Derek 2.0 Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 And that single engine has to produce a lot of heat to take the place of two engines. Way too much heat. Not only a problem for that lonely engine At what point, in terms of Knudsen number, would you say is too much "heat" for a single engine? but also for the landing surfaces for the VTOL version. Same scenario the Brits went through with the Harrier. Said scenario was solved decades ago.......hardly rocket science Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 At what point, in terms of Knudsen number, would you say is too much "heat" for a single engine? Said scenario was solved decades ago.......hardly rocket science I have no idea what this picture is trying to represent. As to the heat business, it's what causes blades to have to be coated by ceramic, which can crack, resulting in engine failure. Not to mention the intense inspection sked to try and prevent that. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 I have no idea what this picture is trying to represent. A WW II era aircraft carrier with a wooden flight deck that was made suitable to operate a VTOL air wing As to the heat business, it's what causes blades to have to be coated by ceramic, which can crack, resulting in engine failure. Not to mention the intense inspection sked to try and prevent that. So that's a no on you providing a Knudsen number to define what's too "hot"? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 A WW II era aircraft carrier with a wooden flight deck that was made suitable to operate a VTOL air wing So that's a no on you providing a Knudsen number to define what's too "hot"? It's a no no when it exceeds the ability of the engine components to contain it. At that point you get what's called "thermal creep" which can and had lead to catastrophic failure. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) It's a no no when it exceeds the ability of the engine components to contain it. At that point you get what's called "thermal creep" which can and had lead to catastrophic failure. No it is then I see….I won’t waste anymore of your time, since you’re clearly not versed in a engineering background, as such, incapable of getting into the actual technicalities of this subject. Edited July 3, 2014 by Derek 2.0 Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 No it is then I see….I won’t waste anymore of your time, since you’re clearly not versed in a engineering background, as such, incapable of getting into the actual technicalities of this subject. And I'm all for not wasting any more time. And hopefully we don't do the same thing with my tax dollars. Quote
Moonbox Posted July 3, 2014 Author Report Posted July 3, 2014 In fact the more I read the more I like the Gripen and wonder why the hell we were even looking at a low level stealth attack on the ground bomber. Are we planning to attack the remaining polar bears with it or what? Low-level-stealth-attack-on-the-ground bomber? What the heck does that even mean? The F-35 is a multi-role fighter/strike craft. We don't want or need a strictly air defense platform. The idea of requiring an interceptor to turn away Russian bears or whatever else might fly over one of our oceans is about 40 years obsolete. We have a small air force, and with a small air force you need to purchase platforms that can fulfill as many roles as possible. The ground attack and interdiction capabilities of the F-35 are the ones most likely to be needed, since NATO enjoys an enormous air superiority (technically and by the numbers) and will continue to for at least the next 20 years. Regardless, someone needs to put to bed the notion that this plane is unable to defend itself in the air. I don't think that anyone would argue that it's going to be a good dog fighter, but it's tiny radar signature is going to give it a huge advantage in BVR combat (where virtually all combat takes place now). I don't like the F-35 and think the program is a disaster. I even created this thread. Unfortunately, I don't think we have a good alternative. Right now, however, it's the only game in town. Hopefully it teaches a lesson to other western military procurement programs. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) Regardless, someone needs to put to bed the notion that this plane is unable to defend itself in the air. I don't think that anyone would argue that it's going to be a good dog fighter, but it's tiny radar signature is going to give it a huge advantage in BVR combat (where virtually all combat takes place now). In testing, it’s already been proven to surpass both the Falcon and Hornet in “dog-fighting”, coupled with it carrying stores and fuel internally (translating into less drag, sustained g-rating and an improved center of gravity when contrasted to aircraft carrying stores under the wings), it’s ability to track targets with 360 degree coverage in both the x and y axis, reduction in not only radar return, but also infrared and electronic emissions etc etc and yeah……I’d argue that it will be able to dogfight if needed... I've heard (secondhand, but from what I consider a reliable source, so take it for what it's worth), at low speeds and high g turns, will share some/many of the traits as the A-4. Edited July 3, 2014 by Derek 2.0 Quote
waldo Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 In testing, it’s already been proven to surpass both the Falcon and Hornet in “dog-fighting”, coupled with it carrying stores and fuel internally (translating into less drag, sustained g-rating and an improved center of gravity when contrasted to aircraft carrying stores under the wings), it’s ability to track targets with 360 degree coverage in both the x and y axis, reduction in not only radar return, but also infrared and electronic emissions etc etc and yeah……I’d argue that it will be able to dogfight if needed... don't set the bar too high there, hey! By the by, care to share the source of those testing results and the related analysis? Quote
waldo Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 No it is then I see….I won’t waste anymore of your time, since you’re clearly not versed in a engineering background, as such, incapable of getting into the actual technicalities of this subject. . Quote
waldo Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 And how long would super hornets or the others last in combat with 5th gen planes, a few minutes?? 5th gen!!! Marketing hype/tool... I've thrown the following challenge out a number of times; for some reason, I don't get any bites. Care to step-up and qualify just what makes the F-35 a so-called "5th gen plane"? Don't simply repeat the textbook definition... state exactly what the F-35 has that aligns with that textbook definition..... and what it doesn't have. Quote
