F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
70,533
Reaction score
25,307
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.
I didn't say modifications. I said tightening up the tolerances. That tells me that YOU don't race shit.







Tightening tolerances IS modifying. That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying. Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension, are as built by the manufacturer. ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done. In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness. That's it. No other modifications may be made. Period.
 

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.







Tightening tolerances IS modifying. That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying. Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension, are as built by the manufacturer. ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done. In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness. That's it. No other modifications may be made. Period.
I was under NHRA and a stock class had to be stock down to the Radiator Caps. But we tightened up some parts and loosened up others by playing with tolerances. And in Stock and Superstock didn't allow roll cages. But we did have to have them for Modified Production. You described somewhere between a Superstocker and a Modified Production. If you showed up with what you described, you would have been placed in Modified Production and you would be the slowest car in the entire Modified
Classes including G Modified. The idea is to win, not just use the hour hand. We used the Second hand in all the classes. The idea is to win not clog up the strip.
 

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...
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.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
70,533
Reaction score
25,307
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.
I didn't say modifications. I said tightening up the tolerances. That tells me that YOU don't race shit.







Tightening tolerances IS modifying. That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying. Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension, are as built by the manufacturer. ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done. In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness. That's it. No other modifications may be made. Period.
I was under NHRA and a stock class had to be stock down to the Radiator Caps. But we tightened up some parts and loosened up others by playing with tolerances. And in Stock and Superstock didn't allow roll cages. But we did have to have them for Modified Production. You described somewhere between a Superstocker and a Modified Production. If you showed up with what you described, you would have been placed in Modified Production and you would be the slowest car in the entire Modified
Classes including G Modified. The idea is to win, not just use the hour hand. We used the Second hand in all the classes. The idea is to win not clog up the strip.




ALL CLASSES REQUIRE roll cages. SCCA racing is what I do. Going fast in a straight line is boring as hell. Anyone can do it. NHRA rules for Street cars are time dependent. If your street car can do a 11.49 you are required to have a 6 Point Roll Bar. All other classes REQUIRE a roll cage. I have no idea what shit you are babbling about, but those are NHRA rules from long, long ago.

And, like I said. My GT40 will blow your doors off kid.



 
Last edited:

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.







Tightening tolerances IS modifying. That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying. Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension, are as built by the manufacturer. ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done. In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness. That's it. No other modifications may be made. Period.
You sure do like to lose. And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like like to be close tolerance. That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief. Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times. Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet. The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me". The cheat was the rear bumper. The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas. They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead. Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend. You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts. I got away with that for the entire 1969 season. Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.

there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips. If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself. We stole those engines blind for our drag motors. And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.

Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.

Hemispherical combustion chambers
Fuel Injection
Supercharger

Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in? And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis. Yes, this also describes the Hellcats. But the Hellcat engines go back to..................... What's the answer. I'll accept three answers.
 

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.







Tightening tolerances IS modifying. That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying. Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension, are as built by the manufacturer. ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done. In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness. That's it. No other modifications may be made. Period.
I was under NHRA and a stock class had to be stock down to the Radiator Caps. But we tightened up some parts and loosened up others by playing with tolerances. And in Stock and Superstock didn't allow roll cages. But we did have to have them for Modified Production. You described somewhere between a Superstocker and a Modified Production. If you showed up with what you described, you would have been placed in Modified Production and you would be the slowest car in the entire Modified
Classes including G Modified. The idea is to win, not just use the hour hand. We used the Second hand in all the classes. The idea is to win not clog up the strip.




ALL CLASSES REQUIRE roll cages. SCCA racing is what I do. Going fast in a straight line is boring as hell. Anyone can do it. NHRA rules for Street cars are time dependent. If your street car can do a 11.49 you are required to have a 6 Point Roll Bar. All other classes REQUIRE a roll cage. I have no idea what shit you are babbling about, but those are NHRA rules from long, long ago.

