Greetings!
I've been surfing the web for a while, but I didn't succeed on this: what will be the F-35 wing surface? I know that F-35C will have larger wings, hence more surface, but what is the exact value? Was it disclosed already? And what about the -35A and -35B?
_________________
Sponsor
Posted: Jul 09, 2008 - 1:48 PM
F-16.net Sponsor
This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.
sprstdlyscottsmn
Posted: Jul 03, 2007 - 08:28 AM
Veteran
Joined: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 338
Status: Offline
this was covered on a previous thread, here ya go.
weightstablejj1.jpg
Description:
Filesize:
85.03 KB
Viewed:
1660 Time(s)
dwightlooi
Posted: Jul 03, 2007 - 01:43 PM
Elite
Joined: Aug 02, 2006
Posts: 885
Status: Offline
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
this was covered on a previous thread, here ya go.
I think he wants to know the actual area of the wing surface. The numbers given are the reference wing area which is arrived at by extending the leading and trailing edges to the center line. This includes a lot of "fuselage" area, but is the standard way of citing "wing area" for aircrafts.
fox100
Posted: Jul 03, 2007 - 08:01 PM
Frequent Poster
Joined: Mar 13, 2007
Posts: 98
Status: Offline
renatohm wrote:
Greetings!
I've been surfing the web for a while, but I didn't succeed on this: what will be the F-35 wing surface? I know that F-35C will have larger wings, hence more surface, but what is the exact value? Was it disclosed already? And what about the -35A and -35B?
The wings gonna be big enough to make an already ugly airplane even more ugly... and an already "slow" airplane slower as well. Yeah, yeah, needs big wings for slow carrier approaches... The JSF is just an all around bad idea. Add bigger wings, folding wings, and you're just adding weight to an already chubby guy.
Why do you even care about the wing area of the Naval plane?
dwightlooi
Posted: Jul 03, 2007 - 11:58 PM
Elite
Joined: Aug 02, 2006
Posts: 885
Status: Offline
fox100 wrote:
The wings gonna be big enough to make an already ugly airplane even more ugly... and an already "slow" airplane slower as well. Yeah, yeah, needs big wings for slow carrier approaches... The JSF is just an all around bad idea. Add bigger wings, folding wings, and you're just adding weight to an already chubby guy.
Why do you even care about the wing area of the Naval plane?
Let's put it this way... the F-35 will have better power to weight ratio than an SU-30MK -- 5% better on afterburner and 10% better on dry thrust at 50% fuel. Anyone who has seen an SU pulling stunts at airshows will agree that this power level is... let's just say... adequate. So, it is not a heavy bird for its thrust level and certainly not for its capacious tanks and weapon bays. No, it is not a Raptor but it is certainly good enough.
It is supposed to match or exceed F-16 performance levels and maneuverability. And I'll bet that it does so significantly -- especially in the area of practical cruise speed and dash speeds with combat ordnance.
renatohm
Posted: Jul 04, 2007 - 02:12 PM
Frequent Poster
Joined: Dec 27, 2004
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
der03301, I'm not searching for exact square inches, but exact sq. ft. would be good enough, just for an idea, e.g, 332 sq ft or the like.
sprstdlyscottsmn, thanks for the answer, but the pic doesn't load - corrupted maybe?
_________________
renatohm
Posted: Jul 04, 2007 - 02:15 PM
Frequent Poster
Joined: Dec 27, 2004
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
dwightlooi wrote:
I think he wants to know the actual area of the wing surface. The numbers given are the reference wing area which is arrived at by extending the leading and trailing edges to the center line. This includes a lot of "fuselage" area, but is the standard way of citing "wing area" for aircrafts
You're quite right! I had a hard time trying to find these numbers, and still with no success.
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Forum Guidelines
