F-16.net

LOL

F-16.net Sponsor

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

Enthusiast Joined: May 10, 2005 Posts: 37 Status: Offline

They messed up. I think thats supposed to be the F-16's weight.

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

Internal: 20,650 pounds give or take... Laughing

It is probably more helpful to go to someone that actually knows and does the work and not a PA puke just doing their job and reading old or poorly constructed information.

http://www.0x4d.net/files/AF1/R11%20Segment%2015.pdf

TECHNICAL ORDER 00-105E-9 , 1 Feb 06, Revision 11
TECHNICAL ORDER 00-105E-9 TECHNICAL CONTENT MANAGER
WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE:
HQ AFCESA/CEXF
ATTN: Fire and Emergency Services Egress Manager
139 Barnes Drive Suite 1
Tyndall AFB, Florida 32403-5319
E-MAIL: HQAFCESA.CEXF@tyndall.af.mil

PHONE: (850) 283-6150

Also....
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-6494.html

20,000 lbs of fuel... in a 65(ish) ft fighter... same as in the 72 ft sukhois! Althought the AL-31Fs are prolly the most efficient fighter engines ever made in the 25-32,000 lbt class, but thats another topic altogether. So the Raptor only has one ton for fuel than teh F-35A and half a ton more than the F-35C? Man those little planes are going to have a lot of range. Although from what I see the F-35C weighs empty nearly the same as the F-22. I see empty wieghts for the F-35C of 30,000lbs and F-22 anywhere between 30 and 40,000 lbs.

Enthusiast Joined: Jul 30, 2006 Posts: 49 Status: Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

20,000 lbs of fuel... in a 65(ish) ft fighter... same as in the 72 ft sukhois! Althought the AL-31Fs are prolly the most efficient fighter engines ever made in the 25-32,000 lbt class, but thats another topic altogether. So the Raptor only has one ton for fuel than teh F-35A and half a ton more than the F-35C? Man those little planes are going to have a lot of range.

According to http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html, combat radius is roughly

310nm subsonic + 100nm supersonic dash.

100nm at, say, 850kts (roughly M1.5) translates to about 100/850 hr or approximately 7 minutes of supersonic flying time each way.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

Although from what I see the F-35C weighs empty nearly the same as the F-22. I see empty wieghts for the F-35C of 30,000lbs and F-22 anywhere between 30 and 40,000 lbs.

Well 8000 lb or so are still a significant difference in empty weight.

yeah if the F-22 is closer to 40,000 lbs empty then there is a significant difference, but I was saying that if it is closer to the 30,000 lb numbers I have read that it is really close. But it will take a long time to get finalized numbers wont we. True numbers on the Raptor are probably OPSEC and the JSF is both OPSEC and still changing.

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 23, 2006 Posts: 28 Status: Offline

mil_hobbyist wrote:

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

20,000 lbs of fuel... in a 65(ish) ft fighter... same as in the 72 ft sukhois! Althought the AL-31Fs are prolly the most efficient fighter engines ever made in the 25-32,000 lbt class, but thats another topic altogether. So the Raptor only has one ton for fuel than teh F-35A and half a ton more than the F-35C? Man those little planes are going to have a lot of range.

According to http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html, combat radius is roughly

310nm subsonic + 100nm supersonic dash.

100nm at, say, 850kts (roughly M1.5) translates to about 100/850 hr or approximately 7 minutes of supersonic flying time each way.

I think the USAF might be actually guilty of a bit of “half truth” here. The question that comes to my mind when I saw that is at what altitude? That figure seems awfully low and not very useful tactically and to be honest, the USAF and the contractor have been all over the map regarding supercruise endurance going from “about half an hour of a one hour mission” to “as long as you have fuel”. They are probably both strictly correct but probably misleading.

Following the AvLeak articles over the years and what little bits of info from the guys that fly them it’s obvious that jet operates quite comfortably at 55-60K ft and I assume that is a part of the envelope that they can supercruise at (many of the comments infer this). One figure I distinctly remember is the F-22 would burn about 30% less fuel supercruising than an F-15 would in full blower. This would imply a SFC of about 1.4 lb/lb/hr.

