Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8

 

2008-02-23 04:01:46
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6428|'Murka

Sorcerer0513 wrote:

Lai wrote:

The Boeing concept feautures a single engine with multiple (smaller) exhausts that direct thrust downwards if needed: the Harrier-proven design, with the improvement that the Boeing has an extra main exhaust at the rear. The LM concept feautures different smaller engines for the STOVL exhaust-holes next to the main engine for the rear exhaust. In my opinion this is pointless, inefficient and cumbersome.
All nice and well, but what are you going to do when the Harrier-proven design sucks in hot air upon landing and the engine stalls? Buy a new jet?

I thought that was one of the reasons they picked the LM design, cos the pillar of cold air from the fan prevents hot exhaust air from getting into the engine?

And a bit offtopic, can a Harrier take off vertically with a full combat load?
Dammit. You beat me to it.

Just because the LM design doesn't follow the Harrier's Pegasus engine design doesn't make it better or worse in that regard. The liftfan was a key factor in choosing the LM design because it is more efficient for VTOL than the direct-exhaust nozzles that you seem so enamored with.

And no, the Harrier can't take off vertically with a full combat load. Neither can the F-35. The F-35 can, however, take of vertically with a reduced combat load...just like the Harrier. Just how reduced is that combat load? Don't know...testing will figure that out.

And the comment about the ugly Boeing design was a joke. There are plenty of ugly aircraft that do/have done a remarkable job.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-02-23 04:13:45
Sorcerer0513
Member
+18|6559|Outer Space

FEOS wrote:

And no, the Harrier can't take off vertically with a full combat load. Neither can the F-35. The F-35 can, however, take of vertically with a reduced combat load...just like the Harrier. Just how reduced is that combat load? Don't know...testing will figure that out.

Lai wrote:

The closest the F-35 gets to a VTOL version is a STOVL (Short Take Off and Vertical Landing), unlike the Harrier it can NOT take of vertically. You can test all you want, it doesn't make the F-35 a VTOL craft. I'm sure the F-35 is more practical to launch from a carrier than say a F-14, but it simply isn't up to the kind of tricks that made the Argentinians shit their pants above Falkland (even though they had both the numeral as well as the technical advantage).
^^This is why I posed the question. Never heard of Harriers being able to take off vertically with a full combat load, but I'm not an expert, so...

FEOS wrote:

And the comment about the ugly Boeing design was a joke. There are plenty of ugly aircraft that do/have done a remarkable job.
TBH, I liked the Boeing design more, the one without the modified tail. Looked much more futuristic. But that thing seemed to have other problems too. Wasn't there a video floating around, about air refueling? It seemed to me, that the airflow around the nose pushed the refueling basket away, and it was very difficult to refuel the thing in the air?
2008-02-23 04:15:25
mcminty
Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.
+879|6739|Sydney, Australia

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

but i mean... it still has external weapons and fuel tanks?? so i can never be as stealthy as F-35, B-2,F-111
The Super Hornet has 11 hardpoints, and can carry up to 17,700 pounds. For the F-35 to carry comparable amounts, it must use it's external hardpoints... which negates the whole 'stealthy' thing.
2008-02-23 05:18:29
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6166|'straya

mcminty wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

but i mean... it still has external weapons and fuel tanks?? so i can never be as stealthy as F-35, B-2,F-111
The Super Hornet has 11 hardpoints, and can carry up to 17,700 pounds. For the F-35 to carry comparable amounts, it must use it's external hardpoints... which negates the whole 'stealthy' thing.
True, depends what kind of mission though, ur not always gonna need a full payload.
2008-02-23 09:54:30
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6404

FEOS wrote:

There are plenty of ugly aircraft that do/have done a remarkable job.
Like the A10 in some peoples opinion, though, for me, that aircraft is beautiful and there is nothing else I would want flying ground support for me.
2008-02-23 09:55:36
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6404

Commie Killer wrote:

FEOS wrote:

There are plenty of ugly aircraft that do/have done a remarkable job.
Like the A10 in some peoples opinion, though, for me, that aircraft is beautiful and there is nothing else I would want flying ground support for me.

