F-16.net

I've read that the 35 weighs 27,000 dry with an internal fuel load of 18,000 lbs, is this true? Now with that said the motor PW 135 (or whatever, it's still a PW) makes ...what 40,000 lbs thrust, the most powerful motor ever installed into a fighter, don't we just have another F-18..overweight and under powered?

I'm curious here cuz if the numbers i spewed out are right that is what it looks like to me. Moreover the weapons load, what will it cause the take-off weight to be? Are we still talking vertical take-off capability? or did the mighty aerospace plane builders pull off another one on us? Remember the F-18 couldn't fly a loop!? When it came down to the nuts and bolts of it.

On another aspect I like to ride dirt bikes, if you make a good all-around dirt bike it won't be worth a darn at anything. Did we get duped on the JSF?

F-16.net Sponsor

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

Enthusiast Joined: Sep 02, 2006 Posts: 31 Status: Offline

fireball wrote:

I've read that the 35 weighs 27,000 dry with an internal fuel load of 18,000 lbs, is this true?

I'm afraid that's worse than that.
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/ ... t%2006.pdf

Seeing as role #1 was strike fighter with long range... it will fullfill this.

Seeing as role #2 was long range BVR fighter... it will fullfill this.

Large ammounts of internal fuel is not a hinderment to an aircraft, its an advantage. Why? Because in 90% of the cases, every pilot wished they had more fuel than less.
In dogfighting, the use of afterburner happens quite often (I think), and fuel gets burned quickly.

We werent duped. After the F-22A, this aircraft is the best in the world.

Skrip, I know the advantage of not having to hang bulky high drag tanks on a jet, high internal fuel good, weight bad, it's a heavy jet, need room to stow electronic gear...got it.

How fast is this jet? It's 1.3 rated so real about 1.01. just like the 22. For the price it sure could have been better? I'm sceptical but open, don't get me wrong. Are they selling a computer to babysit this jet like the 22?

fireball wrote:

skrip, dude i know the advantage of not having to hang bulky high drag tanks on a jet, high internal fuel good, weight bad, it's a heavy jet, need room to stow electronic gear...got it. how fast is this jet 1.3 rated so real about 1.01. just like the 22..for the price it sure could have been better? I'm skeptical but open, don't get me wrong. are they selling a computer to babysit this jet like the 22?

Huh?

What electronic gear needed to stow?

1.3? 1.01?

Computer to babysit the jet?? If you mean a computerized maintenence system for ground crews, then yes. The entire jet is wired for ease of maintenence. Just plug in and go from there.

I think there is a huge misconception out there that the F-35 is a porky, heavy jet, when it is in fact one the lightest fighter ever for its internal volume. This is an aircraft that holds 2 tons more internal fuel than the larger F-18E/F, has two huge internal weapon bays which the Super Hornet lacks, takes up less space on a carrier than the Super Hornet, produce essentially the same thrust with greater fuel efficiency and yet is 2.3 tons lighter than the Super Hornet (12,000 kg vs 14,288 kg). Be smaller, hold significantly more fuel, hold 2 x 2000 lbs class weapons, hold 2 x AAMs, be shaped/coated for stealth, be cheap and weigh 84% as much. It is a super human feat on the part of the engineers! For per unit unclosed volume the F-35 is significantly lighter than the Gripen, the Typhoon, the Rafale, the F-16, the F-18 and all the other jets who claim to be weight efficient.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1090

Could people with seemingly no aeronautical analytical abilities just refrain from starting these threads? I mean... get real. This IS basically rocket science and you've got people trying to play it off as though it's basket weaving. Ughh... don't even waste your time people.

http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/ ... t%2006.pdf

According to this document of 2006/09, the empty weight / internal fuel of F-35 series now should be:

F-35A: 29,036 Ib (13,170 kg) / 18,480 Ib (8,382 kg)

F-35B: 32,161 Ib (14,588 kg) / 14,003 Ib (6,352 kg)

F-35C: 32,072 Ib (14,548 kg) / 20,085 Ib (9,112 kg)

It is true that JSF should be in the class of heavy fighter, however, its awesome internal room comparing with the traditional fighter deserves the price of weight increase.

F-15E: 14,515 kg in empty weight and 5,920 kg for internal fuel. In addition, it has no internal weapon bay and lift-fan.

F/A-18E: 13,864 kg in empty weight and 6,450 kg for internal fuel. In addition, it has no internal weapon bay and lift-fan.

fireball wrote:

I've read that the 35 weighs 27,000 dry with an internal fuel load of 18,000 lbs, is this true? Now with that said the motor PW 135 (or whatever, it's still a PW) makes ...what 40,000 lbs thrust, the most powerful motor ever installed into a fighter, don't we just have another F-18..overweight and under powered?

I'm curious here cuz if the numbers i spewed out are right that is what it looks like to me. Moreover the weapons load, what will it cause the take-off weight to be? Are we still talking vertical take-off capability? or did the mighty aerospace plane builders pull off another one on us? Remember the F-18 couldn't fly a loop!? When it came down to the nuts and bolts of it.

On another aspect I like to ride dirt bikes, if you make a good all-around dirt bike it won't be worth a darn at anything. Did we get duped on the JSF?

If you're at Hill, you can ask the LM guys to answer many of your questions.

And no, we're not getting "duped" on the Lightning 2. For the price, we're getting more capabilities than the F-16/F-18/AV-8Bs could ever hope for.

Enthusiast Joined: Sep 27, 2006 Posts: 67 Status: Offline

The goal of the F-35A was to have equal or better agility characteristics than the F-16, it looks like it achieved that.

mind you, Static sea level thrust does not paint the whole picture, but the future gen fighters in the US arsenal have crazy powerful engines, easily more than making up for the weight gain.