And, like I said. My GT40 will blow your doors off kid.



let's see. My old Grocery Getter has 4 wheel indy supension, enough power to light up those 11 inch tires in the back at almost any speed, Only the latest C-8 Vette can run with it in your road course. (Okay, I ain't stock and your car isn't stock either). Where I will give way due to weight, I'll make it up with over twice the HP and brakes. Okay, there are some Hellcat Parts in there (standard 5.7 easy hopup). AS for top speed, if I wanted to, I could add the supercharger to it and have a mini Hellcat. It's just a bolt on. My motor stock was so detuned that it only put out 345HP. But I opened up it's breathing, removed 2 of the 4 mufflers and that HP rating goes up 60 HP. Now, put a decent tune on the motor and it nears the 500 or more HP range. Chrysler used the detuned motor of the 300 in the forerunner of the Charger/Challenger but the suspension is better on the 2005 Magnum. And it's over 400 lbs lighter.

And the engine doesn't use a thing that the pre automotive Hemis didn't already have. The Hellcat isn't something new, really old, really old.

Now, if you are so damned superior about racing and military equipment, give me just one of those 3 early hemis for the Military.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
70,533
Reaction score
25,307
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.
I didn't say modifications. I said tightening up the tolerances. That tells me that YOU don't race shit.







Tightening tolerances IS modifying. That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying. Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension, are as built by the manufacturer. ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done. In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness. That's it. No other modifications may be made. Period.
You sure do like to lose. And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like like to be close tolerance. That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief. Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times. Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet. The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me". The cheat was the rear bumper. The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas. They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead. Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend. You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts. I got away with that for the entire 1969 season. Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.

there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips. If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself. We stole those engines blind for our drag motors. And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.

Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.

Hemispherical combustion chambers
Fuel Injection
Supercharger

Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in? And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis. Yes, this also describes the Hellcats. But the Hellcat engines go back to..................... What's the answer. I'll accept three answers.




Well gee, the Wright J5 that took Lindbergh across the Atlantic meets that critetia.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
1,570
Reaction score
334
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
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.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
 

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.







Tightening tolerances IS modifying. That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying. Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension, are as built by the manufacturer. ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done. In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness. That's it. No other modifications may be made. Period.
You sure do like to lose. And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like like to be close tolerance. That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief. Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times. Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet. The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me". The cheat was the rear bumper. The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas. They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead. Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend. You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts. I got away with that for the entire 1969 season. Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.

there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips. If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself. We stole those engines blind for our drag motors. And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.

Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.

Hemispherical combustion chambers
Fuel Injection
Supercharger

Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in? And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis. Yes, this also describes the Hellcats. But the Hellcat engines go back to..................... What's the answer. I'll accept three answers.




Well gee, the Wright J5 that took Lindbergh across the Atlantic meets that critetia.
Sorry, but the Wright later became the Prat so that exception was already done. And it wasn't supercharged nor fuel injected.

Keep looking and keep getting educated in information that most Aero Engine Mechs know.
 

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...
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.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35. But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR. But you are back on the one one one. And that's not how it's going to go down. It will still be determined on who sees who first. And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft. I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though. Even the F-22 may have some problems with it. And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D. If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged. But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides. Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.

One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5. The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost. Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost. In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged. Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better. But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both. BTW, Guns were never even considered. The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
70,533
Reaction score
25,307
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.
I didn't say modifications. I said tightening up the tolerances. That tells me that YOU don't race shit.







Tightening tolerances IS modifying. That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying. Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension, are as built by the manufacturer. ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done. In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness. That's it. No other modifications may be made. Period.
You sure do like to lose. And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like like to be close tolerance. That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief. Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times. Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet. The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me". The cheat was the rear bumper. The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas. They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead. Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend. You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts. I got away with that for the entire 1969 season. Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.

there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips. If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself. We stole those engines blind for our drag motors. And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.

Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.

Hemispherical combustion chambers
Fuel Injection
Supercharger

Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in? And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis. Yes, this also describes the Hellcats. But the Hellcat engines go back to..................... What's the answer. I'll accept three answers.




Well gee, the Wright J5 that took Lindbergh across the Atlantic meets that critetia.
Sorry, but the Wright later became the Prat so that exception was already done. And it wasn't supercharged nor fuel injected.