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

mcminty wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

but i mean... it still has external weapons and fuel tanks?? so i can never be as stealthy as F-35, B-2,F-111
The Super Hornet has 11 hardpoints, and can carry up to 17,700 pounds. For the F-35 to carry comparable amounts, it must use it's external hardpoints... which negates the whole 'stealthy' thing.
True, depends what kind of mission though, ur not always gonna need a full payload.
Generally, you do take a full payload, back in the Gulf War A10s were usually sent into combat with everything from 500pound dumb bombs to Sidewinder missiles.
2008-02-23 10:10:37
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6546|Global Command

jord wrote:

Why buy Air to Ground bombers when America can do it for you
Sadly, I think many people of the world quietly think this.
2008-02-23 12:31:20
Lai
Member
+186|6168

Sorcerer0513 wrote:

Lai wrote:

The Boeing concept feautures a single engine with multiple (smaller) exhausts that direct thrust downwards if needed: the Harrier-proven design, with the improvement that the Boeing has an extra main exhaust at the rear. The LM concept feautures different smaller engines for the STOVL exhaust-holes next to the main engine for the rear exhaust. In my opinion this is pointless, inefficient and cumbersome.
All nice and well, but what are you going to do when the Harrier-proven design sucks in hot air upon landing and the engine stalls? Buy a new jet?

I thought that was one of the reasons they picked the LM design, cos the pillar of cold air from the fan prevents hot exhaust air from getting into the engine?

And a bit offtopic, can a Harrier take off vertically with a full combat load?
I believe it can and I know for sure it can hover.

But anyway, the hot-air problem you described is a directional problem, it's a matter of "aiming" your thrust. Also, since the jet is horizontally stationary while landing it won't suck in as much air as when flying. I've never heard of Harier engine failures due to hot-air design flaws and the Boeing will direct considerably less hot-air downwards than a Harrier since it still uses a rear exhaust as the main propulsion system.

Appart from that, it seems that you're implying that the LM outputs cold-air from it's secondary engines? I find that somewhat hard to believe since I can't imagine it prviding enough lift for the jet not to drop down like a fly.
2008-02-23 12:49:12
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6428|'Murka

Lai wrote:

I believe it can and I know for sure it can hover.

But anyway, the hot-air problem you described is a directional problem, it's a matter of "aiming" your thrust. Also, since the jet is horizontally stationary while landing it won't suck in as much air as when flying. I've never heard of Harier engine failures due to hot-air design flaws and the Boeing will direct considerably less hot-air downwards than a Harrier since it still uses a rear exhaust as the main propulsion system.

Appart from that, it seems that you're implying that the LM outputs cold-air from it's secondary engines? I find that somewhat hard to believe since I can't imagine it prviding enough lift for the jet not to drop down like a fly.
The Harrier cannot take off vertically with a full combat load...the best it can do is STOVL in that configuration.

The LM design uses a liftfan behind the pilot and a swiveling main exhaust in the rear. It greatly decreases the heat directed downward, and the liftfan provides the majority of the vertical lift and only blows air (not exhaust) down.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-02-23 13:16:51
Sorcerer0513
Member
+18|6559|Outer Space
Damn you FEOS, beaten to it(and I was writing this reply for ages after that...).

But I simply have to respond. What he said about combat load, and:

Lai wrote:

But anyway, the hot-air problem you described is a directional problem, it's a matter of "aiming" your thrust. Also, since the jet is horizontally stationary while landing it won't suck in as much air as when flying.
Sorry, "aiming" the thrust? I was under the impression that during landing, it's aimed downwards. Meaning that when the exhaust fumes hit the ground, they disperse to all directions? Forward where the engine intake is? It doesn't matter how much air it sucks in. Now since I'm no expert, I can only speculate, but I believe that air is very hot, and also has less oxygen in it, thus the engine overheats and produces less thrust?(someone working in the industry correct me?)

