Agile F-35 High Wing Loading

[johnwill]

Once you eject a drop tank, is there a parachute built into the rear of the tank to let it land relatively gently for reuse, or does it just collide with the ground and you write it off as a spent equipment?

Think that's a big no for most tanks as Spaz as touched on.

Did have a photo of a 370 that had split almost in half (from what I remember) after an emergency jettison - the pylon was still on it though..


Found this vid - must be 370s not 600 as stated

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xg0q6p ... -fire_news

Right, 370s. The uninformed tele-journalist (but I repeat myself) also got it wrong about 1200 gallons of "Jet A" soaking the field. The tanks were empty judging from their relatively undamaged state.

[zero-one]

Well I really meant no harm with that word, and I apologize if I caused any sort of discomfort to anyone. over here, the Japanese are highly respected,

they have a much higher GDP than where I come from and a much better standard of living,
well they have a higher standard than most nations so thats not really a surprise.

But I guess what I'm trying to say is that over here, when some calls you a "Jap" its kind of a compliment.
So I really didn't think it would cause any discomfort, non the less, I'm sorry

[spazsinbad]

I'm guessing my description of what happened to a 300 gallon / 2,000 lb of fuel A-4 drop tank falling off, just after take off, was not clear? The tank became a myriad mess of tiny jagged pieces, dropping from a height of no more than 100 feet at perhaps 150 knots - but full of fuel. The tank was not secured properly - somehow. Go here for tank description:

http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com.au/2 ... tanks.html
&
http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012 ... tanks.html

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7wb9-SHwztM/T ... l+Tank.jpg
&
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Dc7bFb7mmcY/U ... 5+A-4E.jpg

In the appropriate circumstances - when empty - these tanks could be well useful. Even the RAAF Miracles found that (inadvertently) supersonic tanks were good (other miracle has ferry tanks I guess) to go - not.

[spazsinbad]

The mighty 'we'llmake'emPAY&Payians' have released the aforementioned 'DagFought' artickle at AvWeak - huzzah and all that. Because I do not have shares in said pub go there for the comments - or not: [DogFight OutCome AnyOne? Buehler?]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-fl ... -maneuvers

[playloud]

Honestly, the frontal cross section of the F-35 isn't much bigger than most 4/4.5 Generation Fighter. Yet, are much cleaner! Which, speaks volumes for the Lightings Aerodynamic Performance!

The attachment f18vsf35et6.jpg is no longer available

Was playing with Paint at work today. I think this is a better comparison...

[slapshot!]

A Block 50 F16 with 2x AMRAAMS, 2x Aim-9X, 2x GBU-31, a Sniper XR pod, an HTS pod, an ECM pod, and 2x 370 gal fuel tanks weighs 37,000 under quick calculations (not including things like pylon weight, weight of tanks themselves, and rounding numbers). That would suggest a wing loading of ~123lb per sq. ft and a T/W ratio of .77. It would also suffer drag penalties and be limited in G's.

A comparably equipped F35, with all those pods being built into the aircraft, would weigh ~52,500 under same calculations and have a wing loading of 114lb per sq ft and a T/W ratio of .82. It would not suffer a drag penalty and still be 9G capable.

[disconnectedradical]

What Lt. Col Christine Mau has to say about the F-16C vs F-35 test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9re9tJckTlk

Confirms that it's mainly a Claw test.

[citanon]

What Lt. Col Christine Mau has to say about the F-16C vs F-35 test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9re9tJckTlk

Confirms that it's mainly a Claw test.

Holy smokes that's some serious security for a meet and greet with the public.

[vanshilar]

What Lt. Col Christine Mau has to say about the F-16C vs F-35 test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9re9tJckTlk

Confirms that it's mainly a Claw test.

Yeah, I posted on Reddit that the report's own first sentence said it was mainly for CLAW, that the report is littered with references to how the CLAW is limiting the plane's maneuvering, and that the the recommendations section was mostly about how the software limits could be relaxed, meaning the plane's maneuverability will improve. Basically it's obvious if someone actually reads the report that it was focusing on the plane's software, and how tweaking the software can improve the plane's performance -- it's only from misrepresentation in the media that the report can be interpreted otherwise, but unfortunately, most people aren't actually going to look at the source material and will take an article's words at face value.

Axe (sorry for the basement dwelling discussion in this thread) misrepresents the report by focusing on the report's second sentence which describes how they're going to test the CLAW, namely by having the F-35 do maneuvers against an F-16. He conflates the how with the why. That's his basis for claiming that it was a dogfight. No doubt if he mentions this interview he'll title it something like "Good little pilot toes the official Air Force propaganda line".