Keep looking and keep getting educated in information that most Aero Engine Mechs know.




No, they didn't. Hemi engines date back to the early 1900's. Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Aston Martin, have all used them at some point. The J5 is 1920s so the earliest I can remember off the top of my head that met your requirements.
 

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.







Tightening tolerances IS modifying. That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying. Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension, are as built by the manufacturer. ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done. In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness. That's it. No other modifications may be made. Period.
You sure do like to lose. And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like like to be close tolerance. That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief. Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times. Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet. The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me". The cheat was the rear bumper. The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas. They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead. Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend. You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts. I got away with that for the entire 1969 season. Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.

there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips. If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself. We stole those engines blind for our drag motors. And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.

Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.

Hemispherical combustion chambers
Fuel Injection
Supercharger

Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in? And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis. Yes, this also describes the Hellcats. But the Hellcat engines go back to..................... What's the answer. I'll accept three answers.




Well gee, the Wright J5 that took Lindbergh across the Atlantic meets that critetia.
Sorry, but the Wright later became the Prat so that exception was already done. And it wasn't supercharged nor fuel injected.

Keep looking and keep getting educated in information that most Aero Engine Mechs know.




No, they didn't. Hemi engines date back to the early 1900's. Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Aston Martin, have all used them at some point. The J5 is 1920s so the earliest I can remember off the top of my head that met your requirements.
I can see that you failed the test. The requirements were

Hemispherical combustion chambers
Fuel Injection
Supercharger

There are only a few examples of that. One is the XP-47H which was a modified one off of a P-47D using a Chrysler 2160 inverted V-16. That puppy produced over 2500 HP and gave the P-47 more of a smooth line. It was topped out at over 500 mph. The Bearcat wasn't the only WWII bird that could top over 500. But the Bearcat was late and never saw combat in WWII and the end of the war spelled the end of the XP-47H. The Chrysler motor put out 2500 HP on takeoff and also 2500 HP at 25,000 feet making it far superior to the Merlin and the Allison by CID or weight. But the war ended before it could be completed. It did make a resergence as the various Hemis of Chrysler starting in 1952 where the Hemi was the only car engine normally aspirated that could obtain a better than 1hp per cube. My engine is a 345 cid and heavily detune but is rated at 345HP stock. I have never seen an engine that responds as well to minor upgrades in horsepower. As it sits, with only a retune, change in the air velocity and filter and the removal of 2 of the 4 mufflers, the HP is well over 450 hp. All simple boltons or just reprograming the computer.

Another case was the proposed Chrysler V-12 to replace the A47 engine in the various types of Shermans and Fireflies. The Military was testing it and it was quite successful but the war ended and the tank requirements were changed. Can you imagine a hotrod version of a Sherman?

There were also some Boats that got the early Hemis before it was called "The Hemi" and Chrysler patented the name. There were a lot of engines that started out as Boat engines that became fantastic fighter engines like the Allison V-12 also used as a Derrigable Engine. But those were primarily normal aspirated.

Had enough yet? There is more but not for in here. Now, back to the F-35.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
70,533
Reaction score
25,307
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.
I didn't say modifications. I said tightening up the tolerances. That tells me that YOU don't race shit.







Tightening tolerances IS modifying. That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying. Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension, are as built by the manufacturer. ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done. In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness. That's it. No other modifications may be made. Period.
You sure do like to lose. And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like like to be close tolerance. That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief. Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times. Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet. The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me". The cheat was the rear bumper. The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas. They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead. Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend. You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts. I got away with that for the entire 1969 season. Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.

there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips. If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself. We stole those engines blind for our drag motors. And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.

Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.

Hemispherical combustion chambers
Fuel Injection
Supercharger

Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in? And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis. Yes, this also describes the Hellcats. But the Hellcat engines go back to..................... What's the answer. I'll accept three answers.




Well gee, the Wright J5 that took Lindbergh across the Atlantic meets that critetia.
Sorry, but the Wright later became the Prat so that exception was already done. And it wasn't supercharged nor fuel injected.

