Bye-bye F-35?

#276
#276
82_VOL_83 said:
It was powered for a vast majority of it's life by TF33's (TF30 with a burner). The Super Tomcat was a late addition. Most of them were too worn out to upgrade and the platform was too dated to justify building new ones. The F18 had replaced it by the time the 400 then 404 was put in it. And yes, it was badass even with the TF33's after Pratt worked the bugs out.
Click to expand...
So which version was in the Top Gun movie? That was badass!
 
#278
#278
Vol Main said:
Wow. Elevating F-35 to the role of air superiority fighter was a major story, covered in many, many news articles. B ut that was years ago. I'll try to find something for you, but whether I do or not, I'll stand on this because I covered it thoroughly at the time and know very well of what I speak. I trust my knowledge more than many of the reports these days, because there's a lot of shoddy journalism from reporters who do more writing than researching. Also, the cover story for F-35 has been more or less accepted over the years, with claims that are just not true. I read an article a few weeks ago that claimed F-35 had supercruise, when I know for a fact that it does not. It was not designed with an engine cavity large enough for a supercruise engine, so it willl never have the ability to go supersonic with the fuel efficiency of a supercuise engine.
Click to expand...

That right there proves you don't know squat
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#279
#279
82_VOL_83 said:
It was powered for a vast majority of it's life by TF33's (TF30 with a burner). The Super Tomcat was a late addition. Most of them were too worn out to upgrade and the platform was too dated to justify building new ones. The F18 had replaced it by the time the 400 then 404 was put in it. And yes, it was badass even with the TF33's after Pratt worked the bugs out.
Click to expand...
I’ve read accounts from former Pilots, RIOs and even a few former Grumman engineers that all said the F-14D with the F110’s tuned up could push 2.5
 
#280
#280
85SugarVol said:
I’ve read accounts from former Pilots, RIOs and even a few former Grumman engineers that all said the F-14D with the F110’s tuned up could push 2.5
Click to expand...

Theoretical and practical are different things...You need exotic materials to handle frictional heat at M2.5. You do it, it better be short lived and give up airframe life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
#283
#283
Orangeburst said:
Theoretical and practical are different things...You need exotic materials to handle frictional heat at M2.5. You do it, it better be short lived and give up airframe life.
Click to expand...
Depends on the altitude. That 2.5 mach was probably up where the angels live.
 
#285
#285
82_VOL_83 said:
Depends on the altitude. That 2.5 mach was probably up where the angels live.
Click to expand...

Good point..you know your stuff.
The heat is less at altitude as the air is less dense, but the mass engine thrust to reach that speed is less in a less dense environment . Guess that is what really smart people have to figure
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#287
#287
Orangeburst said:
Theoretical and practical are different things...You need exotic materials to handle frictional heat at M2.5. You do it, it better be short lived and give up airframe life.
Click to expand...
For sure. What I’ve seen from multiple sources is all anecdotal accounts.

They are all similar - stories that usually in every Squadron there were 1 or 2 “hot rods” that just ran better than the others. Better acceleration and top end speed. Pilots taking them out to sea in a “slick” configuration after a tuneup and letting loose. Not a regular thing for sure.

Grumman built it for Mach 2.3 but tested it for 2.5
 
#288
#288
Orangeburst said:
Good point..you know your stuff.
The heat is less at altitude as the air is less dense, but the mass engine thrust to reach that speed is less in a less dense environment . Guess that is what really smart people have to figure
Click to expand...
The problem with breaking Mach is thrust but also frontal resistance. The lower density at altitude kills your thrust but at the same time breaking through that wall is MUCH easier. Just pump enough fuel in the dang thing and it will go.
 
#289
#289
82_VOL_83 said:
Depends on the altitude. That 2.5 mach was probably up where the angels live.
Click to expand...
Orangeburst said:
Good point..you know your stuff.
The heat is less at altitude as the air is less dense, but the mass engine thrust to reach that speed is less in a less dense environment . Guess that is what really smart people have to figure
Click to expand...
40k feet pointed out to sea lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#290
#290
85SugarVol said:
For sure. What I’ve seen from multiple sources is all anecdotal accounts.

They are all similar - stories that usually in every Squadron there were 1 or 2 “hot rods” that just ran better than the others. Better acceleration and top end speed. Pilots taking them out to sea in a “slick” configuration after a tuneup and letting loose. Not a regular thing for sure.

Grumman built it for Mach 2.3 but tested it for 2.5
Click to expand...
Interesting...
F-14B level flight maximum speed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and 85SugarVol
#291
#291
82_VOL_83 said:
It was a hot airplane just a little past it's prime.
Click to expand...
It was a true Cold War killer.

Mach 2.3-2.5 at 50,000+ feet.
That radar suite paired with the Phoenix could track and engage 6 targets simultaneously at 100 miles.

