F-35's aerodynamic performance

"More importantly, in a combat load, with all fuel, targeting sensor pods and weapons carried internally, the F-35's aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacy aircraft equipped with a similar capability."( Lockheed Martin September 19th, 2008)

Is Lockheed Martin refering only to the F-35 speed or does the term "aerodynamic" includes maneuverability also????

One thing you have to remember is that certain externally carried things like targetting pods have G limits. Exceed those limits and you break the pod. So while you might survive the dogfight over G'ing the pod, surviving the crew chief when you get back to base is a different matter.

So not having things hanging on the ouside is a definite advantage. Also, it greatly reduces the drag not to have stuff hanging in the wind. More lift, less drag.

Speed and maneuverability. The F-35 and F-22 fight clean(when in stealthy configurations), which gives them aerodynamic advantages over legacy aircraft with pods, weapons, fuel tanks, etc. hanging off the plane.

Refrasing: When Lockheed Martin said that the "F-35's aerodynamic performance" exceeded all legacy aircraft equipped with a similar capability, did it ment that the F-35 maneuverability exceeded other combat aircraft because of its internal weapons storage, etc????

Not only internal weapons, but also internal fuel.

-- damn duplicate---

Spudman: When LM made the statement do think it was including legacy fighters with thrust v. capability???

The original statement is deliberately very vague but it would seem from subsequent comments to have some truth in its generality. Without comparing charts/graphs for 'legacy' fighters in different configurations etc. then the statement remains vaguely probably true. If all the good things the JSF brings to warfare then whatever it lacks aerodynamically compared to legacy fighters will be irrelevant. All positive posts on this forum about the JSF make that abundantly clear. Doing airshow tricks but being shot down anyway by the JSF, is not ideal - but it looks good - died pretty, died young.

Concord had super aerodynamic performance (didn't it?) yet it was not manueverable in the sense of a fighter jet, if you see where i'm coming from there.
Personally I think "aerodynamic performance" equates more to drag and thrust to weight ratio's (i'm not technical mined so only know bare bones basics - if that) then it does to manuevering ability eg: WVR combat manuevering, AOA rates etc etc
Hope that might help...

Here read this:

http://www.livescience.com/technology/0 ... -jets.html

The F-35 is quite maneuverable according to the Chief Test Pilot

the comment is fairly simple..
The F-35 will exceed legacy fighters in aerodynamic performance due to it's clean combat configuration.
This results in improved fuel efficiency, better transonic performance, and certainly better manuverability (Than compared with any configuration with external stores)

The next time you are on the freeway, roll down your window and stick your hand in the airstream. Now imagine many large appendages stuck to your car, and the aerodynamic load they create. Your car will be slower, accelerate slower, and be hindered by the cantileavered weight and drag in turns.

This concept is the same for fighters, just exaggerated at the high speeds they operate at. If one can conseal all the weapons, fuel, sensors inside the airfram (In the back seat if you will) and take no aerodynamic penalty for them, then there is an "Advantage" over those who cannot.

I think it would be pertinent to point out that the original idea behind external stores was that while they created excess drag "going in," once expended and the pylons ejected the airframe was much less draggy than it would have been with the space taken up with by an internal bomb bay.

This was the conventional wisdom until RCS concerns came along and the equation changed.

rapier01 wrote:Here read this:

http://www.livescience.com/technology/0 ... -jets.html

The F-35 is quite maneuverable according to the Chief Test Pilot

The F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will "almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor", Beesley said.


the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.

Sounds like good "aerodynamic performance" to me...

And this statement sounds like they got "it" right


The outstanding handling, acceleration, and the maximum speed of the aircraft is useable in a combat configuration unlike in legacy fighters. Beesley said that recently he flew an F-35 test flight with a full internal load of two 2000 lbs JDAMs, and two AIM-120 missiles. The aircraft "felt like it had a few thousand pounds of extra fuel" but otherwise Beesley said there was practically no degradation in the aircrafts' performance.

shep1978 wrote:Concord had super aerodynamic performance (didn't it?) yet it was not manueverable in the sense of a fighter jet, if you see where i'm coming from there.
Personally I think "aerodynamic performance" equates more to drag and thrust to weight ratio's (i'm not technical mined so only know bare bones basics - if that) then it does to manuevering ability eg: WVR combat manuevering, AOA rates etc etc
Hope that might help...

To emphasize that, apart from light loads such as air-to-air weapons and sensor pods, external ordnance often means a reduced envelope: G-restrictions, bank/roll limits, speed limits etc. F-35 has very little of that with internal weapons and fuel. Imagine pulling 9g's or going mach 1.5 with two 2000lb JDAMs in your belly!

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

Beesley on F 35 air to air (about performance really): May 21, 2009 from the DEWLINE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96Kx6b7oKA8

"Lockheed Martin F-35 chief test pilot Jon Beesley on May 21 describes the F-35's comparative value as a dogfighting aircraft. The video was shot under the wing of AA-1, the first non-weight-optimized F-35 prototype aircraft, at Lockheed's fighter plant in Fort Worth, Texas. "