LM design countered that with a fan, that sucks air from above the aircraft and directs it downward. I think that creates a barrier, so that the hot air coming from the engine exhaust can't move forward, and cannot get sucked in the engine. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Lai wrote:

I've never heard of Harier engine failures due to hot-air design flaws and the Boeing will direct considerably less hot-air downwards than a Harrier since it still uses a rear exhaust as the main propulsion system.
I think I saw a piece about it, possibly it was a video, but I can't find it right now. I know that the Boeing design had problems with it, because they showed it in the documentary(Battle of X-planes or something like that from PBS if I'm not mistaken).

Lai wrote:

Appart from that, it seems that you're implying that the LM outputs cold-air from it's secondary engines? I find that somewhat hard to believe since I can't imagine it prviding enough lift for the jet not to drop down like a fly.
Uh, secondary engine? The fan is driven by the main engine, read here.
2008-02-23 15:32:55
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6166|'straya

Commie Killer wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

FEOS wrote:

There are plenty of ugly aircraft that do/have done a remarkable job.
Like the A10 in some peoples opinion, though, for me, that aircraft is beautiful and there is nothing else I would want flying ground support for me.

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

mcminty wrote:


The Super Hornet has 11 hardpoints, and can carry up to 17,700 pounds. For the F-35 to carry comparable amounts, it must use it's external hardpoints... which negates the whole 'stealthy' thing.
True, depends what kind of mission though, ur not always gonna need a full payload.
Generally, you do take a full payload, back in the Gulf War A10s were usually sent into combat with everything from 500pound dumb bombs to Sidewinder missiles.
Although A A-10s mission is alittle different to a mission with a JSF when u wanted stealth.

an A-10 is about as stealthy as a flying hippo so it might as well take a full load as its only  use is low level ground attack.
as long as there are no enemy fighters its a good plane (why its been so effective in iraq)
2008-02-23 16:08:40
Burwhale
Save the BlobFish!
+136|6240|Brisneyland
Heres an interesting update that is only slightly off topic.

Oz govt will ask for F22 Raptors.

"But we do want the opportunity to consider the F-22 in the air combat capability review."

Mr Fitzgibbon recently launched a review of the controversial $6 billion contract to buy F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter jets, which was signed off on by his predecessor Brendan Nelson.

Dr Gates says the US has no in-principle objection to Australia buying the planes
Of course we cant buy them until a statute is changed, but I guess that could happen right?
2008-02-23 16:18:28
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6166|'straya

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

Heres an interesting update that is only slightly off topic.

Oz govt will ask for F22 Raptors.

"But we do want the opportunity to consider the F-22 in the air combat capability review."

Mr Fitzgibbon recently launched a review of the controversial $6 billion contract to buy F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter jets, which was signed off on by his predecessor Brendan Nelson.

Dr Gates says the US has no in-principle objection to Australia buying the planes
Of course we cant buy them until a statute is changed, but I guess that could happen right?
Seems like a step in the right direction to me... open up more options.
2008-02-23 16:52:18
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6732|US
If the F-35 does not use external hardpoints, it is good air-to-air, stealthy fighter.  As a strike aircraft, it can use either internal or internal/external weapons.  Once air superiority is established, stealth plays a lesser role.
2008-02-23 17:07:11
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6692|Canberra, AUS

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

Heres an interesting update that is only slightly off topic.

Oz govt will ask for F22 Raptors.

"But we do want the opportunity to consider the F-22 in the air combat capability review."

Mr Fitzgibbon recently launched a review of the controversial $6 billion contract to buy F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter jets, which was signed off on by his predecessor Brendan Nelson.

Dr Gates says the US has no in-principle objection to Australia buying the planes
Of course we cant buy them until a statute is changed, but I guess that could happen right?
Damnit. Was gonna post this.

This is a good move. IMO F-22 is a far better choice for an air superiority fighter. F-111 can still take care of the ground work.

