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

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.

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

That's not a criticism, just a comment.

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

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

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



Wing areas are

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

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?

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.

Interesting topic Dwightlooi, I only wish I had noticed this topic earlier. Let's not forget that the F-35 is a "true" stealth aircraft (compromises to be exported and as compared to the F-22 notwithstanding) as compared to the F-18 E/F who's design modifications (vs legacy Hornets) to lower the RCS go out the window as soon as you put on any external stores (ditto Rafale and EuroFighter Typhoon).

Salute!

Really good illustrations. These are good examples of what the other guy sees when you "needle-nose" him once inside the BVR engagement arena.

The Viper and F-5 Agressors were damned near impossible to see until the flare of an AIM-9L face shot, heh heh.

John-boy has a really good point, as do others about the single-engine concept. The F-16 design went to one motor for several of the reasons stated above.

- If you lose the "emergency" motor, you're dead. If you lose the one motor, you're dead.

- The one motor is much more efficient than two smaller ones. You can only pull back the power so far, and then you're stuck with the most inefficient section of the fuel per thrust curve. Need TEG to comment here. On the A-37, we could pull back to idle and the motors were still burning 500 pph. So we would shut one down, push the other up to it's more efficient operating regime and save gas while loitering. So at same speed on two we were burning maybe 800 pph per motor compared with 1300 pph total using one motor at a better point on the "curve".

- First Hornet dude I talked with at Hill in 1981 or so told me they burned about 3000 pph cruising along. Hell, it was about what the Eagle burned. OTOH, we Viper pilots saw 1500 - 2000 pounds per hour at the same parameters.

- The single motor allows for a higher "fuel fraction", as Riccione, et al, pointed out when pushing the LWF concept. That results in greater range. So the space can be used for more fuel or internal weapon bays. I like it, don't you?

- Contrary to popular belief, the F-100 Pratt that the Viper used in the early days was more reliable than the ones in the Eagle. It was "single-engine" rated, so to speak. We had the BUC, plus a better fuel control unit if I remember correctly.

- The single motor has a lower IR signature than two motors, even if the double-ugly design uses small motors.

- and more tech reasons besides the "glamor" of a single-engine, single-seat fighter.

Gums sends...

You'll never see a super Hornet got into combat in a clean configuration.

bjr1028 wrote:You'll never see a super Hornet got into combat in a clean configuration.

Nor, any non-5th Generation Design for that matter!

bjr1028, aircraft can get 'clean' by dropping stores - expended or not. In an emergency perhaps that is what they will do. Then what.