Delete comment from: Elements Of Power
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 world
May 23, 2011, 11:15:40 PM
Posted to F-35 Haters Evidently Aren't Logicians