Of course this'll cost a lot. I wonder how it'll go down with the 'razor gangs'...
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2008-02-23 17:46:50
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6341|New Haven, CT
Our government would be retarded if they sold the F-22 to any country.
2008-02-23 18:20:14
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6166|'straya

nukchebi0 wrote:

Our government would be retarded if they sold the F-22 to any country.
Why? what wrong wuth selling Raptors to Australia?
2008-02-23 18:36:21
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6692|Canberra, AUS

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Our government would be retarded if they sold the F-22 to any country.
Why? what wrong wuth selling Raptors to Australia?
That is damned new technology. I would be a bit reluctant to give it away.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2008-02-23 18:47:02
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6166|'straya

Spark wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Our government would be retarded if they sold the F-22 to any country.
Why? what wrong wuth selling Raptors to Australia?
That is damned new technology. I would be a bit reluctant to give it away.
It was designed by large international companies....

i mean its a bit different selling planes to Australia than it is selling them to Russia or China.
hopefully we can get our hands on some.
2008-02-23 19:05:46
Burwhale
Save the BlobFish!
+136|6240|Brisneyland

spark wrote:

Damnit. Was gonna post this.

This is a good move. IMO F-22 is a far better choice for an air superiority fighter. F-111 can still take care of the ground work.

Of course this'll cost a lot. I wonder how it'll go down with the 'razor gangs'...
Agreed, this does seem like a really good strategy. US would be crazy to not let us have them. From what I hear, the US needs the money anyway , and it looks like we are good for it. We always help each other out historically, so we can be trusted with your leet tech ( to quote Quakewars).

As for the razor gangs, for those not too familiar with Oz politics, the new govt is trying to reduce its spending by Billlions of dollars after some pretty heavy spending by the previous govt. I am pretty sure that Defense spending was exempt from this, but I would agree that a huge contract like this would come under intense scrutiny.
2008-02-23 19:15:29
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6166|'straya

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

spark wrote:

Damnit. Was gonna post this.

This is a good move. IMO F-22 is a far better choice for an air superiority fighter. F-111 can still take care of the ground work.

Of course this'll cost a lot. I wonder how it'll go down with the 'razor gangs'...
Agreed, this does seem like a really good strategy. US would be crazy to not let us have them. From what I hear, the US needs the money anyway , and it looks like we are good for it. We always help each other out historically, so we can be trusted with your leet tech ( to quote Quakewars).

As for the razor gangs, for those not too familiar with Oz politics, the new govt is trying to reduce its spending by Billlions of dollars after some pretty heavy spending by the previous govt. I am pretty sure that Defense spending was exempt from this, but I would agree that a huge contract like this would come under intense scrutiny.
not as intense as the current contract lol.
2008-02-23 19:22:43
Burwhale
Save the BlobFish!
+136|6240|Brisneyland

little baby jesus wrote:

not as intense as the current contract lol.
Yeah, you would think that $6 billion would buy a few raptors. Money better spent in my book.
2008-02-23 19:26:06
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6428|'Murka

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

little baby jesus wrote:

not as intense as the current contract lol.
Yeah, you would think that $6 billion would buy a few raptors. Money better spent in my book.
Hell, they'd probably get a pretty good deal, as we're trying everything in the book to keep the line open.

Six billion would buy you about a baker's dozen. Easily equivalent to two or three squadrons of anything you'd likely face.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-02-23 19:34:58
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6166|'straya

FEOS wrote:

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

little baby jesus wrote:

not as intense as the current contract lol.
Yeah, you would think that $6 billion would buy a few raptors. Money better spent in my book.
Hell, they'd probably get a pretty good deal, as we're trying everything in the book to keep the line open.

Six billion would buy you about a baker's dozen. Easily equivalent to two or three squadrons of anything you'd likely face.
Yer id go for 12 F-22's and keep our FA-18's and F-111 rather than buy 24 SH and get rid of F-111
2008-02-23 19:49:09
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6341|New Haven, CT
6/.150=much more than 12

Or does the exportation drive up the cost?

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard