F-16.net

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 02, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

The pictures shows (to scale) the F-35C and F-18E frontal profiles. Its amazing that there is no growth in sectional area considering that the F-35C swallows two 2500 pound and two 350 pound weapon envelopes, holds 36.6% (2,441 kg) more fuel, weighs pretty much the same and had all kind of stealth and STOVL considerations. Its a marvel of fantastic packaging that is ever more marvelous the more you look at it.

F-16.net Sponsor

Note also that the Hornet carries two engines internally to the -35's one.

That's not a criticism, just a comment.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

habu2 wrote:

Note also that the Hornet carries two engines internally to the -35's one.

That's not a criticism, just a comment.

Actually, I think that going single is one of the major factors that made the package possible. With two smaller engines, you have a wider powerplant package. It also makes putting the weapon bays to each side of the engine and immediately behind the intakes impossible to do. When you can have a single engine which make essentially the same thrust (43,000 vs 2 x22,000 lbs), using the single engine configuration permits tighter packaging, greater mass efficiency and (usually) better efficiency. The downside of course is that the engine better be as reliable as you hope otherwise you are gliding home.

Assume the engines have the same reliability. Then, considering one vs. two engines in combat, one is better than two, since the twin engine airplane will have twice as many engine failures. With an engine failure in combat, you're down either way.

true that, the F-35C even has a larger wing area that the Super Bug

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

true that, the F-35C even has a larger wing area that the Super Bug

F-18A/B/C/D = 400 sq-ft
F-35A/B = 460 sq-ft
F-18E/F = 500 sq-ft
F-35C = 668 sq-ft

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

Here's the F-35A vs a Rafale F2

Wing areas are

F-35A = 460 sq-ft
Rafale F2 = 492 sq-ft

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

More... F-35A vs EF Typhoon

And... F-35A vs F-22A

dwightlooi wrote:

More... F-35A vs EF Typhoon

And... F-35A vs F-22A

Interesting..........the F-35C vs F-22A would be closer is size! What's the wing area of both?

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

Corsair1963 wrote:

Interesting..........the F-35C vs F-22A would be closer is size! What's the wing area of both?

In terms of span, yes. But the F-35A and F-22A are both land based fighters, hence by role they are a better pair up.

In anycase the F-22A has a 840 sq-ft wing area compared to 460 sq-ft for the F-35A (or 668 sq-ft in the case of the F-35C). Now, one must understand that the convention for calculating wing area is to extend the leading and trailing edges of the wing to the center line. A large part of the "wing area" may actually be fuselage area. As such, it tends to give aircrafts with greater leading and/or trailing edge sweeps a larger "wing area", even if the size of the wing from fuselage butt line to the wing tip may be the same. This in part contribute to the huge discrepancy between the wing areas of the F-22 and F-35 -- with the F-22's wing area being 183% that of the F-35. From fuselage butt line to wing tip, the difference in size of the actually airfoil is not that great.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35C and F-18E frontal profiles compared