F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
390
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
607
Reaction score
197
Points
178
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
People don't realize that

1) In fighter combat, dog fighting is strictly a last resort. Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
 

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
The ones not in the know thinks that air wars are fought on a one on one situation. They aren't. They are fought squadron or flight to squadron or flight. Along with AWACS, ground controllers and more. It's a very complicated arena. The bird that shoots you down will probably not be the one that has targeted you. And breaking one target won't mean that another bird doesn't keep you on target allowing the missile the tracking it needs for the kill. Dog fighting isn't dead but it's very, very rare.

Yes, the SU-30 could defeat a F-35A in a gun to gun dogfight but once the missiles are introduced, the F-35 is very deadly. And that includes within visual. The F-35A has the ability to target and fire on you in about a 180 degree arc with a reasonable rate of kill. The Pilot just has to see you and then the missile will do a high g turn towards you. It's one thing for a missile to change direction long distance because of the speed but another when it's just off the rails and going slow. The winner is the one that sees the other one first and the F-35A has a huge advantage there. But to bet your life on getting a gun solution is suicide these days.

As for the F-22, the SU-30 is dead no matter what. Even in a gun to gun. The SU-30 is roughly equiv to the F-15C and the F-15C has to get very, very lucky even in a gunfight. In a gun fight, the F-22 maintains a 20 to 1 kill rate against the F-15C. The best thing that a SU-30 can do at this point is put the burners on and get the hell out of there. BTW, there is no sin in putting the burners on and living to fight another day. If a F-15 gets in trouble, he goes up under full afterburner and NOTHING follows him. He waits until you can't see him, hits the burner and then reappears 10 miles away and the fight is still on. But doing that against a F-22 is suicide. The best thing you can do is to take the advice already give, "I think you should go home now".

 

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
390
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
The ones not in the know thinks that air wars are fought on a one on one situation. They aren't. They are fought squadron or flight to squadron or flight. Along with AWACS, ground controllers and more. It's a very complicated arena. The bird that shoots you down will probably not be the one that has targeted you. And breaking one target won't mean that another bird doesn't keep you on target allowing the missile the tracking it needs for the kill. Dog fighting isn't dead but it's very, very rare.

Yes, the SU-30 could defeat a F-35A in a gun to gun dogfight but once the missiles are introduced, the F-35 is very deadly. And that includes within visual. The F-35A has the ability to target and fire on you in about a 180 degree arc with a reasonable rate of kill. The Pilot just has to see you and then the missile will do a high g turn towards you. It's one thing for a missile to change direction long distance because of the speed but another when it's just off the rails and going slow. The winner is the one that sees the other one first and the F-35A has a huge advantage there. But to bet your life on getting a gun solution is suicide these days.

As for the F-22, the SU-30 is dead no matter what. Even in a gun to gun. The SU-30 is roughly equiv to the F-15C and the F-15C has to get very, very lucky even in a gunfight. In a gun fight, the F-22 maintains a 20 to 1 kill rate against the F-15C. The best thing that a SU-30 can do at this point is put the burners on and get the hell out of there. BTW, there is no sin in putting the burners on and living to fight another day. If a F-15 gets in trouble, he goes up under full afterburner and NOTHING follows him. He waits until you can't see him, hits the burner and then reappears 10 miles away and the fight is still on. But doing that against a F-22 is suicide. The best thing you can do is to take the advice already give, "I think you should go home now".

it sounds nice, but my objection was against the very certaincy while talking on advantages of one side - when there is not less a certaincy in words of another side :)
I suspect reality can be a surprize for both sides...
 
Last edited:

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
70,364
Reaction score
24,972
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
I'm an old motorhead. When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever. But I didn't ask so much of it. It didn't have it to give anyway. The basic parts were not being overly taxed.

But when I built a performance engine, I didn't expect it to last very long. In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure. No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.

