| Author |
Message |
|
Corsair1963
|
Posted: Apr 29, 2008 - 01:25 AM
|
|
|
Elite

Joined: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 601
Status: Offline
|
Do we have any idea on how Aerodynamic the F-35 is compared to todays contemporaries  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: May 18, 2008 - 8:17 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
LMAggie
|
Posted: Apr 29, 2008 - 01:57 AM
|
|
|
Active member

Joined: Aug 12, 2007
Posts: 201
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Status: Offline
|
| I'm sure somebody does, but nobody willing to post information on a forum though... |
_________________ “Its not the critic who counts..The credit belongs to the man who does actually strive to do the deeds..”
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Corsair1963
|
Posted: Apr 29, 2008 - 02:45 AM
|
|
|
Elite

Joined: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 601
Status: Offline
|
|
LMAggie wrote:
I'm sure somebody does, but nobody willing to post information on a forum though...
Well, many look at what appears to be a bulky aircraft and assume that it is not very aerodynamic???  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
sferrin
|
Posted: Apr 29, 2008 - 02:46 AM
|
|
|
Elite

Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 823
Status: Offline
|
|
Corsair1963 wrote:
LMAggie wrote:
I'm sure somebody does, but nobody willing to post information on a forum though...
Well, many look at what appears to be a bulky aircraft and assume that it is not very aerodynamic???
They said that about the F-22 also. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
johnwill
|
Posted: Apr 29, 2008 - 03:21 AM
|
|
|
Veteran

Joined: Mar 24, 2007
Posts: 331
Location: Fort Worth
Status: Offline
|
| I'll give you a Cd right now, 0.0178. Of course, I can't tell you at what mach number, angle of attack, sideslip angle, throttle setting, or cg it refers to, because I don't know. Forgive the smart @ss answer, the point is, there is a different Cd for every flight condition I mentioned. So you have to specify what condition you're talking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Corsair1963
|
Posted: Apr 29, 2008 - 04:03 AM
|
|
|
Elite

Joined: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 601
Status: Offline
|
|
johnwill wrote:
I'll give you a Cd right now, 0.0178. Of course, I can't tell you at what mach number, angle of attack, sideslip angle, throttle setting, or cg it refers to, because I don't know. Forgive the smart @ss answer, the point is, there is a different Cd for every flight condition I mentioned. So you have to specify what condition you're talking about.
Well, maybe I should put it this way............What is the Cd of the F-35 vs the F-16 at a given altitude in level flight??? If, you can't provide that maybe you could just summarize how the F-35 compares in very general terms??? Really, many just make huge assumption by purely appearance???  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
dwightlooi
|
Posted: Apr 29, 2008 - 04:10 AM
|
|
|
Elite

Joined: Aug 02, 2006
Posts: 823
Status: Offline
|
|
Corsair1963 wrote:
johnwill wrote:
I'll give you a Cd right now, 0.0178. Of course, I can't tell you at what mach number, angle of attack, sideslip angle, throttle setting, or cg it refers to, because I don't know. Forgive the smart @ss answer, the point is, there is a different Cd for every flight condition I mentioned. So you have to specify what condition you're talking about.
Well, maybe I should put it this way............What is the Cd of the F-35 vs the F-16 at a given altitude in level flight??? If, you can't provide that maybe you could just summarize how the F-35 compares in very general terms??? Really, many just make huge assumption by purely appearance???
(1) You won't get a Cd number here. Even if you do, it'll apply to one specific flight condition (speed, load, etc).
(2) Cd is not a good indicator of how aerodynamic an aircraft is. In fact, it is NOT indicative at all. The reason is that for aircrafts the reference area with which Cd has to be applied with is usually the wing area. In otherwords, two aircrafts with the same exact drag in flight can have vastly different Cds depending on size of the aircraft's wing! |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Corsair1963
|
Posted: Apr 29, 2008 - 04:55 AM
|
|
|
Elite

Joined: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 601
Status: Offline
|
|
dwightlooi wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
johnwill wrote:
I'll give you a Cd right now, 0.0178. Of course, I can't tell you at what mach number, angle of attack, sideslip angle, throttle setting, or cg it refers to, because I don't know. Forgive the smart @ss answer, the point is, there is a different Cd for every flight condition I mentioned. So you have to specify what condition you're talking about.
Well, maybe I should put it this way............What is the Cd of the F-35 vs the F-16 at a given altitude in level flight??? If, you can't provide that maybe you could just summarize how the F-35 compares in very general terms??? Really, many just make huge assumption by purely appearance???
(1) You won't get a Cd number here. Even if you do, it'll apply to one specific flight condition (speed, load, etc).
(2) Cd is not a good indicator of how aerodynamic an aircraft is. In fact, it is NOT indicative at all. The reason is that for aircrafts the reference area with which Cd has to be applied with is usually the wing area. In otherwords, two aircrafts with the same exact drag in flight can have vastly different Cds depending on size of the aircraft's wing!
Well, we have thrust and weight. Yet, without aerodynamics how would we compare the F-35 to other types???  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
geogen
|
Posted: Apr 29, 2008 - 05:10 AM
|
|
|
Active member

