted together in a manner that is very specific. I am sure that some if not a great deal of these ground crews can modify something but I seriously doubt that even the most blowhard gung ho groundcrew or aircrew wants to screw around with rebuilding a multi-million dollar fighter just to appease some jack ass. Besides you need to stop and think before you write something like that or at least do a little basic research on the aircraft you are writing about and form you ideas and thoughts into coherent sentences with actual thought processes before you type it out on here.

Reynolds · « **Reply #53 on:** July 03, 2006, 02:28:19 PM »

Hey, who knows whats going to happen? But thats what i forsee happaning.

And that exhaust nozel twists and points down, its got a huge fan in the top... its nothing we have ever used before, and so it will be very hard to use and maintain at first.

Brenjen · « **Reply #54 on:** July 03, 2006, 02:36:54 PM »

Holden pretty much spelled it out for you, & in a fatherly way too complete with pictures. That was great man.

Reynolds in your opinion the F-35 system is going to suck, I think we all get it.

In my opinion, the entire air arm of the U.S. using this bird or a variant of it as the mid-level workhorse is going to suck, I can see adding it to the inventory to replace the harrier, & maybe even phasing out some of the F-16's & replacing them with this thing, but I would bet our security on a twin engined machine along the lines of the F-14 & F-15 & I would absolutely not take the A-10 out of service without something even better to replace it. If anything I'd save money by ditching the apaches & going with the super cobras & A-10's

Reynolds · « **Reply #55 on:** July 03, 2006, 03:17:37 PM »

I think eventually the JSF will be effective, but not until they work out the bugs. I say they should slowly fase them in. Put up one squadron, and just find all the problems before they go en masse.

Jebus · « **Reply #56 on:** July 03, 2006, 04:12:10 PM »

I think the F-35 should be called the vulcher. No that is a good nickname for that bird. Much better than the other names they mentioned.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #57 on:** July 03, 2006, 05:44:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Reynolds
Now, unless they have changed the system for STOVL, (which they might have, its been a while since i looked...) the whole engine twists and rotates into a downward facing direction. Now, i know the harrier's engines turned... but they just rotated on a swivel! This whole twist turn face open system, this is NEW. I really think that is going to have trouble with corrosion, because there are soo Golly-geened many slits and slats that water can get into.

Look,

You really need to read about a subject before you try and debate it.

The STOVL engines on the F-35 do not twist, just the nozele in the back with a fan in the middle.

On the harrier wich is a VTOL there are as pointed out 4 nozels that pivot downwards to change the direction of thrust. In addition the wing tips and tail all have exaust slats on them to help change direction on it's horizontal and vertical axis.

THey've been flying harriers since the late 60s......this is old technology.

Reynolds · « **Reply #58 on:** July 03, 2006, 05:48:33 PM »

Im sorry i phrased it improperly for you. By saying engine, i mean "the point in the aircraft in which the heated exhaust from the engine leaves the fuselage in order to provide thrust". I said engine, meant "engine nozel" Surely im not the first one to mix up those two words. The engine nozel twists and points downward. I have a video link i will provide in just a second.

ASTAC · « **Reply #59 on:** July 03, 2006, 05:52:33 PM »

They can call it what they want..The real name should be "Last manned US warplane"

At least thats what the word on the street in the military is. That concerns me quite a bit.