The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds. You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it. The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag. But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast. By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons. But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem". If called on, it does the job and gets home safely. The same won't be said about the other guy.

I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems. Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines. You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate. The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type Aircraft. Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.

Fighters break. Get over it.
Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
Dead on anology. When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week. I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild. When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild. But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week. The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day. Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines. You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.

BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines. Did you?




Wow, you are a piss poor liar. No engine can go racing and last that long. Period. You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
 

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
The ones not in the know thinks that air wars are fought on a one on one situation. They aren't. They are fought squadron or flight to squadron or flight. Along with AWACS, ground controllers and more. It's a very complicated arena. The bird that shoots you down will probably not be the one that has targeted you. And breaking one target won't mean that another bird doesn't keep you on target allowing the missile the tracking it needs for the kill. Dog fighting isn't dead but it's very, very rare.

Yes, the SU-30 could defeat a F-35A in a gun to gun dogfight but once the missiles are introduced, the F-35 is very deadly. And that includes within visual. The F-35A has the ability to target and fire on you in about a 180 degree arc with a reasonable rate of kill. The Pilot just has to see you and then the missile will do a high g turn towards you. It's one thing for a missile to change direction long distance because of the speed but another when it's just off the rails and going slow. The winner is the one that sees the other one first and the F-35A has a huge advantage there. But to bet your life on getting a gun solution is suicide these days.

As for the F-22, the SU-30 is dead no matter what. Even in a gun to gun. The SU-30 is roughly equiv to the F-15C and the F-15C has to get very, very lucky even in a gunfight. In a gun fight, the F-22 maintains a 20 to 1 kill rate against the F-15C. The best thing that a SU-30 can do at this point is put the burners on and get the hell out of there. BTW, there is no sin in putting the burners on and living to fight another day. If a F-15 gets in trouble, he goes up under full afterburner and NOTHING follows him. He waits until you can't see him, hits the burner and then reappears 10 miles away and the fight is still on. But doing that against a F-22 is suicide. The best thing you can do is to take the advice already give, "I think you should go home now".

it sounds nice, but my objection was against the very certaincy while talking on advantages of one side - when there is not less a certaincy in words of another side :)
I suspect reality can be a surprize for both sides...
The US always plays their capability down a bit and leaves a lot of questions unanswered. China and Russia seems to leave a lot of questions open as well except some of their "Questions" are either wannabes or misdirection.

For instance, the SU-57. It's supposed to be the equal to the F-22 but in reality, it lacks the avionics and engines to reach that point. It turns out, it's probably not even close to a F-35A in capability either. But the Russians keep telling us that it is. Not without the upgrades it isn't and it appears those upgrades are not forthcoming in a very near future. Meanwhile, Russia has the SU-35 and the Mig-35 that ARE finished products and those we would have to contend with. Now add to the fact that neither Russia nor China spends enough time in training. While China is spending a lot of money on expanding because they have such a long way to play catchup, Russia is broke.
 

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
I'm an old motorhead. When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever. But I didn't ask so much of it. It didn't have it to give anyway. The basic parts were not being overly taxed.

But when I built a performance engine, I didn't expect it to last very long. In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure. No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.

The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds. You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it. The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag. But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast. By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons. But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem". If called on, it does the job and gets home safely. The same won't be said about the other guy.

I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems. Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines. You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate. The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type Aircraft. Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.

Fighters break. Get over it.
Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
Dead on anology. When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week. I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild. When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild. But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week. The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day. Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines. You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.

BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines. Did you?




Wow, you are a piss poor liar. No engine can go racing and last that long. Period. You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
No engine YOU can build will. But my engines did. Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.

Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today? If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.
 

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
390
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters
well, I am far from being an expert in this, but as I know Russia always prefers assymmetrical answers which save money, developing anti-air defence, for example, which is way better than American one, as well while developing weapons it skips certain stages, like now moving directly to 6th unmanned generation of fighters instead of full production of 5th generation fighters.

