Author Topic: Jsf  (Read 892 times)

Offline icemaw

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2057
Jsf
« Reply #15 on: July 11, 2006, 01:23:48 PM »
lol eagle guess thats why the USAF hates the a10 so much!
Army of Das Muppets     
Member DFC Furballers INC. If you cant piss with big dogs go run with the pack

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
Jsf
« Reply #16 on: July 11, 2006, 03:19:45 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by eagl
anything that doesn't look cool must be a colossal foul-up and is to be avoided at all costs.  If you look like a clown, you must actually BE a clown.  If you look cool, chances are you're doing things right and nobody's going to question what you're really doing.


how do you explain this: -



over this bad boy: -

I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline LePaul

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7988
Jsf
« Reply #17 on: July 11, 2006, 04:38:04 PM »
I'll admit, the other one does look cooler.  What made em pick the 22 over the 21?  (I think it was the 21?)

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
Jsf
« Reply #18 on: July 11, 2006, 05:23:33 PM »
its a 23.

YF23 looked like something out of a sci fi movie... was so cool.

i heard it actually outperformed the 22 but was much more expensive, why they opted for the 22.

i am probably wrong though and im sure mr.eagl will correct me ;)
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline eagl

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6769
Jsf
« Reply #19 on: July 11, 2006, 05:24:52 PM »
The YF-22 didn't look quite as cool as the 23, but they both looked cool enough that the actual qualities of the plane and contract made the decision.

I read that the YF-22 favored maneuverability over stealth, sort of opposite of the YF-23, and that factored into the decision.  The YF-23 did not have thrust vectoring and with that v-tail probably would not have had quite as aggressive of a flight envelope.
Everyone I know, goes away, in the end.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Jsf
« Reply #20 on: July 11, 2006, 06:03:58 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by LePaul
I'll admit, the other one does look cooler.  What made em pick the 22 over the 21?  (I think it was the 21?)


IIRC, the F-23 had a tendency to leave vapor trails off the wing-tips during high G maneuvers. Was a bit of a give away.
sand

Offline LePaul

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7988
Jsf
« Reply #21 on: July 12, 2006, 12:21:29 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
IIRC, the F-23 had a tendency to leave vapor trails off the wing-tips during high G maneuvers. Was a bit of a give away.


Yea but Sandy, if you should be DEAD before you ever get that close to one!

:)

When I met Chuck Yeager, he autographed an 8x10 glossy of him in front of one of those.

Found it  (sorry for size...too cool to size down tho!)


Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Jsf
« Reply #22 on: July 12, 2006, 03:32:46 PM »
Well... if we're going with long range weapons, still gotta love the F-14.
sand

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
Jsf
« Reply #23 on: July 12, 2006, 04:51:29 PM »
Not if your shooting at fighters.

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
Jsf
« Reply #24 on: July 12, 2006, 04:52:02 PM »
I guess the problem with long range weapons on modern airframes is stealthing.  It takes an already difficult radar equation and turns it into a two body problem.  Carrying a stealth phoenix under a wing would seem to be verrrrry difficult, considering the radar reflection areas that would create, afaict.

I've like to see a new long range missile system, though.  My fantasy for this would probably be mounted on an AWACS for defense or launched from a bomber via a rotating dispenser.  Imagine something like 4 or 5 AMRAAMs (with datalink) mounted at the nose of a booster stage.  It's probably 6 feet or so of heavy booster then a sustainer is built between the missiles, so it's roughly the size of a Tomahawk (but a bit fatter).   Your AWACs or ELINT finds the target planes, the launching plane drops it and fires it.  The booster pushes the cargo into a high ballistic trajectory, separates, and the sustainer fires.  When it is done, the missiles disconnect and either fire or coast and fire later (depending on the situation) up around 120k-150k feet and begin heading towards their targets.  With something like this, you could trade maneuverability/accuracy for range (eg, have the missiles fire to boost the ballistic arc then glide in towards targets versus thrust vectored terminal guidance) as needed.  

Death from above!
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
Jsf
« Reply #25 on: July 12, 2006, 05:03:03 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by eagl
The YF-22 didn't look quite as cool as the 23, but they both looked cool enough that the actual qualities of the plane and contract made the decision.

I read that the YF-22 favored maneuverability over stealth, sort of opposite of the YF-23, and that factored into the decision.  The YF-23 did not have thrust vectoring and with that v-tail probably would not have had quite as aggressive of a flight envelope.


Air force secretary Don Rice said the choice was based on "confidence in the ability of the Lockheed team and Pratt and Whiney to produce the aircraft in it's engine at projected costs".  He also stated that the YF-22 offered better reliability and maintainability. Neither design was significantly more maneuverable or steay than the other.

Offline eagl

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6769
Jsf
« Reply #26 on: July 12, 2006, 06:04:53 PM »
Rip,

A few guys who were involved in the decision on the flying-test side said that the eval pilots liked the F-22 flying qualities better.  It was more maneuverable, has a better view of the outside world, etc.  Yea that may not look good on paper since both met the technical requirements, but the inputs of the evaluation pilots can still have an effect regardless.  It just means they have to be careful about how they write the press release.
Everyone I know, goes away, in the end.

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Jsf
« Reply #27 on: July 12, 2006, 09:09:50 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by eagl
Rip,

A few guys who were involved in the decision on the flying-test side said that the eval pilots liked the F-22 flying qualities better.  It was more maneuverable, has a better view of the outside world, etc.  Yea that may not look good on paper since both met the technical requirements, but the inputs of the evaluation pilots can still have an effect regardless.  It just means they have to be careful about how they write the press release.


Eagl,

I heard a different story from the ground.  Many of those that I talked to at Edwards said that the 23 beat the 22 hands down.  Not to mention they had a 22 crash during testing (landing gear collapsed)

IMHO I think the statment about Lockheed being more capable of handling such a project holds alot of weight.  

Either way it's kind sad not to see such an interesting air frame be developed for anything other than just to see it.

Offline AquaShrimp

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1706
Jsf
« Reply #28 on: July 13, 2006, 03:19:34 AM »
Am I the only one who finds the F-22 hideously ugly?  The vertical stabs are goofy looking, along with the nose of the plane.

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
Jsf
« Reply #29 on: July 13, 2006, 03:26:54 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Am I the only one who finds the F-22 hideously ugly?  The vertical stabs are goofy looking, along with the nose of the plane.


I dont find it smurfy, but it sure isnt pretty either. the jsf looks better. Im no aviation enthusiast either so i find very few jets pretty.