WT Forums

ok here it is , for what it's worth. I have no idea whether this guy is legit or a phony, maybee someone recognizes his name.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>From: "Jake Donovan" <jakedonovan_2nospam@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?
Date: Sunday, February 22, 2004 5:53 PM

Pete,

You are even closer than you think.
1- Whomever said the F35 is almost the
same as a F22, I have this reply, gee, that Honda 250 Dirt Bike looks just
like my sons Mongoose BMX bike.

2- The F22 is officially headed to the reserves and ANG as soon as the F35
comes on line. Kind of turns on the lights as to the operating parameters
of the 22 vs the 35.

Having flown both, they are not even close to being the same aircraft. The
35 is already light years ahead of the 22. My X/F35 experience was one of
my most memorable test programs I have been involved in. Stepping out of
the Sims and into the aircraft, you found you could push the 35 well past
what the Sims prepared you for. That was a first in my career.

Although the Raptor is a very capable aircraft, If I had the choice and had
a 35 on the line, I wouldn't leave home with out it. It looks like they got
it right the first time out and the F35 will be with us for some time to
come.

Jake

"Pechs1" <pechs1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040222101149.09068.00000117@mb-m14.aol.com...
> steele-<< Should we be thinking of using the FB-22 Raptor as a replacement
> for the F/A-18 (and the F-14)? I know that the current F-22 was
> not designed to be heavy enough for naval use, but it could be
> re-engineered. They are planning to bring the FB-22 (bomber
> version that carries 30 2000 lbs bombs) online in the future.
> Why not upgrade it then? >><BR><BR>
>
> F35 better, cheaper, sooner and designed for shipboard use. Why not scrape
the
> F-22, and replace it with F35? These things are 'expensive', to say the
least.
>
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Was this off of a forum?
It kinda' looks like you intercepted an e-mail conversation.
<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

Yep Donavan was in both programs.

Capt. USN.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

Newsgroup.
Yeah Mudd, I expected you would know him if he was legit. Would you expect him to be a "company man" puffing for the F-35 over the less profitable F-22 (for Lockheed)?

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

I don’t recognize the name Jake Donovan either but I’m assuming he’s legitimate. Let’s also assume that his comments are sincere and truthful as far as his experience goes. The only way to know what these comments are worth is to interview him personally, and get his perspective. The F-35 prototypes were not examples of operational weapons and neither were the first few F-22A’s built (even less so for the YF-22’s). If he flew both of these aircraft it is likely they were both limited by the cleared flight envelope of the period. The F-22 has cleared much more sky now, way beyond XF-35 territory. I think everything is “Jake”, from the air vehicle performance point of view, not perfect, but wow. It is well known that the F-22 specs were such that it gave up nothing in maneuvering performance to the F-15 while adding many new wrinkles, notably in the supersonic speed and high alpha areas. I suppose pilots differ on the utility of flying fast, but in the F-22 you better get used to it. High and fast, low and fast,…anything and fast will be the description of most F-22 missions. Don’t forget, it can slow down and "turn & burn" just like legacy jets, just in case. It can also recover energy faster than any current jets. One version or another of the F-35 will probably be competitive with the F-22 in the traditional mid-altitude dog fighting arena. So will some foreign types. The F-15 is prone to this difficulty too, isn’t it? It seems to me, if you are likely to be on a par with your enemy, it would make good sense to take the fight elsewhere, where you have an advantage. The F-22 can do that. For instance, consider the fallout capability of a “supercruise” fighter. What can it do if it lights the afterburners? Is there any tactic that can take advantage of an x0000 feet/min rate of climb at M=1.5 at 36000 ft (or an energy equivalent sustained g supersonic turn)? What would be the range of an AIM-120 if it were launched from x0000 ft altitude traveling at xx00 knots (kind of a booster stage)? Fill in your own guesstimates for x. Good people are developing tactics now to give the USAF the advantage it deserves. Take note that I am only talking about aero/propulsion performance, not offensive and defensive equipment performance. As I recall, there were to be some stunning improvements provided there too, improvements not likely to find space on the F-35. Are these improvements factored in to Capt. Donovan’s opinion? If Capt. Donovan has narrowed his view of performance down to range/payload, he would find me in agreement when he prefers the F-35C. It should be hard to beat as a bomb truck, while retaining competitive A2A capability against new European types, but it is further away from being operational. I don’t know anything about the electronics and stealth in the F-35, but its appearance would suggest that it is not being designed as A2A optimized as the F-22. If the preference is based on economics, maybe he’s right too. A big bunch of faith has to go with that one too, though. One assumption is that the F-35 is “good enough” in the A2A role, even though we know that better is achievable. Another assumption is that the cost predictions of the F-35 are anywhere near realistic, since the amount of units purchased is always being renegotiated, and all the bugs have not been ironed out. As long as we’re in the “good enough” mode, why do we need anything better than the Super Hornet? That would save even more bucks, and we’d be just as good as the Europeans, and maybe a tick ahead of the Chinese.