Keep looking and keep getting educated in information that most Aero Engine Mechs know.




No, they didn't. Hemi engines date back to the early 1900's. Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Aston Martin, have all used them at some point. The J5 is 1920s so the earliest I can remember off the top of my head that met your requirements.
I can see that you failed the test. The requirements were

Hemispherical combustion chambers
Fuel Injection
Supercharger

There are only a few examples of that. One is the XP-47H which was a modified one off of a P-47D using a Chrysler 2160 inverted V-16. That puppy produced over 2500 HP and gave the P-47 more of a smooth line. It was topped out at over 500 mph. The Bearcat wasn't the only WWII bird that could top over 500. But the Bearcat was late and never saw combat in WWII and the end of the war spelled the end of the XP-47H. The Chrysler motor put out 2500 HP on takeoff and also 2500 HP at 25,000 feet making it far superior to the Merlin and the Allison by CID or weight. But the war ended before it could be completed. It did make a resergence as the various Hemis of Chrysler starting in 1952 where the Hemi was the only car engine normally aspirated that could obtain a better than 1hp per cube. My engine is a 345 cid and heavily detune but is rated at 345HP stock. I have never seen an engine that responds as well to minor upgrades in horsepower. As it sits, with only a retune, change in the air velocity and filter and the removal of 2 of the 4 mufflers, the HP is well over 450 hp. All simple boltons or just reprograming the computer.

Another case was the proposed Chrysler V-12 to replace the A47 engine in the various types of Shermans and Fireflies. The Military was testing it and it was quite successful but the war ended and the tank requirements were changed. Can you imagine a hotrod version of a Sherman?

There were also some Boats that got the early Hemis before it was called "The Hemi" and Chrysler patented the name. There were a lot of engines that started out as Boat engines that became fantastic fighter engines like the Allison V-12 also used as a Derrigable Engine. But those were primarily normal aspirated.

Had enough yet? There is more but not for in here. Now, back to the F-35.




No, I passed your test. You have a lot of proposed engines there. The V-16 that you talk about has one example left. Thus it is a non entity. I only deal in PRODUCTION engines. There were exactly TWO P-47's that were modified to take the engine. You had your requirements. I met them easily, so now you trot out an experimental, that I knew about, but who cares. After 27,000 hours of development work, it went nowhere. Kind of like your arguments.

Here are some that I work on. Let's see some pictures, that you took, of your work.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

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.







Tightening tolerances IS modifying. That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying. Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension, are as built by the manufacturer. ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done. In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness. That's it. No other modifications may be made. Period.
You sure do like to lose. And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like like to be close tolerance. That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief. Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times. Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet. The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me". The cheat was the rear bumper. The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas. They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead. Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend. You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts. I got away with that for the entire 1969 season. Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.

there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips. If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself. We stole those engines blind for our drag motors. And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.

Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.

Hemispherical combustion chambers
Fuel Injection
Supercharger

Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in? And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis. Yes, this also describes the Hellcats. But the Hellcat engines go back to..................... What's the answer. I'll accept three answers.




Well gee, the Wright J5 that took Lindbergh across the Atlantic meets that critetia.
Sorry, but the Wright later became the Prat so that exception was already done. And it wasn't supercharged nor fuel injected.

Keep looking and keep getting educated in information that most Aero Engine Mechs know.




No, they didn't. Hemi engines date back to the early 1900's. Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Aston Martin, have all used them at some point. The J5 is 1920s so the earliest I can remember off the top of my head that met your requirements.
I can see that you failed the test. The requirements were

Hemispherical combustion chambers
Fuel Injection
Supercharger

There are only a few examples of that. One is the XP-47H which was a modified one off of a P-47D using a Chrysler 2160 inverted V-16. That puppy produced over 2500 HP and gave the P-47 more of a smooth line. It was topped out at over 500 mph. The Bearcat wasn't the only WWII bird that could top over 500. But the Bearcat was late and never saw combat in WWII and the end of the war spelled the end of the XP-47H. The Chrysler motor put out 2500 HP on takeoff and also 2500 HP at 25,000 feet making it far superior to the Merlin and the Allison by CID or weight. But the war ended before it could be completed. It did make a resergence as the various Hemis of Chrysler starting in 1952 where the Hemi was the only car engine normally aspirated that could obtain a better than 1hp per cube. My engine is a 345 cid and heavily detune but is rated at 345HP stock. I have never seen an engine that responds as well to minor upgrades in horsepower. As it sits, with only a retune, change in the air velocity and filter and the removal of 2 of the 4 mufflers, the HP is well over 450 hp. All simple boltons or just reprograming the computer.