Joined: Mar 11, 2008
Posts: 154
Location: 45km @ sea... New England
Status: Offline
|
| Corsair, you raise a perfectly interesting question for relative specs vs F-16, re: optimal flight cruising, maneuvering and lift aerodynamics? Hope you get some ball-park answers at least... Thanks. |
_________________ The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
sprstdlyscottsmn
|
Posted: Apr 29, 2008 - 07:28 PM
|
|
|
Veteran

Joined: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 329
Status: Offline
|
| I think the number people are looking for is L/D, a measure of drag compared to lift. Its analogous to T/W. The F-22 has ~70,000 lbs of thrust, the Boeing 747 has 300,000, which is the hotter performer? |
_________________ James,
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic (WTF?)
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Raptor_One
|
Posted: Apr 30, 2008 - 01:35 PM
|
|
|
Elite

Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 1086
Location: New York, NY
|
| I'm guessing its aerodynamics (at least with respect to drag) are similar to that of a clean F/A-18E... probably a bit better. As far as thrust goes, the F-35 produces more than the F/A-18E, correct? Then again, isn't the Super Hornet scheduled to get some upgraded engines in the future? Perhaps when that happens, the F/A-18E (clean config) and the F-35 (internal stores only) will have similar performance. This is a big guestimate on my part, but all you can really do is compare the F-35 to similar-looking aircraft. The closest thing shape-wise seems to be the Super Hornet. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
dwightlooi
|
Posted: Apr 30, 2008 - 03:49 PM
|
|
|
Elite

Joined: Aug 02, 2006
Posts: 823
Status: Offline
|
|
Raptor_One wrote:
I'm guessing its aerodynamics (at least with respect to drag) are similar to that of a clean F/A-18E... probably a bit better. As far as thrust goes, the F-35 produces more than the F/A-18E, correct? Then again, isn't the Super Hornet scheduled to get some upgraded engines in the future? Perhaps when that happens, the F/A-18E (clean config) and the F-35 (internal stores only) will have similar performance. This is a big guestimate on my part, but all you can really do is compare the F-35 to similar-looking aircraft. The closest thing shape-wise seems to be the Super Hornet.
Actually, the F-18 has a little more thrust (44,000 lbs) compared to the F-35A (43,000 lbs), although the differences are immaterial. But the Superbug is also a little over a ton heavier so it has worse P/W ratios despite carrying 2 tons less fuel and missing internal ordnance accommodations. Wing loading is about the same based on textbook wing area, but the F-35A probably has higher total lift due to its broad, flat, fuselage's huge body lift contribution. Aerodynamics wise, an F-35 is a cleaner and sleeker shape than a clean F-18E/F. The Lightning also has a an overall geometry that appears to be shaped for a higher speed than the F-18 -- higher leading edge sweeps for instance. But, it is hard to definitively gauge aerodynamics from casual appearance alone.
As a conservative estimate, I think we can expect the flight performance of the F-35A with internal weapons to be equal to or better than an F-18E/F with no weapons and all external pylons (which are rather draggy given their outward cant) removed. If I have to put some numbers on it, I'll say the cruise speed should be in the Mach 1.2~1.4 bracket on dry, about Mach 1.8~2.0 maxed out on full burners at high altitudes (>40,000 ft). Turning performance should be slightly better than the F-16 and the F-18, with roll rates significantly better. Operational ceiling should be somewhat higher given the huge control surfaces. Thrust specific fuel consumption should be better with the F135/136 engines. Combined with 8.4 tons of fuel and the ability to not drag along pylons or external ordnance on most missions, endurance and practical operational range should be about twice to 2.5 times longer. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Corsair1963
|
Posted: Apr 30, 2008 - 05:44 PM
|
|
|
Elite

