Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 Yeah, simply put, it's what opposes thrust. I'm sure you've heard of that? Would external fuel tanks and missiles under the wings cause further drag to said aircraft? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 Would external fuel tanks and missiles under the wings cause further drag to said aircraft? I assume you know the difference between form drag and parasite drag? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 I assume you know the difference between form drag and parasite drag? What of it? I'll ask once more: Would external fuel tanks and missiles under the wings cause further drag to said aircraft? If you're not going to answer the question, since you clearly don't understand the concept, say so........I don't intend to waste the evening reading your cut & paste wikipedia posts........ Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 What of it? I'll ask once more: If you're not going to answer the question, since you clearly don't understand the concept, say so........I don't intend to waste the evening reading your cut & paste wikipedia posts........ I think I answered the question, you just didn't get it, again. I knew about drag young fella long before there even was wikipedia. External fuel tanks are called parasitic drag. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 I think I answered the question, you just didn't get it, again.. No you didn't answer the question: Would external fuel tanks and missiles under the wings cause further drag to said aircraft? Yes or no, or I'll go watch tv........ Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 No you didn't answer the question: Yes or no, or I'll go watch tv........ Is that supposed to be some kind of threat? I answered the question. Let me explain it to you. Things that are required to make an aircraft fly (like wings and tail surfaces etc) are referred to as form drag. Things that aren't required to make an aircraft fly, such as landing gear, or external fuel tanks, are referred to as parasitic drag. The F 35 unfortunately has way too much form drag, which is why it is referred to as a "fat boy" Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 Is that supposed to be some kind of threat? I answered the question. Let me explain it to you. Things that are required to make an aircraft fly (like wings and tail surfaces etc) are referred to as form drag. Things that aren't required to make an aircraft fly, such as landing gear, or external fuel tanks, are referred to as parasitic drag. The F 35 unfortunately has way too much form drag, which is why it is referred to as a "fat boy" Ahhhh……..no you didn’t, you just regurgitated Wikipedia……..A legacy aircraft, like the Super Hornet, with external stores is at both a speed and maneuverability disadvantage due to drag when compared to a F-35 with an equal load carried externally…….this of course is due to drag. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 Ahhhh……..no you didn’t, you just regurgitated Wikipedia……..A legacy aircraft, like the Super Hornet, with external stores is at both a speed and maneuverability disadvantage due to drag when compared to a F-35 with an equal load carried externally…….this of course is due to drag. Just look at the airframe profile and the you may understand how slow the 35 is to get supersonic. And then their is maneuverability. And yep, you are right, due to drag. I will agree the 35 has less parasite drag in some configurations than some other legacy options, but it has much more form drag. And at the end of the day, drag is drag. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 (edited) Just look at the airframe profile and the you may understand how slow the 35 is to get supersonic. And then their is maneuverability. And yep, you are right, due to drag. I will agree the 35 has less parasite drag in some configurations than some other legacy options, but it has much more form drag. And at the end of the day, drag is drag. Ahh but you’re wrong…the F-35’s fuselage, like the F-22, was engineered to generate lift to a greater extent than legacy aircraft……….And the F-35 with internal stores isn’t faced with the same penalties as legacy types with external stores… As such, a Super Hornet with two drop tanks (needed to equal the F-35’s internal fuel capacity), a couple of JDAMs, a targeting pod, an ECM pod, two medium and two short range missiles won’t equal the F-35’s maneuverability or speed when carrying the same load……. Big difference between combat and airshow configurations…….. Edited August 2, 2014 by Derek 2.0 Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 Ahh but you’re wrong…the F-35’s fuselage, like the F-22, was engineered to generate lift to a greater extent than legacy aircraft……….And the F-35 with internal stores isn’t faced with the same penalties as legacy types with external stores… As such, a Super Hornet with two drop tanks (needed to equal the F-35’s internal fuel capacity), a couple of JDAMs, a targeting pod, an ECM pod, two medium and two short range missiles won’t equal the F-35’s maneuverability or speed when carrying the same load……. Big difference between combat and airshow configurations…….. Yet to be proven> Only LockMarts pie in the sky ideas. How can you be "maneuravable" when you can't pull more than 3.2 G's? As I say it will be a good "bomb truck" but it will need something like an F 22 alongside in the real world. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 Yet to be proven> Only LockMarts pie in the sky ideas. How can you be "maneuravable" when you can't pull more than 3.2 G's? As I say it will be a good "bomb truck" but it will need something like an F 22 alongside in the real world. As would a Super Hornet, f-16, Rafale, etc when faced with a modern, well trained adversary........Of course, of those aircraft, the F-35 benefits the most from modern technology......... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 As would a Super Hornet, f-16, Rafale, etc when faced with a modern, well trained adversary........Of course, of those aircraft, the F-35 benefits the most from modern technology......... Not really. A lot of it's modern tech doesn't work so well The helmet, the stealth, the "big fan" single engine. And it doesn't have the range to do anything more than fly in, drop a bomb, and head home. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 (edited) Not really. A lot of it's modern tech doesn't work so well The helmet, the stealth, the "big fan" single engine. And it doesn't have the range to do anything more than fly in, drop a bomb, and head home. The helmet does work...........the stealth does work, but of course the legacy aircraft are not stealth and the issue with the engine was proven to not be a systemic problem........as we talked about before, when the Super Hornet was at the same stage early in it's service, it too faced issues with it's engine. As to range..........well again, you're ignorant on this point........the F-35 has a greater range on internal fuel then a Super Hornet with two drop tanks... Edited August 2, 2014 by Derek 2.0 Quote
Moonbox Posted August 2, 2014 Author Report Posted August 2, 2014 (edited) What tier level in the program are the United States, Australia and Canada? Is this another one of your rhetorical questions? Seeing as though we both know the answer to this, why don't you just go ahead and make an actual point? An assumption based on figures provided by the maker, the United States government and budgeted around the partner nations………your assumption was based on what again? I'll say again, my assumption is based on the numbers we see for planes built so far and from the US procurement budget for recently purchased and in-production aircraft. Your assumptions, as you mention, are based on nothing but the statements and promises of LM and the Pentagon, none of which have been credible thus far. As recently as 2012 they were promising allied partners there would be no more delays on the roll-out of the plane. We're now learning that software problems are going to push things up to another 14 months behind. OOPS! Usually, when someone's statements consistently prove wrong, exaggerated or deceitful, you stop believing them. You, on the other hand, seem to just cheer louder. I sure hope you're not that gullible with money. You're suggesting inflation has no impact on defence programs? Uh...no. I'm suggesting inflation has the same impact on ALL defence programs, so using it as a point of comparison between different ones is foolish. That's an embarrassing display of reasoning skills. That's just ignorant.....And the RAAF, like RCAF, doesn't have one for one targeting or ECM pods, fore they're far too expensive...of course the F-35 will have more advanced systems integral to each aircraft..... Can you decipher this abomination of grammar and verbal diarrhea so it actually makes some sense? What exactly do you think the Super Hornet, combat capable, actually costs per aircraft? A lot, lot less than an F-35. Flyaway cost is ~$65M today. Flyaway cost for an F-35 is generously stated right now at $120M. Even if they can get costs down to below $100M (far from certain at this point), there's still more than a $30M differential. Targeting pods and ECM suites don't even make a dent in that difference. The F-18E is cheaper because it's an older and far less advanced plane. Your claim that the newer and far more sophisticated F-35 will end up cheaper than the F-18E is a really good example of how deluded you are with respect to this topic. I'll leave the floor to you and OGFT to parrot wikipedia to each other Don't forget your Lockheed Martin pom-poms on the way out. Edited August 2, 2014 by Moonbox 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
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 (edited) The helmet does work...........the stealth does work, but of course the legacy aircraft are not stealth and the issue with the engine was proven to not be a systemic problem........as we talked about before, when the Super Hornet was at the same stage early in it's service, it too faced issues with it's engine. As to range..........well again, you're ignorant on this point........the F-35 has a greater range on internal fuel then a Super Hornet with two drop tanks... Except the Hornet has 2 engines. Now it you count up the number of engine problems the 18 had either because of the actual engine, or other such simple things as bird strikes you will find that the cost of having 2 engines would be FAR cheaper than the cost of lost airframes the 35 will stastictically endure. And of course pilots who will have to eject. Hopefully safely. And no, I am not ignorant. You can play range numbers in all kinds of ways to make a point. I can do the same. Edited August 2, 2014 by On Guard for Thee Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 Except the Hornet has 2 engines. Now it you count up the number of engine problems the 18 had either because of the actual engine, or other such simple things as bird strikes you will find that the cost of having 2 engines would FAR outweigh the amount of lost airframes the 35 stastictically endure. And of course pilots who will have to eject. Hopefully safely. And no, I am not ignorant. You can play range numbers in all kinds of ways to make a point. I can do the same. Strawman........the single engine types, in USAF service, have a greater safety record than twins........The range numbers are what they are.......the F-35 has a greater range then the legacy types it will replace with external stores.....thats a fact. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 Is this another one of your rhetorical questions? Seeing as though we both know the answer to this, why don't you just go ahead and make an actual point? If you know the answer, why are hung up on the fact that the Americans........ I'll say again, my assumption is based on the numbers we see for planes built so far and from the US procurement budget for recently purchased and in-production aircraft. Your assumptions, as you mention, are based on the statements of LM and the Pengaton, none of which have been credible thus far. As recently as 2012 they were promising allied partners in there would be no more delays on the roll-out of the plane, and among numerous smaller problems and delays we're now learning that software problems are going to push things up to another 14 months behind. Usually, when someone's statements consistently prove wrong, exaggerated or deceitful, you should stop believing them. You, on the other hand, insist on their continued credibility, which is kind of sad. Numbers for LRIP aircraft..... Uh...no. I'm suggesting inflation has the same impact on ALL defence programs, so using it as a point of comparison between different ones is foolish. That's an embarrassing display of poor reasoning skills. So the current cost of a Super Hornet isn't a valid contrast when using F-35 costing in ~5 years? Can you decipher this abomination of grammar and verbal diarrhea for me so it actually makes some sense? The RAAF didn't purchase a pod for each aircraft. A lot, lot less than an F-35. Flyaway cost is ~$65M today. Flyaway cost for an F-35 is generously stated right now at $120M. Even if they can get costs down to below $100M (far from certain at this point), there's still more than a $30M differential. Targeting pods and ECM suites don't even make a dent in that difference. The F-18E is cheaper because it's an older and far less advanced plane. Your claim that the newer and far more sophisticated F-35 will end up cheaper than the F-18E is a really good example of how deluded you are with respect to this topic. No it's not, I provided the actual USN budgeted amount, with the inclusion of the required "pods", and was ~75 million, or roughly the projected cost of the F-35A. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 Strawman........the single engine types, in USAF service, have a greater safety record than twins........The range numbers are what they are.......the F-35 has a greater range then the legacy types it will replace with external stores.....thats a fact. Don't think so. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 Don't think so. and if you look at the stats as to when twin engine aircraft have suffered failures even from simple shit like bird ingestion and made it home on "number2" you see the value of having two. Or are you suggesting that somehow birds will give a wider birth to aircraft ehy understand have only one stove? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 Don't think so. The USAF tables have been provided for you several times already...... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 and if you look at the stats as to when twin engine aircraft have suffered failures even from simple shit like bird ingestion and made it home on "number2" you see the value of having two. Or are you suggesting that somehow birds will give a wider birth to aircraft ehy understand have only one stove? Not at all....I just relayed USAF stats, which show that bird strikes are not a major concern.......... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 Apparently you're not a pilot. I don't mean to speak for them all, but I think it's fairly safe to say I would be supported in this concept that the more backups the better. And that includes engines. You can't have too many engines. And if you look at the stats you'll find that the US and others would have lost many more airframes if not for twin engines. It's fairly simple. Engine failure ia twin, fly home. Engine failure in a single, eject. What do ya reckon costs more? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 Bird strikes aren't teh only things that cause engine failures. Especially not with the 35. They can't fly the thing more than 3 hours before having a boroscope done on the engine to look for cracks in the front end wheel. Vibration and heat seem to be the culprits. Multi billion dollar airplane you can only now just go supersonic and then you have to land and have the engine inspected. After how many years? Yikes. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 Apparently you're not a pilot. I don't mean to speak for them all, but I think it's fairly safe to say I would be supported in this concept that the more backups the better. And that includes engines. You can't have too many engines. And if you look at the stats you'll find that the US and others would have lost many more airframes if not for twin engines. It's fairly simple. Engine failure ia twin, fly home. Engine failure in a single, eject. What do ya reckon costs more? Actually, I am (since 1985) and I understand the engineering strides achieved in engine safety over that span……..likewise I understand that safety is far more nuanced then what you purport, as such, single engine types are not of the level of concern that you suggest…….after all, the most populous current Western fighter, with the best safety record, is currently the single engine F-16. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Posted August 2, 2014 Actually, I am (since 1985) and I understand the engineering strides achieved in engine safety over that span……..likewise I understand that safety is far more nuanced then what you purport, as such, single engine types are not of the level of concern that you suggest…….after all, the most populous current Western fighter, with the best safety record, is currently the single engine F-16. Single engine is only one level of concern. I'm well aware of the improvements that have come along over time. With the f 35 we are not only talking safety, we are talking capability. They are so far over budget and so long over sked and the "hits' just seem to keep on coming. I'm sure they will get the engine figured out eventually. They have already redesigned it once although it still seems to have similar problems again. But how much will we waste on a concept that just doesn't work. At least in our lifetime that a "one size fits all" appraoach will work for airplanes. Never worked for cars. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.