TWR @ Empty (on afterburner)
43000/29034 = 1.481 F-35A
32500/22000 = 1.477 F-16E B60
29160/19200 = 1.519 F-16C
23770/15600 = 1.524 F-16A

TWR @ Empty (on mil power)
28000/29032 = 0.964 F-35A
19800/22000 = 0.900 F-16E B60
17800/19200 = 0.927 F-16C
14500/15600 = 0.929 F-16A

Wing Loading on Empty:
29034/480 = 63.1 F-35A
22000/300 = 73.3 F-16E B60
19200/300 = 64.0 F-16C
15600/300 = 52.0 F-16A

For all intents and purposes, They are the same as the F-16, which is what the desing spec called for... only in this package you have almost *triple* the internal fuel capacity, and a better natural drag advantage from being a larger fighter (for two objects of the same shape and density, the larger one will *always* have superior relative drag.) You get the larger radome, 360 degree optronics suite, etc. etc.

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 01, 2004 Posts: 53

Quote:

Are we still talking vertical take-off capability?

F-35B is not designed to have vertical take-off capability. If you'll take a look at the official website of the F-35, the B variant is classified as STOVL and not VTOL.
http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_variants.htm

fretmarks is correct, although VTOL will most likely be included as part of the hover testing during flight test.

Enthusiast Joined: Sep 27, 2006 Posts: 67 Status: Offline

habu2 wrote:

fretmarks is correct, although VTOL will most likely be included as part of the hover testing during flight test.

I'd Imagine in a VTOL config the F-35's load would be pretty limited...

skrip00 wrote:

Seeing as role #1 was strike fighter with long range... it will fullfill this.

Seeing as role #2 was long range BVR fighter... it will fullfill this.

Large ammounts of internal fuel is not a hinderment to an aircraft, its an advantage. Why? Because in 90% of the cases, every pilot wished they had more fuel than less.
In dogfighting, the use of afterburner happens quite often (I think), and fuel gets burned quickly.

We werent duped. After the F-22A, this aircraft is the best in the world.

F-35 will not fulfull the BVR requirement with neither authority nor competence. The F-35 was designed to be a bomb truck with the ability to defend herself with some degree of capability.

Being neither capable of supercruise (and maybe firing 120's above Mach 1.2) does not put it in the leage of the Eurocanards nor the super-russian fighters. The air intakes and the wing on the F-35 do not provide her with the capability of competing with what the guys on the other side of the oceans have in their frontline equipment. Along with some 8-9 tons of fuel... You gotta slow poke on your hands in military thrust even with 4 AAMs inside her stomach.

Also, opinion is not fact. Just because most pilots wish they had more fuel equates to exactly nothing. What pilots truly want is fuel that does add weight to their plane... i.e. they want fuel and the same thrust-to-weight ratio without adding 6000 pounds to their package weight.

I know that fuel is important, but I also know what happens to performance when fully tanked up to the brim. There is a weight penalty to adding more fuel, and ie a performance penalty induced. There are complicated equations to adding fuel and acheiving desired goals of range and loiter time. The lighter the a/c the better. Boyd knew this when working on the F-15 but was largely ingnored by the top brass. Boyd again knew this when it came time to work on the YF-16, but this time Boyd and the Fighter Mafia won out (for a time). Boyd would role over in his grave if he could see what we're getting with the F-35. Boyd had some crazy ideas as well, but the guy was a genious with airplanes. If it were not for Boyd, instead of the F-16, we'd be flying re-winged F-104s today. We've got a whale of plane in the F-35 in all her versions.... She ain't no true fighter. Because there's a gun installed or mounted on it, and because it's got AAMs... that does not equate a fighter. Hell, I can some missiles and a gun on a Gulfstream and toss in a fancy radar and call that a fighter.

The F-35 is the 2nd best plane in the world compared to the F-22? Huh? No way. I'd rather take E-fighter any day than that fat turkey that is the F-35.
Hate to say it, since I am a patriot of the USoA, but I dare suggest that the E-fighter will stomp the F-35 all day long in the WVR environment and also in the BVR scnenarios. I also suggest that in the next big war, a2a engagements are going to be lopsided in the ratio of BVR to WVR engagements, i.e. there will be more WVR that BVR engagements.

THE F-35 HAS NOT EVEN FLOWN. WHAT YOU ARE STATING IS OPINION - PERIOD. WHAT YOU ARE STATING IS A WISH - PERIOD. There are absolutely no facts to support the F-35 is the 2nd best fighter in the world. There are however many facts which point to the contrary.

Our poor export nations that will be stocking up on the F-35 are getting a plane with no more LO than the E-fighter (or maybe worse, as of yet to be seen) that cannot supercruise and is good for only dropping bombs on certain under developed nations. The F-35 was not designed to be a pure fighter and as such will never be able to compete with the real fighters in the world. Even the AF has publicly said that in order to make the F-35 into a fighter would require scrapping the current design and starting over from scratch. Do some research.

No, we were not duped into believing the F-35 is a capable fighter a/c since the AF has said otherwise, publicly. The only dupping going on is in these forums. The F-35 is a light ground attack plane firstly and hence will never be a capable BVR fighter, nor will it ever be a capable WVR fighter compared to what else is out there.

Sure, the requirements package called for 'the same' a2a capability of an F-16..... But, at what fuel loads will it come to life as a fighter? Certainly not ever when it's a flying Mobil gas station - it'd get whacked all day long by the real fighters in the world.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1090

Why don't you people just keep quiet? These diatribes are annoying. They just take up space. Who reads them? Anyone?

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 - 40,000lbs of thrust for 45,000lbs aircraft?