SU-57 production, as I heard, was rather a compromise to enable better export perspectives..
 
Last edited:

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
well, I am far from being an expert in this, but as I know Russia always prefer assymmetrical answers which save money, developing anti-air defence, for example, which is way better than American one, as well developing weapons it skips certain stages, like now moving directly to 6th unmanned generation of fighters instead of full production of 5th generation fighters.

SU-57 production, as I heard, was rather a compromise to enable better export perspectives..
I can relate to that. I am working on my second million. I gave up on my first million. A 6th gen can't exist without the 5th gen. Just like the F-22 could not exist without the F-15. Our 6th gen is a marraige of the F-22, F-35 and newly developed technology like Lazers, swarms, etc..
 

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
390
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters
well, I am far from being an expert in this, but as I know Russia always prefer assymmetrical answers which save money, developing anti-air defence, for example, which is way better than American one, as well developing weapons it skips certain stages, like now moving directly to 6th unmanned generation of fighters instead of full production of 5th generation fighters.

SU-57 production, as I heard, was rather a compromise to enable better export perspectives..
I can relate to that. I am working on my second million. I gave up on my first million. A 6th gen can't exist without the 5th gen. Just like the F-22 could not exist without the F-15. Our 6th gen is a marraige of the F-22, F-35 and newly developed technology like Lazers, swarms, etc..
Russia has better internet and mobile phone coverage, price, quality than the US, having not covered all its territory with wired tepephone services...
SU-57 is a 5th generation plane, with improved engines to be completed soon, while many stealth technologies of F-s are going to get obsolete or not really that effective with development of new technologies like photonic radars...
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
70,364
Reaction score
24,972
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
I'm an old motorhead. When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever. But I didn't ask so much of it. It didn't have it to give anyway. The basic parts were not being overly taxed.

But when I built a performance engine, I didn't expect it to last very long. In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure. No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.

The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds. You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it. The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag. But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast. By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons. But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem". If called on, it does the job and gets home safely. The same won't be said about the other guy.

I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems. Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines. You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate. The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type Aircraft. Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.

Fighters break. Get over it.
Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
Dead on anology. When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week. I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild. When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild. But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week. The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day. Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines. You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.

BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines. Did you?




Wow, you are a piss poor liar. No engine can go racing and last that long. Period. You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
No engine YOU can build will. But my engines did. Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.

Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today? If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.




No, they won't. Not for a year. And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock". It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming. I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years. Hell, decades now. I also crew a Reno Air Race plane. Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.


When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI. I'm in the 200mph club. Have been for decades.

It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything. And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
 

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
well, I am far from being an expert in this, but as I know Russia always prefer assymmetrical answers which save money, developing anti-air defence, for example, which is way better than American one, as well developing weapons it skips certain stages, like now moving directly to 6th unmanned generation of fighters instead of full production of 5th generation fighters.

SU-57 production, as I heard, was rather a compromise to enable better export perspectives..
I can relate to that. I am working on my second million. I gave up on my first million. A 6th gen can't exist without the 5th gen. Just like the F-22 could not exist without the F-15. Our 6th gen is a marraige of the F-22, F-35 and newly developed technology like Lazers, swarms, etc..
Russia has better internet and mobile phone coverage, price, quality than the US, having not covered all its territory with wired tepephone services...
SU-57 is a 5th generation plane, with improved engines to be completed soon, while many stealth technologies of F-s are going to get obsolete or not really that effective with development of new technologies like photonic radars...
Yes, but China is decades behind. Russia is years behind while the US has working models but are not scaled. The Astral Program (joint Lockheed and DARPA) is years ahead. My information on China and Russia is current but my info on DARPA is dated 2017.

As of late last year, no one has been able to beat the RF noise. While it works well in the Lab, it doesn't lend itself to the real world. The more power you give it the more RF noise you get until it's worthless. It's been worked on since the 1960s. While it may or may not find it's way to Fighter and Ground Radar it's being looked at very close for transportation.