Another case was the proposed Chrysler V-12 to replace the A47 engine in the various types of Shermans and Fireflies. The Military was testing it and it was quite successful but the war ended and the tank requirements were changed. Can you imagine a hotrod version of a Sherman?

There were also some Boats that got the early Hemis before it was called "The Hemi" and Chrysler patented the name. There were a lot of engines that started out as Boat engines that became fantastic fighter engines like the Allison V-12 also used as a Derrigable Engine. But those were primarily normal aspirated.

Had enough yet? There is more but not for in here. Now, back to the F-35.




No, I passed your test. You have a lot of proposed engines there. The V-16 that you talk about has one example left. Thus it is a non entity. I only deal in PRODUCTION engines. There were exactly TWO P-47's that were modified to take the engine. You had your requirements. I met them easily, so now you trot out an experimental, that I knew about, but who cares. After 27,000 hours of development work, it went nowhere. Kind of like your arguments.

Here are some that I work on. Let's see some pictures, that you took, of your work.
You failed. Get used to it. Now back to the F-35 in question, loser.
 

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
403
Reaction score
94
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...
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.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35. But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR. But you are back on the one one one. And that's not how it's going to go down. It will still be determined on who sees who first. And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft. I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though. Even the F-22 may have some problems with it. And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D. If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged. But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides. Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.

One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5. The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost. Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost. In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged. Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better. But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both. BTW, Guns were never even considered. The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.

So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
70,533
Reaction score
25,307
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.
I didn't say modifications. I said tightening up the tolerances. That tells me that YOU don't race shit.







Tightening tolerances IS modifying. That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying. Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension, are as built by the manufacturer. ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done. In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness. That's it. No other modifications may be made. Period.
You sure do like to lose. And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like like to be close tolerance. That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief. Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times. Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet. The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me". The cheat was the rear bumper. The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas. They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead. Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend. You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts. I got away with that for the entire 1969 season. Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.

there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips. If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself. We stole those engines blind for our drag motors. And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.

Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.

Hemispherical combustion chambers
Fuel Injection
Supercharger

Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in? And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis. Yes, this also describes the Hellcats. But the Hellcat engines go back to..................... What's the answer. I'll accept three answers.




Well gee, the Wright J5 that took Lindbergh across the Atlantic meets that critetia.
Sorry, but the Wright later became the Prat so that exception was already done. And it wasn't supercharged nor fuel injected.

Keep looking and keep getting educated in information that most Aero Engine Mechs know.




No, they didn't. Hemi engines date back to the early 1900's. Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Aston Martin, have all used them at some point. The J5 is 1920s so the earliest I can remember off the top of my head that met your requirements.
I can see that you failed the test. The requirements were

Hemispherical combustion chambers
Fuel Injection
Supercharger

There are only a few examples of that. One is the XP-47H which was a modified one off of a P-47D using a Chrysler 2160 inverted V-16. That puppy produced over 2500 HP and gave the P-47 more of a smooth line. It was topped out at over 500 mph. The Bearcat wasn't the only WWII bird that could top over 500. But the Bearcat was late and never saw combat in WWII and the end of the war spelled the end of the XP-47H. The Chrysler motor put out 2500 HP on takeoff and also 2500 HP at 25,000 feet making it far superior to the Merlin and the Allison by CID or weight. But the war ended before it could be completed. It did make a resergence as the various Hemis of Chrysler starting in 1952 where the Hemi was the only car engine normally aspirated that could obtain a better than 1hp per cube. My engine is a 345 cid and heavily detune but is rated at 345HP stock. I have never seen an engine that responds as well to minor upgrades in horsepower. As it sits, with only a retune, change in the air velocity and filter and the removal of 2 of the 4 mufflers, the HP is well over 450 hp. All simple boltons or just reprograming the computer.

