F-16.net

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

dwightlooi wrote:

JCSVT wrote:

I've seen pilots put the Raptor's weight at around 65,000lb. I think that is with a regular combat loadout.

65000 lbs = 29.5 tons

We know the internal fuel load of the Raptor to be about 9.5 tons
6 AMRAAMs = 0.9 tons
2 AIM-9Ms = 0.2 tons
480 x 20x102mm ammo = 0.25kg x 480 = 0.12 tons

That leaves an airframe weight of 18.8 tons. Sounds about right.

Dont forget 100kg of pilot and gear. Smile

Also Does the AMRAAM weight include the pnematic launchers?

AMRAAMs weigh about 360 lbs, the launchers probably at least 50 lbs

20,650 (9365kg) fuel
410 x 6 = 2460lbs(1116kg) AMRAAM
200 x 2 = 800lbs(360kg) AIM-9
220lbs (100kg) pilot and gear
262 grams x 480 = 277lbs(126kg) Ammo
=24,407 lbs

~65,000lbs fully loaded
-24,407
=~40,593 lbs empty

Now factor in a few hundred pounds probably of engine lubrication oil, hydraulic oil, other things, etc and the empty weight proabably comes right in nicely at 40,000.

Npw there have been two numbers thrown around for the Raptor's empty weight, 44,000 and 40,000 lbs. I've always contented that the higher number was the empty-loaded weight (i.e. 65,000 minus just the fuel, 20,650, and 220 for the pilot equals a little over 44,000) used mostly by it's critics

It's quite clear the Raptor weighs about 40,000 lbs empty. That give it an empty TWR of around 1.95:1(78,000/40,000), easily outclassing any fighter in the air. Without afterburners that would be 1.35:1(54,000/40,000), close to many modern 4th gen fighters on full afterburner! factor in the size different and therefore the drag advantage of larger aircraft (Ratio of Surface area and Volume/Mass), and the higher altitude performance characteristics, and its not hard to see how claims of the Raptor out-accelerating F-teens on Afterburner when it's on dry power can be easily substantiated.

F-16.net Sponsor

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

44000 lbs !!?.. so much ?.. I'not worried by thrust/weight ratio, probably one day they will develop some more powerful engine to, but weight load can't be improved !

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

Neno wrote:

44000 lbs !!?.. so much ?.. I'not worried by thrust/weight ratio, probably one day they will develop some more powerful engine to, but weight load can't be improved !

Eh? You don't understand what weight means in terms of aircraft performance based on this statement of yours. The F-22 doesn't have weight problems... period.

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

Neno wrote:

44000 lbs !!?.. so much ?.. I'not worried by thrust/weight ratio, probably one day they will develop some more powerful engine to, but weight load can't be improved !

44,000 empty.... but loaded with weapons (6 AMRAAMs, 2 sidewinders and 480 rounds of 20mm ammunition)

Empty weight is around 40,000. The Raptor does not have weight problems, as evidenced by accounts of it's performance, and hell, look at some of the videos on Youtube of it doing aerobatic stuff that only one-off experimental planes can do!

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

Raptor_One wrote:

Neno wrote:

44000 lbs !!?.. so much ?.. I'not worried by thrust/weight ratio, probably one day they will develop some more powerful engine to, but weight load can't be improved !

Eh? You don't understand what weight means in terms of aircraft performance based on this statement of yours. The F-22 doesn't have weight problems... period.

Yeah, even if you are to use such simple figures (which dont tell the whole story) such as SLS TWR @ empty, the raptor has a ~1.95 ratio on afterburner and ~1.35 on dry thrust.... Better than a Mirage 2000 and many other 4thG fighters on full afterburner! Wing loading (again an oversimplified stat) is still good, and maneuverability certainly is not lacking as evidenced by it's airshow videos... doing things that only X-Planes have been able to do before.

X-Planes and Su37's...

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1006 Status: Offline

Neno wrote:

X-Planes and Su37's...

The single Su-37 was as much an X-plane as the F-15 ACTIVE until it crashed. However the Su-30 can do all that fancy stuff (except the slow vertical climb Wink

) albeit they have to use 3D TVC to do it.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1034 Status: Offline

The 37 can't touch the Raptor as far as maneuvering goes...

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

Neno wrote:

X-Planes and Su37's...

What does this statement have to do with your previous (false) statement about the F-22 weighing too much?

Raptor_One wrote:

Neno wrote:

X-Planes and Su37's...

What does this statement have to do with your previous (false) statement about the F-22 weighing too much?

Oh nothing, i'm just saying my opinion (but please, note that i'm not saying su37 is better than F22, I'm just answering to Netopia's statement).

Raptor has a very good T/W ratio (specially if considering the amount of internal fuel) but i believed it was lighter than 44000 (well ok, let say 40000) lbs and wing load was far better than the eagle's one

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

Neno wrote:

Raptor_One wrote:

Neno wrote:

X-Planes and Su37's...

What does this statement have to do with your previous (false) statement about the F-22 weighing too much?

Oh nothing, i'm just saying my opinion (but please, note that i'm not saying su37 is better than F22, I'm just answering to Netopia's statement).

Raptor has a very good T/W ratio (specially if considering the amount of internal fuel) but i believed it was lighter than 44000 (well ok, let say 40000) lbs and wing load was far better than the eagle's one

Wing loading is not a figure of merit anymore when it comes to the evaluation of modern fighter aircraft performance. It just doesn't mean anything. Take the F-16's performance for example. As for the F-22's empty weight, why would 44,000 or 40,000 lbs be "too much"? Please explain in technical terms. Please don't state, "That's just my opinion." That's not an answer to the question of why said weight is too much. And forget wing loading. It means zip, zero, zilch in terms of aircraft like the F-22, F/A-18, F-16, etc.

Take the F15 with 229.. and please, also think what Will fly over the east sky's between 15 years (not just at today's threat).

65,000 Ib = 29,484 kg

Internal fuel = 9,365 kg

AIM-120C: around 157.5 kg per missile

AIM-9M or X: around 90 kg per missile

Pilot and 480 20 mm shells: around 150~200 kg

29,484 - 9,365 - 157.5*6 - 90*2 - 150~200 = 18,800 ~ 18,850 kg (41,450 ~ 41,560 Ib)

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

Neno wrote:

Take the F15 with 229.. and please, also think what Will fly over the east sky's between 15 years (not just at today's threat).

What? Again, what does an F-15 with F100-PW-229 engines have to do with your claim that the F-22 is too heavy? If you refuse to explain yourself clearly, I am going to assume you just don't know what you're talking about. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is the case already, but I'm trying to give you as many chances as possible.

Raptor_One wrote:

If you refuse to explain yourself clearly, I am going to assume you just don't know what you're talking about. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is the case already, but I'm trying to give you as many chances as possible.

OK, maybe my scholastic-level English make me explaining not clearly as you need..
Of course you're free to think what you want..
I'm not a pilot (and i'm an F22 fan, even if you don't believe'it) and "too heavy" MUST be an opinion cause there isn't any edge for say "ok now this A/C is too heavy", only putting it near to other you can have an idea,
I was supposed that it was less than 40000 lbs, it's just this !

Relax yourself Raptor_one, i can't see the problem...

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Realistic thrust figures for the F119