Quantum Radar looks to be much more promising and the US and Canada are the leaders by decades on that. Right now, it works in the Labs but they haven't transferred it to the real world quite yet. They are still a few years away from that. And THAT will kill all radar stealth.

BTW, the US is the leader in the Photon Radar and the one that makes it work first will also be the first to learn to defeat it. But Quantum Radar can't be defeated.
 

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
I'm an old motorhead. When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever. But I didn't ask so much of it. It didn't have it to give anyway. The basic parts were not being overly taxed.

But when I built a performance engine, I didn't expect it to last very long. In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure. No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.

The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds. You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it. The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag. But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast. By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons. But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem". If called on, it does the job and gets home safely. The same won't be said about the other guy.

I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems. Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines. You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate. The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type Aircraft. Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.

Fighters break. Get over it.
Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
Dead on anology. When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week. I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild. When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild. But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week. The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day. Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines. You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.

BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines. Did you?




Wow, you are a piss poor liar. No engine can go racing and last that long. Period. You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
No engine YOU can build will. But my engines did. Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.

Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today? If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.




No, they won't. Not for a year. And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock". It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming. I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years. Hell, decades now. I also crew a Reno Air Race plane. Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.


When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI. I'm in the 200mph club. Have been for decades.

It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything. And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
I built stock engines. The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer. In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up. In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially. And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s. My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks. Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.

And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII. There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi. And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic. I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service. I have 5 years of doing that. So don't give me your crap.
 

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
390
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters
well, I am far from being an expert in this, but as I know Russia always prefer assymmetrical answers which save money, developing anti-air defence, for example, which is way better than American one, as well developing weapons it skips certain stages, like now moving directly to 6th unmanned generation of fighters instead of full production of 5th generation fighters.

SU-57 production, as I heard, was rather a compromise to enable better export perspectives..
I can relate to that. I am working on my second million. I gave up on my first million. A 6th gen can't exist without the 5th gen. Just like the F-22 could not exist without the F-15. Our 6th gen is a marraige of the F-22, F-35 and newly developed technology like Lazers, swarms, etc..
Russia has better internet and mobile phone coverage, price, quality than the US, having not covered all its territory with wired tepephone services...
SU-57 is a 5th generation plane, with improved engines to be completed soon, while many stealth technologies of F-s are going to get obsolete or not really that effective with development of new technologies like photonic radars...
Yes, but China is decades behind. Russia is years behind while the US has working models but are not scaled. The Astral Program (joint Lockheed and DARPA) is years ahead. My information on China and Russia is current but my info on DARPA is dated 2017.

As of late last year, no one has been able to beat the RF noise. While it works well in the Lab, it doesn't lend itself to the real world. The more power you give it the more RF noise you get until it's worthless. It's been worked on since the 1960s. While it may or may not find it's way to Fighter and Ground Radar it's being looked at very close for transportation.

Quantum Radar looks to be much more promising and the US and Canada are the leaders by decades on that. Right now, it works in the Labs but they haven't transferred it to the real world quite yet. They are still a few years away from that. And THAT will kill all radar stealth.

BTW, the US is the leader in the Photon Radar and the one that makes it work first will also be the first to learn to defeat it. But Quantum Radar can't be defeated.
I presume ohotone and quantum radars are the same thing.

Russia is ahead if the US in several fields, including hypersonic weapons so until it is used nobody knows who is the first in quantum radars
 

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
well, I am far from being an expert in this, but as I know Russia always prefer assymmetrical answers which save money, developing anti-air defence, for example, which is way better than American one, as well developing weapons it skips certain stages, like now moving directly to 6th unmanned generation of fighters instead of full production of 5th generation fighters.