Incidentally, I have yet to have anyone on Reddit actually specifically dispute any of the points I bring up about the report (such as that the report itself says it was a software test, that the report's body talks about how the software is limiting the plane from maneuvering, and that the recommendations are mostly about relaxing the software limits, which will have the effect of making the plane more maneuverable). Instead, they either end up not responding, start screaming "Lockmart shill!", or go off on snarky general comments. I've yet to see anyone intelligently defend the position that the report was about the F-35's dogfighting capabilities. Unfortunately (taking Reddit as representative of the Internet and the population in general) that's par for the course for people's awareness and impression of the plane.

[easer]

Honestly, the frontal cross section of the F-35 isn't much bigger than most 4/4.5 Generation Fighter. Yet, are much cleaner! Which, speaks volumes for the Lightings Aerodynamic Performance!

Was playing with Paint at work today. I think this is a better comparison...

Good point I guess, just wonder where F-35 carry it´s supposedly extraordinary amount of internal fuel, the engine and inlets and bomb bay take up quite a lot of internal space, so I wonder where....???

-And surely it is not a relevant comparison with an F-35 with its internal fuel and an F-18 with 3 big external fueltanks, the fuel capacity of the F-18 configured like thát must be bigger....
-Likewise the F-35 only carry 4 missiles internally, where the F-18 is loaded with 6 externally....

I just realized the other day that even the Starfighter had better wing load than the F-35, which is why I´m here....:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... 28F-35A.29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... 8F-104G.29

While I do understand that the F-35 have more body lift than the Starfighter, I does´t understand that it should have lots of it, sure there is lift from the back and the stomach, but there is no LERX worth mentioning....

Bjarke

Edit, somehow the image in the quote didn´t get along, so I took the liberty to add it myselve....

[spazsinbad]

Above 'easer' asked?:

"...I guess, just wonder where F-35 carry it´s supposedly extraordinary amount of internal fuel, the engine and inlets and bomb bay take up quite a lot of internal space, so I wonder where....???..."

There are threads with diagrams of where the F-35 fuel tanks are located in this F-35 forum however I'm not able to find them quickly nor easily. Meanwhile here is a cutaway of the F-35B showing two of the fuel tank locations - in the fins and near the pilot. Location of graphic online is no longer available however it is out there along with many graphics/diagrams etc of the F-35 fuel tank locations but again my google-fu is lacking tonight.

BINGO! (yes but no) viewtopic.php?f=60&t=26543&p=280045&hilit=Fuel+system#p280045 ALL FUEL TANKS

http://www.mecatronica.eesc.usp.br/wiki ... ystems.pdf (7.9Mb)

[Dragon029]

The F-35 puts fuel anywhere it can, including in the vertical stabilisers, etc:



As for fuselage lift; the new 2015 PAX ITF year in review video (viewtopic.php?f=59&t=29019) also has some really nice footage showing off the low pressure zones / lift being generated by the fuselage on the B variant:



Technically the F-35 has LERX in the form of little wedges at the wing root, but it's more complex than that. In particular, the chines on the outer edge of the intakes and the geometry of the intake / DSI bumps acts as another LERX. The chines along the nose would also have some small effects at higher angles of attack.



You can see the aerodynamic design of the intake chines vs the ones along the nose in this picture (reference the intake on the left of the image):

[quicksilver]

Fuel in the tails idea went away a long time ago.

[hornetfinn]

I just realized the other day that even the Starfighter had better wing load than the F-35, which is why I´m here....:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... 28F-35A.29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... 8F-104G.29

While I do understand that the F-35 have more body lift than the Starfighter, I does´t understand that it should have lots of it, sure there is lift from the back and the stomach, but there is no LERX worth mentioning....

The reason why F-35 has so high wing loading figures is because it carries huge amount of fuel internally. F-104 carried very little fuel in comparison and so do most other older fighter jets. There is also difference in weapons carriage in those Wikipedia numbers. Basically if you fuel and arm F-35 to similar level to other modern fighters, it will have very comparable wing loading figures to most other fighter jets. Besides, there is way more to aerodynamics and lift than just wing loading figures. Just going through this thread will give you a lot of information about the subject.

[XanderCrews]

P-51 had high wing loading. I believe p-47 did too. Zero had very low wing loading. Guess how that worked out?

F-4 has lower wing loading than the F-16. Much like say hieght, it's a single measurement that does not determine success.