Another case was the proposed Chrysler V-12 to replace the A47 engine in the various types of Shermans and Fireflies. The Military was testing it and it was quite successful but the war ended and the tank requirements were changed. Can you imagine a hotrod version of a Sherman?

There were also some Boats that got the early Hemis before it was called "The Hemi" and Chrysler patented the name. There were a lot of engines that started out as Boat engines that became fantastic fighter engines like the Allison V-12 also used as a Derrigable Engine. But those were primarily normal aspirated.

Had enough yet? There is more but not for in here. Now, back to the F-35.




No, I passed your test. You have a lot of proposed engines there. The V-16 that you talk about has one example left. Thus it is a non entity. I only deal in PRODUCTION engines. There were exactly TWO P-47's that were modified to take the engine. You had your requirements. I met them easily, so now you trot out an experimental, that I knew about, but who cares. After 27,000 hours of development work, it went nowhere. Kind of like your arguments.

Here are some that I work on. Let's see some pictures, that you took, of your work.
You failed. Get used to it. Now back to the F-35 in question, loser.




I passed. The J5 meets your criteria. You did a little internet search for your two of a kind aircraft engines, and i STILL know more about them than you do. Now, post up some pics of your work. I did. Now, put up, or shut up.
 

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...
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.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35. But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR. But you are back on the one one one. And that's not how it's going to go down. It will still be determined on who sees who first. And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft. I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though. Even the F-22 may have some problems with it. And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D. If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged. But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides. Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.

One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5. The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost. Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost. In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged. Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better. But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both. BTW, Guns were never even considered. The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.

So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war. We do need to build up Ukraine militarily. Make them able to run the Russians right out. Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine. They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea. And like they tried in Syria. With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border. But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders. And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand. There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling. I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
 

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.







Tightening tolerances IS modifying. That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying. Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension, are as built by the manufacturer. ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done. In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness. That's it. No other modifications may be made. Period.
You sure do like to lose. And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like like to be close tolerance. That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief. Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times. Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet. The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me". The cheat was the rear bumper. The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas. They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead. Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend. You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts. I got away with that for the entire 1969 season. Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.

there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips. If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself. We stole those engines blind for our drag motors. And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.

Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.

Hemispherical combustion chambers
Fuel Injection
Supercharger

Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in? And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis. Yes, this also describes the Hellcats. But the Hellcat engines go back to..................... What's the answer. I'll accept three answers.




Well gee, the Wright J5 that took Lindbergh across the Atlantic meets that critetia.
Sorry, but the Wright later became the Prat so that exception was already done. And it wasn't supercharged nor fuel injected.

Keep looking and keep getting educated in information that most Aero Engine Mechs know.




No, they didn't. Hemi engines date back to the early 1900's. Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Aston Martin, have all used them at some point. The J5 is 1920s so the earliest I can remember off the top of my head that met your requirements.
I can see that you failed the test. The requirements were

Hemispherical combustion chambers
Fuel Injection
Supercharger

There are only a few examples of that. One is the XP-47H which was a modified one off of a P-47D using a Chrysler 2160 inverted V-16. That puppy produced over 2500 HP and gave the P-47 more of a smooth line. It was topped out at over 500 mph. The Bearcat wasn't the only WWII bird that could top over 500. But the Bearcat was late and never saw combat in WWII and the end of the war spelled the end of the XP-47H. The Chrysler motor put out 2500 HP on takeoff and also 2500 HP at 25,000 feet making it far superior to the Merlin and the Allison by CID or weight. But the war ended before it could be completed. It did make a resergence as the various Hemis of Chrysler starting in 1952 where the Hemi was the only car engine normally aspirated that could obtain a better than 1hp per cube. My engine is a 345 cid and heavily detune but is rated at 345HP stock. I have never seen an engine that responds as well to minor upgrades in horsepower. As it sits, with only a retune, change in the air velocity and filter and the removal of 2 of the 4 mufflers, the HP is well over 450 hp. All simple boltons or just reprograming the computer.