I prefer the Confederate Cavalry philosophy (N.B. Forrest?), “Get there first with the most”. That would more aptly describe the Raptor in the air supremacy role. It would be fun to exchange ideas with Capt. Donovan but neither one of us can speak freely, I’m afraid. A more productive discussion would probably be obtained with the Operational Test pilots at Nellis. I want to know what they think. If the odd-ball stuff that defines the F-22 is not useful, then we should have the hide of the person(s) who said it was. If it's not worth it, we spent a lot of the national treasure getting an air show airplane.

Oops, I have turned this into another of my infamous monologues. My apologies.<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

_________________
????

lol your monologues are better than most Stress, I dont mind at all. And yes he left a lot of room as to what he was specifically talking about, I hope he will come back and clarify.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Why would a navy pilot be flying raptors?

I thought the USAF only used USAF pilots to test it's newest stuff?



<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

He probably got away with it since he's flying the JSF.

Errr....they are totally unrelated programs.

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

JSF is for three services, he probably meshed into the other aircraft program, LM makes both planes. Don't know, just a guess.

Mudd has even worked with the dev. of SH systems. Or something like that.

Just strikes me as odd.

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

Donovan may be working for Lockheed these days and have acces to both, I dunno.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

hey Stress, would you be able to produce accurate Vmin charts for various alts and Gs for any particular aircraft?

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
hey Stress, would you be able to produce accurate Vmin charts for various alts and Gs for any particular aircraft?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


Accurate! You've come to the wrong place. "I may be slow, but I'm not too accurate" is what I always say. I'm an amateur at aero but it dosn't stop me from trying. There was this book that the aero guys had way back in history called the DATCOM, which had methods for calculating things like max lift based on geometric parameters. It never had exactly what you wanted but it was useful for studies. Some of my textbooks have excerpts from it. Nowadays they have computer software that does it (Digital DATCOM?) but it is still based on combinations of theory and test data that probably shouldn't be extrapolated. I do anyway. The professionals call for wind tunnel testing before being nailed down because they have been deceived by DATCOM methods. Are you looking for minimum flying speeds, like a carrier approach speed, or the maximum g's you can pull at any given speed/alt ? Either way you need to know the maximum lift coefficient for the configuration (flaps, stores, speedbrakes etc)which is hard to get accurately without wind tunnel data. Even then they have to factor for the full scale effects of Mach and Reynolds numbers. I could get you started so you can make trouble. Let's say the A-10 can get an "up and away" trimmed max lift coefficient (Clmax) of 1.25, pretty high, but that's why that cambered airfoil is there. Also, ignore that the Mach and the Reynolds number are changing with altitude, and the Clmax stays constant. The wing area (S) is 509 sq ft and also assume a gross weight of 40000 lbs and a standard day atmosphere. Make a table: Lift = q x S x Clmax, Max Lift / weight = g's

Alt (ft),True airspeed (knots), Dynamic Pressure-q (psf), Max Lift (lbs), Max g's (instantaneous)

00000, 340, 391, 248800, 6.2
10000, 340, 289, 183900, 4.6
20000, 340, 209, 133000, 3.3


Does this look right for the A-10? I forget. The sustained g's have thrust and drag entering into it, so it's a harder calc.

_________________
????

obviously the pilots would know far better than I, but they seem near the mark.

What I need is minimum airspeeds for a clean aircraft at say half fuel, at several altitudes up to max for that plane. And then that same info for each (or at leaste some) of the rated Gs, I can fill in the gaps. I would need that info for several key planes, not just our beloved A-10.

I'll be signing some contracts over the weekend, maybee I could slip you some insultingly small compensation for your efforts (with credit of course when the time comes)?

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.