And Ras thinks the F-35 is expensive. Should see the price of a tricked out Tomcat in 2022 dollars lol…
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst, NorthDallas40 and 82_VOL_83
#293
#293
85SugarVol said:
For sure. What I’ve seen from multiple sources is all anecdotal accounts.

They are all similar - stories that usually in every Squadron there were 1 or 2 “hot rods” that just ran better than the others. Better acceleration and top end speed. Pilots taking them out to sea in a “slick” configuration after a tuneup and letting loose. Not a regular thing for sure.

Grumman built it for Mach 2.3 but tested it for 2.5
Click to expand...

For sure, but you read anecdotes of veteran pilots with thousands of hours of flight in an F-15 and they say they can count the number of hours above a certain Mach level...cannot remember like M1.2..and they say they can use their fingers.

Sounds like speed is just for dash, ie Interceptor, which equates to other anecdotes that when asking a fighter pilot what would be the best thing to supplement his craft...is GAS. Gas over thust. You hit the merge without gas in a superior kinematic fighter and the less superior fighter gets a mission kill. Hence the F-35, which avoids the merge, as Dallas alluded, has plenty of gas cruising at M.8 and hopefully unseen, surveilling the airspace and ground battlefield.

Why it is such a badass and so complicated, which many think is too complicated and probably rightfully so. But the Pierre Sprey's of the world who want a cheap F-16 with Sidewinders and minimal avionics are other side of being wrong.
 
#294
#294
85SugarVol said:
It was a true Cold War killer.

Mach 2.3-2.5 at 50,000+ feet.
That radar suite paired with the Phoenix could track and engage 6 targets simultaneously at 100 miles.

And Ras thinks the F-35 is expensive. Should see the price of a tricked out Tomcat in 2022 dollars lol…
Click to expand...
This all day.
 
#295
#295
Orangeburst said:
For sure, but you read anecdotes of veteran pilots with thousands of hours of flight in an F-15 and they say they can count the number of hours above a certain Mach level...cannot remember like M1.2..and they say they can use their fingers.

Sounds like speed is just for dash, ie Interceptor, which equates to other anecdotes that when asking a fighter pilot what would be the best thing to supplement his craft...is GAS. Gas over thust. You hit the merge without gas in a superior kinematic fighter and the less superior fighter gets a mission kill. Hence the F-35, which avoids the merge, as Dallas alluded, has plenty of gas cruising at M.8 and hopefully unseen, surveilling the airspace and ground battlefield.

Why it is such a badass and so complicated, which many think is too complicated and probably rightfully so. But the Pierre Sprey's of the world who want a cheap F-16 with Sidewinders and minimal avionics are other side of being wrong.
Click to expand...
Look up the lbs per hour that a PW-F100-229 or a GE-F110-129 burns and then you will see why they don't go there often.

Also, this is why super cruise is important. The 22 can go super cruise without lighting the burners. The 35 can super cruise but has to bump the burners to get there.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#296
#296
82_VOL_83 said:
The problem with breaking Mach is thrust but also frontal resistance. The lower density at altitude kills your thrust but at the same time breaking through that wall is MUCH easier. Just pump enough fuel in the dang thing and it will go.
Click to expand...

Hence area ruling. The more friction the more thrust needed. You can throw a massive amount of thrust at anything and it will move, but at the penalty of a larger craft with bigger motors. Hence not a fighter.
 
#297
#297
Orangeburst said:
Hence area ruling. The more friction the more thrust needed. You can throw a massive amount of thrust at anything and it will move, but at the penalty of a larger craft with bigger motors. Hence not a fighter.
Click to expand...
It was never intended to be a fighter. It was intended to replace the 16, 18 and the Harrier. The 16 was co-opted into an FA role and the 35 is better at the job than the 16. The FA-18 will be replaced by the 35 and the Harrier will be replaced by the Marine version of the 35.
 
#298
#298
What I really wish they would do is build something to replace the aging A10 fleet. A super A10 was be badass.
 
#299
#299
82_VOL_83 said:
Look up the lbs per hour than a PW-F100-229 or a GE-F110-129 burns and then you will see why they don't go there often.

Also, this is why super cruise is important. The 22 can go super cruise without lighting the burners. The 35 can super cruise but has to bump the burners to get there.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree. M1 is like a number that if you can easily transgress and maintain and not spend an inordinate amount of fuel to cross and maintain the transonic threshold, is irreplaceable.
 
#300
#300
82_VOL_83 said:
It was never intended to be a fighter. It was intended to replace the 16, 18 and the Harrier. The 16 was co-opted into an FA role and the 35 is better at the job than the 16. The FA-18 will be replaced by the 35 and the Harrier will be replaced by the Marine version of the 35.
Click to expand...

It was never intended to be a fighter, yet replacing the F-16?
What does that mean?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top