Another case was the proposed Chrysler V-12 to replace the A47 engine in the various types of Shermans and Fireflies. The Military was testing it and it was quite successful but the war ended and the tank requirements were changed. Can you imagine a hotrod version of a Sherman?

There were also some Boats that got the early Hemis before it was called "The Hemi" and Chrysler patented the name. There were a lot of engines that started out as Boat engines that became fantastic fighter engines like the Allison V-12 also used as a Derrigable Engine. But those were primarily normal aspirated.

Had enough yet? There is more but not for in here. Now, back to the F-35.




No, I passed your test. You have a lot of proposed engines there. The V-16 that you talk about has one example left. Thus it is a non entity. I only deal in PRODUCTION engines. There were exactly TWO P-47's that were modified to take the engine. You had your requirements. I met them easily, so now you trot out an experimental, that I knew about, but who cares. After 27,000 hours of development work, it went nowhere. Kind of like your arguments.

Here are some that I work on. Let's see some pictures, that you took, of your work.
You failed. Get used to it. Now back to the F-35 in question, loser.




I passed. The J5 meets your criteria. You did a little internet search for your two of a kind aircraft engines, and i STILL know more about them than you do. Now, post up some pics of your work. I did. Now, put up, or shut up.
It's not about you no matter how much you believe it is. It's about is the F-35 good or not and what's it's future.
 

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
403
Reaction score
94
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...
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.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35. But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR. But you are back on the one one one. And that's not how it's going to go down. It will still be determined on who sees who first. And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft. I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though. Even the F-22 may have some problems with it. And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D. If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged. But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides. Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.

One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5. The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost. Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost. In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged. Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better. But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both. BTW, Guns were never even considered. The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.

So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war. We do need to build up Ukraine militarily. Make them able to run the Russians right out. Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine. They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea. And like they tried in Syria. With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border. But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders. And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand. There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling. I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
well, you seem not to understand how thick Russian red line in Ukraine is for the US :)
there are 400 000 Russian citizens in these 2 republics and Ukraine is moving troops and heavy arms to the border right in this very moment, i. e. in coming weeks or even days Ukraine may start an offensive, which Russia cannot but stop whatever it takes.

And after Russian troops take Kiev - then we may return to this conversation, if direct war between USA and Russia is impossible :)
 

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...
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.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35. But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR. But you are back on the one one one. And that's not how it's going to go down. It will still be determined on who sees who first. And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft. I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though. Even the F-22 may have some problems with it. And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D. If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged. But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides. Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.

One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5. The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost. Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost. In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged. Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better. But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both. BTW, Guns were never even considered. The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.

So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war. We do need to build up Ukraine militarily. Make them able to run the Russians right out. Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine. They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea. And like they tried in Syria. With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border. But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders. And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand. There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling. I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
well, you seem not to understand how thick Russian red line in Ukraine is for the US :)
there are 400 000 Russian citizens in these 2 republics and Ukraine is moving troops and heavy arms to the border right in this very moment, i. e. in coming weeks or even days Ukraine may start an offensive, which Russia cannot but stop whatever it takes.

And after Russian troops take Kiev - then we may return to this conversation, if direct war between USA and Russia is impossible :)
And the entire Baltic Region can't afford Russia to march on Kiev because they know they would be next. If it Russia does invade any further into Ukraine get ready for one hell of a battle with a lot of countries sending in support and troops. Russia needs to weigh the results before they go too crazy.

A lot of this will determine how well trained the Russian regular soldier is. He's not trained well at all. His Air Power is but much of his ground power is nearing shambles. Everyone thinks that every Russian Soldier is equiv to a Spitnaz. When in reality, the real low ranks are mistreated by the NCO ranks who are underpaid and require "Tribute" from the lower ranks. The Ukrainians are motivated, the Russians are less than motivated. I'll bet on the motivated troop every time.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List