Forum: F-35 Lightning II

IIRC, the F-4's total thrust was around 36k (18k x 2) lbs and the F-105 was around 25k lbs, so I don't think they're really concerned about lack of thrust (43k+).

F-16.net Sponsor

Both were also Mach 2 fighters with a lot more drag and less thrust . . .

@VprWzl, do you know the overall drag of an F-105 at say 45,000 feet and Mach 2? Though the Phantom had less static thrust, the J-79 was well-known to produce some serious thrust at high altitude and Mach, due to its after burning turbojet design.

The F-35C (barely pre-production) is also heavier than a 2 seat EA-18G Growler (Super Hornet).

I am merely making an observational set of statements regarding published weights for the F-35C.

Can't say that I know what the drag on a -105 with tanks and bombs really would be, it's a little before my time . . . do you? What about the drag of an F-35C at 45000k? What about the thrust the F135 really produces? Honestly, these are all unknown outside of the test community. I can only surmise (a somewhat educated/experienced guess) that thrust for the -35C is not what we're concerned about with its performance.

I'll let smarter guys talk about the performance differences between an F135 and a J-79 at 45k and supersonic speeds. I've only flown -220s, -110s & -129s. I DO know that with any of those motors in a Viper I could easily outrun comparably loaded F-4s, F-15s, M-2000s, F-1s, A-4s, F-5s, T-38s, F-2s, F-18s - I'm sure I'm forgetting some odd cats & dogs I've flown against.

Quote:

...do you know the overall drag of an F-105 at say 45,000 feet and Mach 2?

cough.

OL

If 35k is the modern value, I wonder where that extra 3k came from Surprised

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

the weight of F-35C?