Forum: General F-35 Forum

Hi, my question is if there are any new date have been disclosed yet?
Most data available just suggests mach 1,5 and an estimated range.

Anything new?

F-16.net Sponsor

I'd like to hear if there's anything new, too! Has the JSF's diet worked yet and has it lost enough weight yet? How well is the STOVL system working, etc? Oh yeah, when and where should I look to see a real JSF instead of the mockup? Thanks everyone!

This has nothing to do with performance, but it dealswith the "when" brought up by parrothead.

Assembly of the first F-35 is under way, with first flight planned for 2006.

"The first CTOL F-35A has begun airframe assembly at July 12, 2004 and the first wing assembly at August 23, 2004, and is scheduled for its first flight in August 2006. The STOVL F-35B first flight is set for 2007. The F-35A fighter is expected to enter service in 2008, the F-35B in 2012."
and this info is found a few places on the net.

I'd originally heard late 2005, but now it seems they've delayed until early 2006. Only a few months. We'll still probably be seeing pictures it towards the end of this year. (Though they will probably look almost identicalto the mock-up, but more detailed/whathaveyou)

Thanks man!!!

anybody has the flight characteristics of X-35 A/B/C? What was achieved?

An other question: A programs key fact is: <30 Mio USD for plane. I guess this is fly away price without systems and development costs excluded, right?

Me again.
Bump the topic above and a question about the engine:

Full AB Thrust is 185kn, has any info been provided, what its dry thrust is?

wet thrust is ~43K Lb, dry is ~28.9k, which is more than a pair of EJ200

wohlstad wrote:

wet thrust is ~43K Lb, dry is ~28.9k, which is more than a pair of EJ200

This is why I think performance will exceed that of the Viper. I think they'll get the weight even lower by LRIP. Even though it's obviously heavier, I'm confident it will have higher thrust to weight numbers than the Viper.

Quote:

The F-35A fighter is expected to enter service in 2008

I could be wrong, but I thought I read that IOC had been pushed back to 2010.

The empty weight of F-35A may be even heavier than F-15C now. The weight of airframe of F-35A without F-135, radar + nose, IRST, EWS, stealthy coating, and painting has reached 9,514 kg, I estimated F-35A's empty weight shall reached 12,500~13,000 kg class, which is about 43~57% heavier than F-16C/D (8,272~8,710 kg).

As for the comparison between F135 and F100-PW-229:

Engine: F-135-PW-100 / F100-PW-229
Max. Mil. Thrust: 28,900 Ib / 17,800 Ib --> 162 : 100
Max. A/B. Thrust: 43,000 Ib / 29,100 Ib --> 148 : 100

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

43,000? Gawd, what a beast. Does the F135 compare in weight to an F100, or is it significantly heavier?

43,000 Ib is equal to 19,505 kg.

If the T/W ratio of F-135 is 10~11:1, than its weight should be between 1,770~1,950 kg theoretically.

The weight of F100-PW-229 is 1,681 kg.

It is true that F-135 is really a beast. However, its power is still less than the sum of two F-100-PW-220 (23,770 Ib*2) or two F-414-GE-400 (22,000 Ib*2), while F-35A may be as heavy as F-15C, and F-35C may be even heavier than F/A-18E/F.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

Comparing empty weights and engine thrust ratings really isn't going to tell you much about the relative performance of the F-16 and F-35A, B, or C. And please... don't anyone mention wing loading either. That will not tell you much about a modern fighter's aerodynamic performance and can actually be quite misleading. What you need to make a decent comparison are the lift and drag coefficients as well as the MIL and AB thrust figures throughout the ENTIRE envelopes of both aircraft. Good luck getting that info for the F-35 though. If you assumed that the lift and drag coefficients of the F-35 were the same as the F-16 and simply scaled the thrust of the F-16 up to F-35 levels, you could get some sort of idea where the two stand. The F-35 has a bigger wing and a lot more thrust than the F-16. It's not unreasonable to assume it has better aerodynamics too, but definitely safe to assume its aerodynamics are no better or worse than the F-16's.

All that being said, if anyone wants to go and crunch some numbers and report back on their findings, be my guest. But I guarantee nothing informative will come out of comparing basic figures like thrust and weight. By the way, an F-16C Block 52 or even Block 60 with CFTs in an air combat config is heavier than you might think and the performance (especially with full internal fuel) less impressive than one might expect. The F-16's relatively small wing area was designed with the term "lightweight fighter" in mind. Certainly not mid-weight multi-role aircraft that has packed on around 5000 extra pounds to its original empty weight (if not more). They would have given the thing a bigger wing if they knew what role it would be flying in today.

Yup. We will know more when a JSF flys ( I don't count the smoke and mirrors demos of 2001 ). Correction. "We" will know a little bit more when they fly a JSF. Those of us without a need to know... etc. etc... Salute

As they are still having problems ironing out AESA in a combat jet in a multi-mission role ( F-18E/F )... hopefully they will have some of those issues worked out. The F-18E/F AESA problems aren't expected to be solved till the end of the year. Be interesting if those issues are generic to AESA tech in general ( we are still learning all the neat things it can do )... or if they are specific to the F-18E/F sustainment program. Given all the things you have to do to field a combat jet, there is just so much we, where "we" is joe average, just won't know for a long long time.

parrothead wrote:

Oh yeah, when and where should I look to see a real JSF instead of the mockup? Thanks everyone!

The real STOVL X-35B is on permanent display at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Washington D.C., if that counts as anything. I saw it about a year and a half ago when I was there. Very Happy

AA-1 is through fuels and weight & balance. Ground vibration testing and structural coupling are next.
------------------------------------------
F-35 Fuel Tests Confirm Solid, Well-Built Design
Structural Testing Begins at Lockheed Martin

[Lockheed Martin News Release] from LM website

FORT WORTH, Texas, March 24, 2006 – The Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Joint Strike Fighter completed “leak-free” fuel-system checkout testing achieving another major success milestone on the fighter program. Engineers and technicians have concluded, on schedule, an extensive fuel-system checkout on the first Joint Strike Fighter and are making final preparations for a series of structural tests on the aircraft planned to begin today.

The fuel-system tests included methodically filling, measuring, weighing and emptying each internal tank with jet fuel, leading up to filling all tanks at operational pressure. The air-refueling system also was checked for proper function. Throughout the testing process, the fuel system proved to be free of leaks. “Fuel leaks are a typical problem for modern high-performance fighter aircraft, so this success is an early indication the F-35 is a solid design and a well-built fighter aircraft,” said Doug Pearson, vice president of the F-35 Integrated Test Force. “The F-35 is a stealthy aircraft built with very tight tolerances, and it is remarkable that during the entire comprehensive fuel system testing there were no external leaks from any of the fuel tanks.”

The fuel-system checkout concluded on March 12 and took less than a third of the time to complete than in other recent developmental aircraft programs. The F-35 was then moved to a Lockheed Martin run station to begin equipment and component installations for structural-coupling testing and ground-vibration testing, set to begin March 24.

Structural coupling is the interaction between the flight-control system and the structural dynamics of the airframe. It is tested to ensure that F-35 flight controls do not interact with structural vibrations within the aircraft. Ground-vibration tests certify the airframe is resistant to flutter, which can cause sudden, destructive vibration levels in an aircraft.

The inaugural flight of the first F-35, a conventional takeoff and landing version, remains on schedule for this fall. The aircraft is the first of 15 F-35s that will be flight-tested, and another seven that will undergo a battery of ground-based tests. Additionally, a full-scale, high-fidelity F-35 model will be used to validate the aircraft’s stealth properties.

more at LM website.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35 performance testing - anything new?