Taking a look at thrust vs. altitude at M 1.5 we can come up with a very crude estimate of the F119 dry thrust under those conditions and we might be able to come up with ball park (yes a very big ball park) estimate of supersonic range. To be succinct, looking at 30K to 60K, assuming full mil thrust, and a nominal 16,500lbs of fuel (assuming around 4K for reserve, burner etc.) then I get the following range (not radius):

30K 306nm
35K 361nm
40K 495nm
45K 629nm
50K 800nm
55K 936nm
60K 1157nm

Again these are obviously very crude estimates but I think what this shows is that the F-22 team homepage’s figures – while probably technically correct—probably do not translate to actual operational values. I’m not at all certain that the F-22 can even do M 1.5 dry at 55-60K ft but if it can then its range is very good; having a specific range in the ~ 0.055-0.07 nm/lb range. Even if can still supercruise at a more modest speed of say M 1.2 that’s a range of 750 – 925nm or a SR of around 0.045 – 0.56 nm/lb. At any rate the F-22 can certainly cruise much longer than roughly 200nm at altitudes above 40K feet.

BDF

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 23, 2006 Posts: 28 Status: Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

yeah if the F-22 is closer to 40,000 lbs empty then there is a significant difference, but I was saying that if it is closer to the 30,000 lb numbers I have read that it is really close. But it will take a long time to get finalized numbers wont we. True numbers on the Raptor are probably OPSEC and the JSF is both OPSEC and still changing.

The USAF fact sheet used to state the F-22 is in the “40,000lb class”. There was a Hill AFB document that did state what it was but has since been taken down. It’s amazing how careless organizations can get at times. Reminds me of how the detailed internal information of the VC-25A (Air Force One) that included counter measures, secret service locations, O2 stations etc. – stuff that is classified – was inadvertently released on an unclassified TecOrd publication.

BDF

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

yeah if the F-22 is closer to 40,000 lbs empty then there is a significant difference, but I was saying that if it is closer to the 30,000 lb numbers I have read that it is really close. But it will take a long time to get finalized numbers wont we. True numbers on the Raptor are probably OPSEC and the JSF is both OPSEC and still changing.

Well the numbers you can obtain in publications suggest an empty weight around 40000 lb and given the F-35's available (still not final weight figures), taking into account the fact that the F-22 is significantly larger, uses more metal and being twin engined insists that this difference of 8000-10000 lb (depending on the F-35 variant) is reasonable.

very true. The F-22 is twin engine (~4,000 lbs more just in engine and mounting stuff) and is ten feet longer and what? 5 ft wider? a LOT more wing are though!

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

very true. The F-22 is twin engine (~4,000 lbs more just in engine and mounting stuff) and is ten feet longer and what? 5 ft wider? a LOT more wing are though!

I wouldn't be surprised if tha capablilities between the F-22 and F-35 are closer than most people want to believe. Which, would explain why the US Goverment wants to move on...........(i.e. F-35) Wink

mil_hobbyist wrote:

According to http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html, combat radius is roughly
310nm subsonic + 100nm supersonic dash.

REMEMBER, this specs is in the circumstance that the F-22A is 410 miles from its base when it crosses the 'forward edge of the battle area (FEBA), without tanker support!

Adrian

Enthusiast Joined: Jul 30, 2006 Posts: 49 Status: Offline

avon1944 wrote:

mil_hobbyist wrote:

According to http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html, combat radius is roughly
310nm subsonic + 100nm supersonic dash.

REMEMBER, this specs is in the circumstance that the F-22A is 410 miles from its base when it crosses the 'forward edge of the battle area (FEBA), without tanker support!

Adrian

So "combat radius" is defined as max distance from base to FEBA?

Also, what does "tanker support" have to do with this? I was under the impression that "combat radius" is a measure of how far you can fight on one tank of gas. If refueling were allowed, how would you standardize measurements?

This spec was brought to light by those trying to kill the F-22 program. They were trying to say supercruise was not a great feature. Tanker support is normally used in modern aerial offenses. This spec was to make the F-22 look bad by stating something that appearred bad but, had many many qualifications implied. You are correct in that this is not the normal way of measuring combat radius.

Adrian

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-22 Raptor vs F-35 Joint Strike Fighter