F-16.net

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2848

Burp wrote:

Are the 480 gal wing tanks seen in many loadout diagrams an outgrowth or AF version of the FPU-11A tank for the F/A-18E/F?

At this time the wing tanks have been taken off the chart. They may happen in the future but who knows? Until there is a word different, they won't happen by the end of SDD. Some of the hint of LM in for example the Navy League '08 brief is that no drop tanks are shown as a selling point on the (what-makes-a-stealth-aircraft graphic). And well too, the jet already carries an insane amount of fuel and if you want to keep good mission up time metrics (cost, aircraft availability)... not having fuels maintainers working/sustaining drop tanks would help.

Israel is working on a wing tank and conformal tanks as they want a longer range (or persistence ? ) for their aircraft. They have already started hinting at some of the differences to their jet when they get it.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

elp wrote:

At this time the wing tanks have been taken off the chart. They may happen in the future but who knows? Until there is a word different, they won't happen by the end of SDD. Some of the hint of LM in for example the Navy League '08 brief is that no drop tanks are shown as a selling point on the (what-makes-a-stealth-aircraft graphic). And well too, the jet already carries an insane amount of fuel and if you want to keep good mission up time metrics (cost, aircraft availability)... not having fuels maintainers working/sustaining drop tanks would help.

Israel is working on a wing tank and conformal tanks as they want a longer range (or persistence ? ) for their aircraft. They have already started hinting at some of the differences to their jet when they get it.

The drop tanks are no longer on the priority list of ordnance to be certified before IOC. They are still on the list of equipment to be developed, but they are not in front of the queue. And for good reason considering this...

Internal Fuel Capacities:-

F-16C ~ 7,000 lbs
F-18C ~ 10,900 lbs
EF Typhoon ~ 9,900 lbs
Dassault Rafale ~ 10,800 lbs
JAS 39C Gripen ~ 5,300 lbs
F-22A ~ 20,600 lbs
F-35A ~ 18,500 lbs

480 gallon tank ~3,200 lbs
1500 L ferry tank ~3,300 lbs
900L supersonic tank ~1,980 lbs

Basically, the F-35A already carries internally as much fuel as the average 4th generation aircraft with THREE ferry tanks (~1500 L) or FIVE supersonic tanks (900~1000 L). Is there really a need to rush to put external tanks on this aircraft when the majority of the missions will not require the addiitonal range and being a VLO type, the preference would be to fly stealthy as much as possible.

Burp wrote:

Thanks for your help everybody! The model is coming along swimmingly, I think.

Wow, good job! Even better than the real thing! You've actually made her look kind'a cute Wink

I have to say that's some good stuff you've done Burp.

Newbie Joined: Jun 13, 2008 Posts: 17 Status: Offline

She's coming along!

Thought I'd make dress her up as a Fujin.

-Burp

Awesome.

What format is the model in?

Newbie Joined: Jun 13, 2008 Posts: 17 Status: Offline

3DS MAX 9

Great job and again, it looks better than the real thing, and I think I now know why. In the left, top view, from the front and overhead, your model makes the F-35 appear to have a much longer forward section and nose than it actually does. Have you looked for a similar view of an actual F-35 to confirm that this is just perspective playing a trick on the eye in both the actual and model versions? Because that may be the case, or the way your model is being represented in such a view is altered by the computer program in some way.

By way of an asside, the F-35 and F-22 share similar characteristics in terms of looks. Directly overhead and from most top views, they are both reasonably attractive airplanes, the F-22 more so. The view I mentioned earlier makes the F-35 look less bulky than it actually is, if that is indeed how it looks in actuality. However, both the F-35 and F-22 look portly and awkward from the side - the F-35 has a nose that is too short and tails that are too puny, almost as if added on as an after-thought, while the F-22 has the opposite problem with its nose, which is commonly referred to as looking like a pelican's because of the way it tapers toward the front, while its vertical tails look awful due to the forward sweep of their trailing edge. Neither of them is terribly attractive from the front, either. The F-22 looks like it has a serious overbyte, while the F-35 looks somehow cluttered. They remind me of Juliette Lewis or Uma Thurman, both reasonably attractive actresses who, when viewed from a certain angle or when making a certain expression, can seem downright ugly. Also, the F-35A and B models both suffer from the overhead view by having wings that seem too stubby, while the F-35B is the ugliest of the bunch because of its hunch-backed appearance due to its lift fan. The canopy of all 3 F-35 models is also very unattractive, particularly that of the B model. The F-22's canopy, in contrast, looks almost stylized, even a little art-deco. Finally, of the 3 F-35 models the C is definitely the most attractive, at least from overhead, due to its larger wing and tailplanes, which balance out its looks. Compare all this to the F-16, for instance, which looks gorgeous from almost every angle, front, side, rear, top. Purely in terms of sheer looks, the F-35 is a major step backwards, which I think accounts for much of the resistance it is meeting with among warplane aficionados.

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 Posts: 1135

Looks great! I think the forward section looking longer is just a perspective thing in the renderer. I'm assuming you have accurate (as can be at least) length/width/height measurements.

Newbie Joined: Jun 13, 2008 Posts: 17 Status: Offline

I'm working off of multiple revisions of LM 3-views, as well as taking a set of calipers to a resin model for comparison. And I actually like the F-35's workhorse lines, looks like an honest, hardworking airplane with a lot of thought behind it. There really is a lot of subtlety when you start looking closely at the shape of the aircraft that speaks volumes more about the aircraft's capability. See also: P-47, Hellcat, A-7, and, dare I say it, A-10.

So much of modern combat aircraft capability is no longer tied to the traditional values of max speed, service ceiling. Nowadays, it is all about information management and weapons employment; and the F-35 will have that in spades. Now, I don't buy into the idea that the F-35 is a super-fighter, but when it comes to capability that lurks just beneath the surface, I think the F-35 has a lot to offer that won't become clear to the general public until the production aircraft start flying operational missions, and the mission planners start utilizing *ALL* the aircraft's capabilities.

Just wait, when the active duty folks get to know this airplane, there's going to be a new ugly belle of the ball in town. Smile

Obamanite wrote:

Great job and again, it looks better than the real thing, and I think I now know why. In the left, top view, from the front and overhead, your model makes the F-35 appear to have a much longer forward section and nose than it actually does. Have you looked for a similar view of an actual F-35 to confirm that this is just perspective playing a trick on the eye in both the actual and model versions? Because that may be the case, or the way your model is being represented in such a view is altered by the computer program in some way.

Much of the "short and fat" criticism as to the the F-35's "looks" stems from the typically unpleasing angle the aircraft is viewed. This plane as a pretty tall landing gear and most shorts are taken from the ground leading to a fat chin, and bloated belly kind of perspective. The F-35 looks much better when viewed from above or even below.

Newbie Joined: Jun 13, 2008 Posts: 17 Status: Offline

dwightlooi wrote:

Much of the "short and fat" criticism as to the the F-35's "looks" stems from the typically unpleasing angle the aircraft is viewed. This plane as a pretty tall landing gear and most shorts are taken from the ground leading to a fat chin, and bloated belly kind of perspective. The F-35 looks much better when viewed from above or even below.

Indeed. If I may present exhibit A...

Newbie Joined: Jun 13, 2008 Posts: 17 Status: Offline

It flies!

Wow that is amazing. But you've got two more variants left... Wink

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 Strike Fighters Addon Research Assistance