SU-57 production, as I heard, was rather a compromise to enable better export perspectives..
I can relate to that. I am working on my second million. I gave up on my first million. A 6th gen can't exist without the 5th gen. Just like the F-22 could not exist without the F-15. Our 6th gen is a marraige of the F-22, F-35 and newly developed technology like Lazers, swarms, etc..
Russia has better internet and mobile phone coverage, price, quality than the US, having not covered all its territory with wired tepephone services...
SU-57 is a 5th generation plane, with improved engines to be completed soon, while many stealth technologies of F-s are going to get obsolete or not really that effective with development of new technologies like photonic radars...
Yes, but China is decades behind. Russia is years behind while the US has working models but are not scaled. The Astral Program (joint Lockheed and DARPA) is years ahead. My information on China and Russia is current but my info on DARPA is dated 2017.

As of late last year, no one has been able to beat the RF noise. While it works well in the Lab, it doesn't lend itself to the real world. The more power you give it the more RF noise you get until it's worthless. It's been worked on since the 1960s. While it may or may not find it's way to Fighter and Ground Radar it's being looked at very close for transportation.

Quantum Radar looks to be much more promising and the US and Canada are the leaders by decades on that. Right now, it works in the Labs but they haven't transferred it to the real world quite yet. They are still a few years away from that. And THAT will kill all radar stealth.

BTW, the US is the leader in the Photon Radar and the one that makes it work first will also be the first to learn to defeat it. But Quantum Radar can't be defeated.
I presume ohotone and quantum radars are the same thing.

Russia is ahead if the US in several fields, including hypersonic weapons so until it is used nobody knows who is the first in quantum radars
I never heard of ohotone radar. How about guiding me to a site on that one. But Quantum is where there are a pair of matching particles. One is shot out. If it returns, you get a picture just like normal radar. But if it's deflected, at the point of deflection the captured particle will detect that. When enough particles are deflected, a complete signature is painted in a matter of a fraction of a second. It sounds simple when I type it but it keeps a whole generation of Scientists and Engineers awake at nights.
 

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
390
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters
well, I am far from being an expert in this, but as I know Russia always prefer assymmetrical answers which save money, developing anti-air defence, for example, which is way better than American one, as well developing weapons it skips certain stages, like now moving directly to 6th unmanned generation of fighters instead of full production of 5th generation fighters.

SU-57 production, as I heard, was rather a compromise to enable better export perspectives..
I can relate to that. I am working on my second million. I gave up on my first million. A 6th gen can't exist without the 5th gen. Just like the F-22 could not exist without the F-15. Our 6th gen is a marraige of the F-22, F-35 and newly developed technology like Lazers, swarms, etc..
Russia has better internet and mobile phone coverage, price, quality than the US, having not covered all its territory with wired tepephone services...
SU-57 is a 5th generation plane, with improved engines to be completed soon, while many stealth technologies of F-s are going to get obsolete or not really that effective with development of new technologies like photonic radars...
Yes, but China is decades behind. Russia is years behind while the US has working models but are not scaled. The Astral Program (joint Lockheed and DARPA) is years ahead. My information on China and Russia is current but my info on DARPA is dated 2017.

As of late last year, no one has been able to beat the RF noise. While it works well in the Lab, it doesn't lend itself to the real world. The more power you give it the more RF noise you get until it's worthless. It's been worked on since the 1960s. While it may or may not find it's way to Fighter and Ground Radar it's being looked at very close for transportation.

Quantum Radar looks to be much more promising and the US and Canada are the leaders by decades on that. Right now, it works in the Labs but they haven't transferred it to the real world quite yet. They are still a few years away from that. And THAT will kill all radar stealth.

BTW, the US is the leader in the Photon Radar and the one that makes it work first will also be the first to learn to defeat it. But Quantum Radar can't be defeated.
I presume ohotone and quantum radars are the same thing.

