F-16.net

Hi, I have looked through countless websites and magazines, and I swear I've read more than 6 "official" figures on the wing loading of the F-22A. They range from 66 lbs/sq ft (only the Eurofighter tops that) to 80ish lbs/sq ft. There seems to be no consensus, even among Air Force officials and pilots, as to the factual wing loading of the Raptor. I did the math myself, assuming the 840sq ft wing area is true, and using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor , and found out this: MTOW Wing loading = 95.23 lbs/sq ft, Loaded weight wing loading = 66.6666 lbs/sq ft. I'm assuming the loaded weight includes fuel and the typical air to air armament. So, my question is, does anyone here have a take/opinion on what the true wing loading is, or does anyone know?

F-16.net Sponsor

Going by unofficial (yet pretty accurate) assumptions of the Raptors loaded weight (full fuel/weapons) which ranges between 63-64K the wing load should be in the mid 70's (lb/sq ft).

Of course wing loading matters, Tust vectoring really only adds nose pointing ability at high alpha

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

Thrust vectoring does nothing but help change pitch in a hurry. It is lift that sustains a turn. A bowling ball with thrust vectoring will have very good nose pointing ability, but almost zero turning ability.

Having said that, wing loading -- as traditionally measured -- can be very misleading. The reason is that wing area is typically defined as the area from the wing tip to the center line of the aircraft following the leading and trailing edge lines. This is misleading because (1) it favors aircrafts with a lot of leading edge sweep and/or trailing edge reverse sweep. In such instances a lot of the fuselage area and sometimes empty space is counted as wing area. (2) In modern aircrafts like the flat, wide, bottomed F-22 or F-35, the fuselage itself provides very significant amounts of lift especially at high AoAs. Wing area does not reflect that. (3) To some extents, the canards or tails are also lifting surfaces and wing area does not account for these.

I believe that one needs to consider BOTH wing area and aircraft plan area when estimating turning ability from aerodynamic lift. The possible presence of vortice forming features should also be taken into account.

ok.... so does anyone know what the minimum turn radius is for a Raptor? Is that even measured and if so, how does the Raptor realistically compare to fighters like the Su-27/30/33/35/37, and the Mig-29/35?

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

Tinito_16 wrote:

ok.... so does anyone know what the minimum turn radius is for a Raptor? Is that even measured and if so, how does the Raptor realistically compare to fighters like the Su-27/30/33/35/37, and the Mig-29/35?

Good luck trying to find that. Nobody even knows F-22's true engine thrust rating, its maximum speed, its actual range, rate of climb or anything specific about its performance.

min turn radius?? like... 70 ft. lol, I dont know

dwightlooi wrote:

...the fuselage itself provides very significant amounts of lift especially at high AoAs.

Good point, remember that Israeli F-15 that lander with essentially one wing due to the lift provided by the wide body design?

The fuselage does not have to be wide or flat to generate a lot of lift. For example, the F-16 fuselage, not wide or flat, generates more than 40% of total lift at the design condition of .95 mach/10,000 ft. Fuselages can generate a higher percentage of total lift at high AoA, not because the fuselage is more efficient, but because the wing has stalled and is producing much less lift.

Deleted

I actually saw the video on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVkB7V-JybY

I have seen some of the videos with Major Paul Moga doing his thing, the turns don't look too tight... maybe because he was flying a show and not extreme fighter maneuvers. That said, judging from the videos I have seen, I'd say the turns had an average radius of about 175 ft, not too shabby considering it is a jet. Moga also said he took a 10 g turn once, and that the groundcrew had to check the airframe to make sure it wasn't weakened (Raptors are designed for 9.5g according to the article). Sadly, Moga didn't say what speed he took the turn, so it would be hard to get a turn radius just on how many g's he pulled.

Enthusiast Joined: May 31, 2007 Posts: 29 Status: Offline

I think that the effect that wing loading has on manuverability may depend on the altitude the plane is operating. With the thin air at high altitude, the TV may play a larger role as the control surfaces would be less effective...

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1035 Status: Offline

Tinito_16 wrote:

I actually saw the video on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVkB7V-JybY

I have seen some of the videos with Major Paul Moga doing his thing, the turns don't look too tight... maybe because he was flying a show and not extreme fighter maneuvers. That said, judging from the videos I have seen, I'd say the turns had an average radius of about 175 ft, not too shabby considering it is a jet. Moga also said he took a 10 g turn once, and that the groundcrew had to check the airframe to make sure it wasn't weakened (Raptors are designed for 9.5g according to the article). Sadly, Moga didn't say what speed he took the turn, so it would be hard to get a turn radius just on how many g's he pulled.

You need to get to a Raptor show this year. The turns are EXTREMELY tight. Tighter than anything else I've ever seen anyways...and I've seen almost every major fighter out there. About the turn...the actual figure was just over 10g's and checking the airframe after turns exceeding 9g's are standard. The Raptor is an operational 10g jet. The airframe is designed for much more than that....Check

Wow Oo but how do the designers make sure that the plane wont desintegrate mid-turn (in an extremely high-g turn I mean)? I have FSX (yes it is just a sim) and if I exceed a certain g-threshold depending on the plane I'm using, the aircraft overstresses. (I guess this was resolved with the F-22's carefree handling capability but I'm not sure how that works.) What would happen in a 4th gen. fighter if it gets overstressed? Will the airframe bend and break all of a sudden or is the damage gradual?

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 14, 2006 Posts: 505

Tinito_16 wrote:

how does the Raptor realistically compare to fighters like the Su-27/30/33/35/37, and the Mig-29/35?

I suspect the F-22 would likely outmaneuver all of those fighters most of the time under most conditions.

Tinito_16 wrote:

I've read more than 6 "official" figures on the wing loading of the F-22A.

I was under the impression that the exact weight, wing loading and turn radius is still classified. So I would be skeptical of any figures you get, they are probably going to be ballpark figures, estimates or misinformation.

Sounds like you're fishing secret information.

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Wing Loading on the Raptor