waldo Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 oh my... please sir, may I have another! first it was a June 10th problem with an F-35B variant that grounded the whole F-35 "fleet" for inspection... now it's a F-35A variant engine fire that has also grounded all aircraft for inspection... "the engine ripped through the top of the plane"! but hey now, who was the guy in this thread that took exception to me quoting from the Pentagon's 'Chief Weapons Buyer's' concern over the state of parts reliability for the F-35? Quote
PIK Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 oh my... please sir, may I have another! first it was a June 10th problem with an F-35B variant that grounded the whole F-35 "fleet" for inspection... now it's a F-35A variant engine fire that has also grounded all aircraft for inspection... "the engine ripped through the top of the plane"! but hey now, who was the guy in this thread that took exception to me quoting from the Pentagon's 'Chief Weapons Buyer's' concern over the state of parts reliability for the F-35? And you don't think they have had problems with every new plane being developed. LOL Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Derek 2.0 Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 oh my... please sir, may I have another! first it was a June 10th problem with an F-35B variant that grounded the whole F-35 "fleet" for inspection... now it's a F-35A variant engine fire that has also grounded all aircraft for inspection... "the engine ripped through the top of the plane"! but hey now, who was the guy in this thread that took exception to me quoting from the Pentagon's 'Chief Weapons Buyer's' concern over the state of parts reliability for the F-35? As pointed out already, the Super Hornet fleet (the one you champion) was grounded twice with engine issues during development......... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 . You care for a crack at the pointed question? What is too hot a temp for a single engine? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 don't set the bar too high there, hey! By the by, care to share the source of those testing results and the related analysis? I doubt many would consider the bar set by the F-16 as low…….As to results of flight testing, there have been numerous resources relayed, some in this very thread, over the years from this program……you new to this debate or something? Quote
Smallc Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 The plane was made to at least match the F-16 in dog fighting ability...and it exceeds it...point killed. Quote
waldo Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 As pointed out already, the Super Hornet fleet (the one you champion) was grounded twice with engine issues during development......... oh, is the Super Hornet... my champion? In any case, the point was to highlight the F-35 remains nothing more than a prototype at this stage. A prototype in spite of the way it is elevated to a most presumptive "production" level by its cheerleaders! Plus it was another way to get a failing reliability shot in... you know, the point you took extreme exception to when I quoted from the Pentagon's Chief Weapons Buyer's raised flag/concern over the continuing problems with F-35 reliability. . Quote
waldo Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 The plane was made to at least match the F-16 in dog fighting ability...and it exceeds it...point killed. ya, ya... we've seen you trumpet the paper-tiger many times over now. Since MLW member 2.0 so readily jumped away from providing a summary testing account/analysis, perhaps you could step-up and provide one... relative to actual testing results (not your infatuation with paper specs) - yes? . Quote
waldo Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 I doubt many would consider the bar set by the F-16 as low…….As to results of flight testing, there have been numerous resources relayed, some in this very thread, over the years from this program……you new to this debate or something? I was referring to your inclusion of the Hornet... you know, that which you now ignore. Nice peel-away on the source(s), hey? I'm talking about a comprehensive accounting of testing results... make sure to include all the times thresholds were lowered to accomodate the F-35's inability to meet the targets. . Quote
waldo Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 You care for a crack at the pointed question? What is too hot a temp for a single engine? ya, you appear to be a veritable wizard, especially when you can pull out your best material from Janes! . Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 oh, is the Super Hornet... my champion? In any case, the point was to highlight the F-35 remains nothing more than a prototype at this stage. A prototype in spite of the way it is elevated to a most presumptive "production" level by its cheerleaders! Plus it was another way to get a failing reliability shot in... you know, the point you took extreme exception to when I quoted from the Pentagon's Chief Weapons Buyer's raised flag/concern over the continuing problems with F-35 reliability. . Isn't that the aircraft you go on about? As I said, On it’s entry into service, the fleet was grounded twice due to engine issues, which resulted in the aircraft getting a new engine…….let me know when the F135 is replaced!!! Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 I was referring to your inclusion of the Hornet... you know, that which you now ignore. Nice peel-away on the source(s), hey? I'm talking about a comprehensive accounting of testing results... make sure to include all the times thresholds were lowered to accomodate the F-35's inability to meet the targets. . As said, sources have already be given.........But another: As said various times, it all comes back to L/D ratio.... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 ya, you appear to be a veritable wizard, especially when you can pull out your best material from Janes! . What material? By all means, answer a very simple question.......What temp is too hot for a single engine? Very simple, no need for wizardry or a Janes account. Quote
waldo Posted July 3, 2014 Report Posted July 3, 2014 Isn't that the aircraft you go on about? As I said, On it’s entry into service, the fleet was grounded twice due to engine issues, which resulted in the aircraft getting a new engine…….let me know when the F135 is replaced!!! I'm kinda favouring the 'Advanced Super Hornet... Growler' mix... you know, at "half the price"!!! you do have me curious about your "new engine claim": GE on the F414: "With more than 1 million flight-hours, the F414 engine continues to exceed USN goals for reliability and time on wing. F414-powered F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers have continued to expand their presence in the USN fleet, with 25 active squadrons. To date, more than 1,000 F414 engines have been delivered, supporting more than 415 aircraft in the fleet. " Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.