the f-22s main engineering flaw - Square exhaust
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 32
- Joined: 20 Mar 2015, 07:14
sferrin wrote:cooldude2819 wrote:wrightwing wrote:This is scandalous. I've heard of cutting corners, but this just ridiculous. You should immediately email Lockheed Martin, as I'm sure this will prove to be embarrassing. I'm sure the USAF will want to know about this oversight as well, so that they can ground the fleet, while LM fixes these defective nozzles.
i know i should be mad and all but your sarcasm is extremely comedic and i couldn't help but laugh
That's because you're stupid and don't know it. "Cooldude" the newb. How appropriate.
the reason i use that username is uniformity, i have used it for years across many accounts. and i think newb is not exactly a proper word to use on a military aircraft forum. unknowledgeable idiot would be a better way to say it.
the arsenal? you mean my dictionary right?
cooldude2819 wrote:lamoey wrote:Dude, you may have a point, but don't you think LM would be aware of potential issues and engineered it accordingly. We have also read on this forum that the square end is not ideal for thrust either, but still LM chose to go with the square end. Instead of asking questions that was most likely asked and answered 20 years ago, why not ask why does it have a square end and not round. I'm no engine expert, but I can only think of one reason - STEALTH dude. Anything round reflects radar energy back in all directions like a mirror. A flat or slightly curved surface mounted at least 30 degrees from perpendicular to the radar energy is unlikely to reflect it back to the transmitting radar. They made a calculated compromise dude.
they could have just as easily contained the exhaust and not exposed the nozzle
Please elaborate... am curious to learn more about containing the exhaust. How does jet propulsion work if you contain the exhaust?
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 32
- Joined: 20 Mar 2015, 07:14
popcorn wrote:cooldude2819 wrote:lamoey wrote:Dude, you may have a point, but don't you think LM would be aware of potential issues and engineered it accordingly. We have also read on this forum that the square end is not ideal for thrust either, but still LM chose to go with the square end. Instead of asking questions that was most likely asked and answered 20 years ago, why not ask why does it have a square end and not round. I'm no engine expert, but I can only think of one reason - STEALTH dude. Anything round reflects radar energy back in all directions like a mirror. A flat or slightly curved surface mounted at least 30 degrees from perpendicular to the radar energy is unlikely to reflect it back to the transmitting radar. They made a calculated compromise dude.
they could have just as easily contained the exhaust and not exposed the nozzle
Please elaborate... am curious to learn more about containing the exhaust. How does jet propulsion work if you contain the exhaust?
you build a sleeve around it, so that the actual nozzle is not exposed
the arsenal? you mean my dictionary right?
cooldude2819 wrote:you build a sleeve around it, so that the actual nozzle is not exposed
You do know that whatever pipe like structure is left exposed, effectively becomes the outer exhaust nozzle.
And most modern aircraft have it in one form or another.
Your idea basically looped around back to the same exhaust nozzle that every modern jet aircraft has ever had.
cooldude2819 wrote:you build a sleeve around it, so that the actual nozzle is not exposed
The F119 nozzles are rather cleverly designed to address the LO issue. How do you propose to achieve vectored thrust, another key design objective, with your sleeved nozzle?
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 32
- Joined: 20 Mar 2015, 07:14
popcorn wrote:cooldude2819 wrote:you build a sleeve around it, so that the actual nozzle is not exposed
The F119 nozzles are rather cleverly designed to address the LO issue. How do you propose to achieve vectored thrust, another key design objective, with your sleeved nozzle?
the same way the F-35 does
the arsenal? you mean my dictionary right?
cooldude2819 wrote:popcorn wrote:cooldude2819 wrote:you build a sleeve around it, so that the actual nozzle is not exposed
The F119 nozzles are rather cleverly designed to address the LO issue. How do you propose to achieve vectored thrust, another key design objective, with your sleeved nozzle?
the same way the F-35 does
The F-35 doesn't have TVC.
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
"There I was. . ."
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 32
- Joined: 20 Mar 2015, 07:14
sferrin wrote:cooldude2819 wrote:popcorn wrote:The F119 nozzles are rather cleverly designed to address the LO issue. How do you propose to achieve vectored thrust, another key design objective, with your sleeved nozzle?
the same way the F-35 does
The F-35 doesn't have TVC.
you gimbal the nozzle
the arsenal? you mean my dictionary right?
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 32
- Joined: 20 Mar 2015, 07:14
sferrin wrote:cooldude2819 wrote:sferrin wrote:The F-35 doesn't have TVC.
you gimbal the nozzle
That's not how modern, round, TVC nozzles work.
Explain
the arsenal? you mean my dictionary right?
cooldude2819 wrote:sferrin wrote:cooldude2819 wrote:you gimbal the nozzle
That's not how modern, round, TVC nozzles work.
Explain
Pretty self explanatory. I thought you had vast knowledge of all this stuff? You don't need me telling you what's what.
"There I was. . ."
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 32
- Joined: 20 Mar 2015, 07:14
JetTest wrote:Troll or moron, which is it?
just someone here to learn
the arsenal? you mean my dictionary right?
cooldude2819 wrote:JetTest wrote:Troll or moron, which is it?
just someone here to learn
A noble purpose. But a little knowledge is a dangerous thing which should be evident to you by now.. Lots to learn here and many knowledgable members including defense pros worth learning from.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 32
- Joined: 20 Mar 2015, 07:14
popcorn wrote:cooldude2819 wrote:JetTest wrote:Troll or moron, which is it?
just someone here to learn
A noble purpose. But a little knowledge is a dangerous thing which should be evident to you by now.. Lots to learn here and many knowledgable members including defense pros worth learning from.
i totally understand, my subject of expertise is the F-16, most of which i learned from my dads war story's
the arsenal? you mean my dictionary right?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests