F-119 thrust

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 16 Dec 2015, 18:52

Often cited as "35,000lb class".

I know we'll probably never know, but what's the likelihood it's a lot closer to 40,000lbs? Would that even be useful, given it already super-cruises/has an excellent thrust to weight ratio??

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 16 Dec 2015, 19:48

I've seen everything from 34k to 43k quoted (and the latter was before the F135 was around).

checksixx · by **checksixx** » 17 Dec 2015, 01:34

mixelflick wrote:Often cited as "35,000lb class".

I know we'll probably never know, but what's the likelihood it's a lot closer to 40,000lbs? Would that even be useful, given it already super-cruises/has an excellent thrust to weight ratio??

When we first started flying airshows with the F-22, we publicly announced the 40,000lb thrust...and then in subsequent years went back to the 35,000lb figure.

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 17 Dec 2015, 13:39

When we first started flying airshows with the F-22, we publicly announced the 40,000lb thrust...and then in subsequent years went back to the 35,000lb figure.[/quote]

I guess that answers my question...

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 17 Dec 2015, 15:12

checksixx wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Often cited as "35,000lb class".

I know we'll probably never know, but what's the likelihood it's a lot closer to 40,000lbs? Would that even be useful, given it already super-cruises/has an excellent thrust to weight ratio??

When we first started flying airshows with the F-22, we publicly announced the 40,000lb thrust...and then in subsequent years went back to the 35,000lb figure.

Who is this "we"?

checksixx · by **checksixx** » 17 Dec 2015, 23:36

sferrin wrote:Who is this "we"?

We would be the US Air Force...more specifically those of us at Langley when the jet started being shown at airshows. The US Air Force is the only service with F-22's so I'm not sure what your confusion was, but I hope you understand now.

durahawk · by **durahawk** » 18 Dec 2015, 03:21

I find it interesting that the F119 and F135 supposedly share the same core, yet the published maximum thrust numbers have a significant spread.

Perhaps it is to emphasize technological "progression"

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 18 Dec 2015, 03:40

checksixx wrote:
sferrin wrote:Who is this "we"?

We would be the US Air Force...

..."resistance is futile" :shock:

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 18 Dec 2015, 07:36

durahawk wrote:I find it interesting that the F119 and F135 supposedly share the same core, yet the published maximum thrust numbers have a significant spread.

Perhaps it is to emphasize technological "progression"

I'm no engine expert, but F135 has higher bypass ratio which should improve overall thrust. I think most of added thrust for F135 come from higher bypass ratio and some come from technological advancements. Since bypass thrust comes from thin air (without much added work from engine), it also improves fuel consumption as more thrust is generated using same amount of fuel.

One problem with higher bypass ratio is that it also increases (especially supersonic) drag. Especially so since the intakes have to be able to provide more air for both core airflow and bypass airflow. As far as I understand this is one reason why F-35 is not real supercruising aircraft while F-22 is although both share quite similar engines. Of course F-22 having two almost as powerful engines provide higher thrust to weight and especially thrust to drag ratios. Of course F-35 is also designed to operate at lower altitudes and speeds while emphasizing subsonic range and thus the design choices make a lot of sense for it.

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 18 Dec 2015, 14:04

checksixx wrote:
sferrin wrote:Who is this "we"?

We would be the US Air Force...more specifically those of us at Langley when the jet started being shown at airshows. The US Air Force is the only service with F-22's so I'm not sure what your confusion was, but I hope you understand now.

IMO being in the same geographic local does not qualify the use of "we". Are you an F-22 pilot, planner, or unit commander? A yes or a no is sufficient.

checksixx · by **checksixx** » 19 Dec 2015, 00:22

sferrin wrote:IMO being in the same geographic local does not qualify the use of "we". Are you an F-22 pilot, planner, or unit commander? A yes or a no is sufficient.

That would be irrelevant. Please stay on topic. Further, DO NOT EVER post something as if you have some authority to get an answer from me. You have none. Nor do you have any need for the requested information. That clear enough for you?

deadseal · by **deadseal** » 19 Dec 2015, 03:16

quicksilver wrote:
checksixx wrote:
sferrin wrote:Who is this "we"?

We would be the US Air Force...

..."resistance is futile"

lol

it is futile
all your planets belong to us

and by us i mean anyone in the USAF you clown

eloise · by **eloise** » 19 Dec 2015, 13:59

am i the only one who have no idea what going on here?

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 19 Dec 2015, 16:05

checksixx wrote:
sferrin wrote:IMO being in the same geographic local does not qualify the use of "we". Are you an F-22 pilot, planner, or unit commander? A yes or a no is sufficient.

That would be irrelevant. Please stay on topic. Further, DO NOT EVER post something as if you have some authority to get an answer from me. You have none. Nor do you have any need for the requested information. That clear enough for you?

That would be a "no" then. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 19 Dec 2015, 16:07

eloise wrote::? am i the only one who have no idea what going on here?

checksixx has always come across as an angry poser. His use of "we" (intended no doubt to imply he's somebody important and/or directly involved in the use of the F-22) is a perfect example. And just suggest he might be wrong or FOS and watch him fly into a tantrum. I've never seen anybody on this forum attempt to authoritatively spew as much bullshit as checksixx.