Russia is ahead if the US in several fields, including hypersonic weapons so until it is used nobody knows who is the first in quantum radars
I never heard of ohotone radar. How about guiding me to a site on that one. But Quantum is where there are a pair of matching particles. One is shot out. If it returns, you get a picture just like normal radar. But if it's deflected, at the point of deflection the captured particle will detect that. When enough particles are deflected, a complete signature is painted in a matter of a fraction of a second. It sounds simple when I type it but it keeps a whole generation of Scientists and Engineers awake at nights.
in a Russian sourse I read that in the US photone radar is called quantum, it's the same
 

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
well, I am far from being an expert in this, but as I know Russia always prefer assymmetrical answers which save money, developing anti-air defence, for example, which is way better than American one, as well developing weapons it skips certain stages, like now moving directly to 6th unmanned generation of fighters instead of full production of 5th generation fighters.

SU-57 production, as I heard, was rather a compromise to enable better export perspectives..
I can relate to that. I am working on my second million. I gave up on my first million. A 6th gen can't exist without the 5th gen. Just like the F-22 could not exist without the F-15. Our 6th gen is a marraige of the F-22, F-35 and newly developed technology like Lazers, swarms, etc..
Russia has better internet and mobile phone coverage, price, quality than the US, having not covered all its territory with wired tepephone services...
SU-57 is a 5th generation plane, with improved engines to be completed soon, while many stealth technologies of F-s are going to get obsolete or not really that effective with development of new technologies like photonic radars...
Yes, but China is decades behind. Russia is years behind while the US has working models but are not scaled. The Astral Program (joint Lockheed and DARPA) is years ahead. My information on China and Russia is current but my info on DARPA is dated 2017.

As of late last year, no one has been able to beat the RF noise. While it works well in the Lab, it doesn't lend itself to the real world. The more power you give it the more RF noise you get until it's worthless. It's been worked on since the 1960s. While it may or may not find it's way to Fighter and Ground Radar it's being looked at very close for transportation.

Quantum Radar looks to be much more promising and the US and Canada are the leaders by decades on that. Right now, it works in the Labs but they haven't transferred it to the real world quite yet. They are still a few years away from that. And THAT will kill all radar stealth.

BTW, the US is the leader in the Photon Radar and the one that makes it work first will also be the first to learn to defeat it. But Quantum Radar can't be defeated.
I presume ohotone and quantum radars are the same thing.

Russia is ahead if the US in several fields, including hypersonic weapons so until it is used nobody knows who is the first in quantum radars
I never heard of ohotone radar. How about guiding me to a site on that one. But Quantum is where there are a pair of matching particles. One is shot out. If it returns, you get a picture just like normal radar. But if it's deflected, at the point of deflection the captured particle will detect that. When enough particles are deflected, a complete signature is painted in a matter of a fraction of a second. It sounds simple when I type it but it keeps a whole generation of Scientists and Engineers awake at nights.
in a Russian sourse I read that in the US photone radar is called quantum, it's the same
No, two different concepts. And it's Phototonic Radar.

Photonic radar
A laser diode is used to generate an optical signal that is modulated by a linearly-chirped low frequency signal. This modulated optical signal is then split, with one part immediately converted to an electronic signal at 4 times the frequency of the original modulating signal. This waveform is then amplified, emitted via a standard antenna, and then received again via another standard antenna. The second half of the modulated optical signal is further modulated by the reflected signal, and then converted to an electronic signal. This electronic signal is sent through a low-pass filter and finally digitized via an analog-to-digital converter. The resulting digital waveform can be processed to recover the delay between the transmitted and reflected signal, and thus the distance to the target. The entire system may be operated in real-time to allow high-speed target acquisition

It uses a combination of Lasers and Microwaves. MW is a lower frequency than the normal Radar therefore it is harder to block. But the Antennae is also larger. What they are working at is making it where the arrays can fit on a mobile truck, link with others and get thousands of miles of foolproof coverage defeating Stealth. While both the Photonic Radar and the Quantum Radar are to be broadcast in the Microwave Bandwidth, they operate differently. The reason that the MW is chosen is that it's a lower frequency and has a longer range at the same power than the Gigawatt used in the modern Radars.

