tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post2062834433590144809..comments2023-11-01T02:19:14.796-05:00Comments on Elements Of Power: F-35 Haters Evidently Aren't LogiciansSMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-38740328529837064662011-05-23T22:15:40.431-05:002011-05-23T22:15:40.431-05:00I think the AF would be crazy to adopt the C, as t...I think the AF would be crazy to adopt the C, as the Navy essentially had to have the C configuration not for range, but for the low-slow controllability on carrier approaches/landings. The thrust edge is more useful on a clean outer mold line (OML) found on LO aircraft than the edge you get with slightly lower wing-loading . We don’t even really know the wing loading of the F-35 (any model) because modern fighters also generate lift via their fuselage. Recall that the Israelis discovered the f-15 would fly without most of one wing. Even the early F-15s and F-16s were close in dogfighting capability, I worked with and for Test Pilots and TPS grad flight engineers who regaled me with tales of the light F-16s being able to out turn an F-15 below 20K ft but the situation was reversed once you went higher, so there’s no one best configuration. I saw a question over at SNAFU (a couple of weeks ago?) where Solomon had a post quoting the usual suspects claiming the F-35 would turn like a F-105. Hilarious. The problem with the C model IMHO is that it is the most off-optimal model. The STOVL concept was conceived first, and the A and B were optimized in the original design to have very similar weight and CGs at their mid-mission weights. The B model’s fan installation weighs just about exactly the same as a half-full fuel tank it replaces. As the C has the same engine as the A but weighs more, it probably has a slightly higher instantaneous turn rate-- but not by much (not as important in the era of low observable aircraft ability to get first ‘eyes-on’ any less-stealthy hostiles, and availability of off-boresight targeting) due to the slightly lower wing loading, but gives up thrust-weight ratio an gains drag during maneuvering (wing size penalty) which hurts in the sustained turn. The A (and B) should be able to power around a turn faster than the C. Add to that the A’s will be much cheaper, we can buy more – and all is right in the worldSMSgt Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-90405016105258233782011-05-22T23:46:08.543-05:002011-05-22T23:46:08.543-05:00What do you think about the conjectural prospect o...What do you think about the conjectural prospect of the Air Force adapting a land version of the C, instead of the A? It trades thrust-to-weight and an internal gun for range and lower wing loading, but I think it may be a worthwhile choice, given the fewer airbases that the USAF has to work with.Earlydawnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09014252118314271336noreply@blogger.com