Joined: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 601
Status: Offline
|
|
dwightlooi wrote:
Raptor_One wrote:
I'm guessing its aerodynamics (at least with respect to drag) are similar to that of a clean F/A-18E... probably a bit better. As far as thrust goes, the F-35 produces more than the F/A-18E, correct? Then again, isn't the Super Hornet scheduled to get some upgraded engines in the future? Perhaps when that happens, the F/A-18E (clean config) and the F-35 (internal stores only) will have similar performance. This is a big guestimate on my part, but all you can really do is compare the F-35 to similar-looking aircraft. The closest thing shape-wise seems to be the Super Hornet.
Actually, the F-18 has a little more thrust (44,000 lbs) compared to the F-35A (43,000 lbs), although the differences are immaterial. But the Superbug is also a little over a ton heavier so it has worse P/W ratios despite carrying 2 tons less fuel and missing internal ordnance accommodations. Wing loading is about the same based on textbook wing area, but the F-35A probably has higher total lift due to its broad, flat, fuselage's huge body lift contribution. Aerodynamics wise, an F-35 is a cleaner and sleeker shape than a clean F-18E/F. The Lightning also has a an overall geometry that appears to be shaped for a higher speed than the F-18 -- higher leading edge sweeps for instance. But, it is hard to definitively gauge aerodynamics from casual appearance alone.
As a conservative estimate, I think we can expect the flight performance of the F-35A with internal weapons to be equal to or better than an F-18E/F with no weapons and all external pylons (which are rather draggy given their outward cant) removed. If I have to put some numbers on it, I'll say the cruise speed should be in the Mach 1.2~1.4 bracket on dry, about Mach 1.8~2.0 maxed out on full burners at high altitudes (>40,000 ft). Turning performance should be slightly better than the F-16 and the F-18, with roll rates significantly better. Operational ceiling should be somewhat higher given the huge control surfaces. Thrust specific fuel consumption should be better with the F135/136 engines. Combined with 8.4 tons of fuel and the ability to not drag along pylons or external ordnance on most missions, endurance and practical operational range should be about twice to 2.5 times longer.
If, true the F-35 should be a extremely capable performer! |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Corsair1963
|
Posted: Apr 30, 2008 - 06:05 PM
|
|
|
Elite

Joined: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 601
Status: Offline
|
|
Raptor_One wrote:
I'm guessing its aerodynamics (at least with respect to drag) are similar to that of a clean F/A-18E... probably a bit better. As far as thrust goes, the F-35 produces more than the F/A-18E, correct? Then again, isn't the Super Hornet scheduled to get some upgraded engines in the future? Perhaps when that happens, the F/A-18E (clean config) and the F-35 (internal stores only) will have similar performance. This is a big guestimate on my part, but all you can really do is compare the F-35 to similar-looking aircraft. The closest thing shape-wise seems to be the Super Hornet.
The F-414 (EDE) makes ~26,000lbs of thrust vs the baseline F-414-400 22,000 lbs. I believe its nearing the end of developement? Yet, I don't believe the USN has placed any firm orders for the type. Personally, I wonder if it was offered to Australia in its recent order of F/A-18F's or to India for its MMRCA Fighter Contract???? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
dwightlooi
|
Posted: May 01, 2008 - 06:00 AM
|
|
|
Elite

Joined: Aug 02, 2006
Posts: 823
Status: Offline
|
|
Corsair1963 wrote:
Raptor_One wrote:
I'm guessing its aerodynamics (at least with respect to drag) are similar to that of a clean F/A-18E... probably a bit better. As far as thrust goes, the F-35 produces more than the F/A-18E, correct? Then again, isn't the Super Hornet scheduled to get some upgraded engines in the future? Perhaps when that happens, the F/A-18E (clean config) and the F-35 (internal stores only) will have similar performance. This is a big guestimate on my part, but all you can really do is compare the F-35 to similar-looking aircraft. The closest thing shape-wise seems to be the Super Hornet.
The F-414 (EDE) makes ~26,000lbs of thrust vs the baseline F-414-400 22,000 lbs. I believe its nearing the end of developement? Yet, I don't believe the USN has placed any firm orders for the type. Personally, I wonder if it was offered to Australia in its recent order of F/A-18F's or to India for its MMRCA Fighter Contract????
The EDE offers 6000 hours time between overhaul but does not increase thrust. Beyond the EDE, there is also proposed evolution which will provide 25,000 lbs but which will return engine durability back the 3000~4000 hours bracket. Currently, this has not been developed. Basically, it comes down to the EDE technology being able to offer increased durability or about 14% increase in thrust but not both at the same time.
Beyond that, there is also a thrust growth variant of the F414 with 29,000 lbs of thrust but which requires a larger diameter fan, increased bypass and revised inlets. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|