offline
- Pridružio: 26 Okt 2011
- Poruke: 1232
|
Sto se brzine tice, Ameri kazu daj e 1.6macha dovoljno jer to je brzina koju F35 ima kad je pun ...Barem tako sam citao, dok sami kazu za F15 u koji su se do juce kunili da obori sve i svasta kad je pod punom opremom moze razviti samo 1.5macha a na temu Virtuelni dogfight mislim da sam procitao podatak da na odredjenu visinu F/A-18 ne moze letjeti vise od 1 macha ...
Evo ga jedan tekst o F35 .... Posto nije proslo mnogo vremena odkad sam poceo da vise citam o borbenim avionima recite mi jeli su ovi podaci ispravni
"
Speed: they say that at Mach 1.6+ its too slow even for fighters 60 years ago.
What they dont understand is that all those 4th gens and some 3rd gens that can reach Mach 2, can only do so when totally unarmed. Even the F-15, the fastest 4th gen air superiority fighter, struggles to reach Mach 1.5 when armed.
The F-35 has been tested to Mach 1.6+ when armed internally.
Maneuverability: A lot of people site simple wing loading calculations and draw a conclusion that the F-35 cannot maneuver due to it's high wing loading.
However this is too simplistic and just flat out wrong.
Wing loading is no longer an accurate barometer of maneuverability simply because modern aircraft designs don't rely on just their wings for lift. Lift is essential for maneuverability.
Simple wing loading calculations were relevant when fighters were simply tubes with wings and all the lift came from the wings, they were either cylindrical tubes or rectangular tubes.(F-4, Mig-19, Mig-21, F- the slender tube shaped fuselages were not designed to produce lift.
The wide and smooth body of modern designs (F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-22,F-35) act as large lifting surfaces distributing the load away from the wings.
On unstable wing/tail designs like the F-16, F-22 and F-35, the tail also produces a substantial amount of lift due to the aircraft's center of gravity being located aft of the fuselage section. This is only true for unstable wing and tail designs. For stable designs like the F-15 and Mig-29, the tail does not produce any lift.
Also, surfaces like the Chines or LERX (leading edge root extensions) produce powerful vortices when the aircraft turns increasing the lift and decreasing the wing loading when in a turn.
And when compared to modern designs, the F-35's wing loading isn't really bad.
Wing Loading of various fighters when loaded with 8,000 lbs, typical dogfighting weight:
Mig-29 M/M2: 91
F-16C (block 50): 90
F-35A: 81
F/A-18C: 77
Su-30MKI: 72
One of the requirements for F-35 was simply to match the F-16 in high sustained G performance.
To do this, the F-35's thrust to weight ratio and wing loading characteristics are similar or better than a Viper when loaded for combat.
Here we will compare it to an F-16 Block 50, which was built in the 90s and is still in production today
(F-16IQ). It is a vast improvement over the 1970s F-16A block 5 and has reportedly been able to hold its own against more modern aircraft in a dogfight.
Wing loading = total weight divided by wing area
thrust to weight = total thrust divided by total weight.
Typical Air-Air load.
F-16C (block 50)
Empty: 18,900 lbs
Load: 8,000 lbs (6,000lbs of fuel + 6 missiles)
Combat Weight: 26,900 lbs
Wing Area: 300 feet
Thrust: 28,600 lbs
Wing loading: 89.66 lbs / square feet
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 1.06
________________________________________________________
F-35A
Empty: 29,300 lbs
Load: 11,000 lbs (9,000lbs of fuel + 6 missiles)
Combat Weight: 40,300 lbs
Wing Area: 460 feet
Thrust: 43,000 lbs
Wing loading: 87.60 lbs / square feet
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 1.06
Even when loaded with 50% more fuel than the F-16, the F-35's wing loading is still better.
Its thrust to weight ratio is identical to the Block 50 which is arguably the best maneuvering version of the F-16.
Furthermore it will not have any of the F-16's parasitic drag due to external weapons carriage.
another measure of agility is an aircrafts capability to execute high Angle of attack (AOA) maneuvers, to point the nose away from the aircraft's flight path vector (direction of where it is actually going).
Amongst 4th gen fighters, the American F/A-18 and Soviet designed Su-27 reigned supreme in this arena.
Another requirement for the F-35 was to match the F/A-18 in high AOA performance.
To do this the F-35 has a chined forward fuselage that produces powerful vortices at high angles of attack. The engine cowls are also designed to produce vortex lift acting like the F/A-18's LERX surfaces.
Its flight control software's AOA limit is 50 degrees and has been tested to 73 degrees with ease, most fighters like the Typhoon and Rafale are limited to around 25 degrees,
the F-35 on the other hand is notoriously difficult to depart and extremely easy to put back in controlled flight if ever it does depart. So "if", or should I say "when" the F-35 finds its self needing maneuverability, it will have plenty to go around
Pilots who have flown the F-35 are reportedly very impressed with the F-35's Kinematic performance. here is one such pilot, an evaluator who's job is to throughly scrutinize aircraft.
http://www.8newsnow.com/.../nellis-afb-f-35-lightening
According to him "[the F-35 is] Borrowing some of the best features of the F-16, F-18, A-10, and the hovering Marine Corps Harrier, the F-35 is fast, stealthy, and packs a punch.
"Fantastic to fly, very powerful, very maneuverable, easy to handle," Lt. Col O'Malley said."
And as you can see by the data above. The claim is not farfetched at all.
but all this performance is just the icing on the cake. The F-35's true strength lies in its software and integrated sensors that gives the pilot everything he needs to know.
If knowing is winning half the battle, then the F-35 will always begin the fight half won already"
|