Quantum radar
Quantum radar is a speculative remote-sensing technology based on quantum-mechanical effects, such as the uncertainty principle or quantum entanglement. Broadly speaking, a quantum radar can be seen as a device working in the microwave range, which exploits quantum features, from the point of view of the radiation source and/or the output detection, and is able to outperform a classical counterpart. One approach is based on the use of input quantum correlations (in particular, quantum entanglement) combined with a suitable interferometric quantum detection at the receiver (strongly related to the protocol of quantum illumination). Paving the way for a technologically-viable prototype of a quantum radar involves the resolution of a number of experimental challenges as discussed in some review articles,[1][2] the latter of which pointed out "inaccurate reporting" in the media. Current experimental designs seem to be limited to very short ranges, of the order of one meter,[3][4][5] suggesting that potential applications might instead be for near-distance surveillance or biomedical scanning.

What makes the Quantum Radar work is the same reason that the Quantum Computer is on the near horizon. Having two identical linked particles where one is kept and the other is transmitted to a MW Radio Frequency, broadcast out and returned. And if it doesn't return, the captured particle will know it and report the deflection in a mini, milli fraction of a second and that is reported to the system.
 

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
390
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
70,364
Reaction score
24,972
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
I'm an old motorhead. When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever. But I didn't ask so much of it. It didn't have it to give anyway. The basic parts were not being overly taxed.

But when I built a performance engine, I didn't expect it to last very long. In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure. No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.

The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds. You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it. The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag. But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast. By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons. But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem". If called on, it does the job and gets home safely. The same won't be said about the other guy.

I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems. Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines. You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate. The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type Aircraft. Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.

Fighters break. Get over it.
Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
Dead on anology. When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week. I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild. When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild. But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week. The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day. Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines. You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.

BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines. Did you?




Wow, you are a piss poor liar. No engine can go racing and last that long. Period. You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
No engine YOU can build will. But my engines did. Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.

Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today? If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.




No, they won't. Not for a year. And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock". It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming. I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years. Hell, decades now. I also crew a Reno Air Race plane. Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.


When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI. I'm in the 200mph club. Have been for decades.

It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything. And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
I built stock engines. The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer. In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up. In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially. And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s. My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks. Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.

And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII. There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi. And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic. I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service. I have 5 years of doing that. So don't give me your crap.







Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins. He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.

You sound like Daryl. You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.

And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans. And "Stock" means stock. No mods of any kind.
 

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
I'm an old motorhead. When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever. But I didn't ask so much of it. It didn't have it to give anyway. The basic parts were not being overly taxed.

But when I built a performance engine, I didn't expect it to last very long. In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure. No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.

The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds. You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it. The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag. But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast. By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons. But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem". If called on, it does the job and gets home safely. The same won't be said about the other guy.

I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems. Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines. You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate. The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type Aircraft. Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.

Fighters break. Get over it.
Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
Dead on anology. When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week. I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild. When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild. But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week. The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day. Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines. You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.

BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines. Did you?




Wow, you are a piss poor liar. No engine can go racing and last that long. Period. You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
No engine YOU can build will. But my engines did. Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.

Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today? If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.




No, they won't. Not for a year. And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock". It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming. I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years. Hell, decades now. I also crew a Reno Air Race plane. Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.


When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI. I'm in the 200mph club. Have been for decades.

It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything. And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
I built stock engines. The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer. In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up. In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially. And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s. My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks. Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.

And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII. There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi. And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic. I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service. I have 5 years of doing that. So don't give me your crap.







Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins. He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.

You sound like Daryl. You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.

And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans. And "Stock" means stock. No mods of any kind.
I didn't say modifications. I said tightening up the tolerances. That tells me that YOU don't race shit.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top