F-35 internal fuel, range

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3319
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 16:32

Someone once relayed an anecdote as to gas, range and the gun.

Loosely, they asked F-35B/C drivers which they'd prefer: More gas, or a gun? They almost universally wanted more gas. To me, that speaks volumes.

I guess I would too, flying over the ocean with my airfield always moving!
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23102
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 18:43

quicksilver wrote:Did I miss it or did they not provide the radius at which the TOS was calculated? You can take off and orbit home plate and generate boo-coo TOS...

No details are provided. I'll quote it word for word soon..... My 'overhead mother' was just an example with of course many many many many other scenarios that were not provided, including the first mother. In the video at 7:38 the fuel comparison is mentioned. At 8 minutes in he says: "Why is this (the fuel) important. Because with a single engine and that much fuel (18K lbs) onboard my on-station time is greater. If I'm flying a max endurance max range type of profile I'm going to get two - two and a half hours of on-station time easily out of this aircraft."
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1065
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 21:50

Station: Place where trains depart and arrive
On the station: Is a roof.
So he can sit "on the roof" for 2.5 hrs. :devil:

He never said how far the "station" was form his base, so his 2.5 hrs statement is meaningless info. :bang:
As was my joke above. :devil:
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3225
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post06 Jun 2019, 22:20

vilters wrote:Station: Place where trains depart and arrive
On the station: Is a roof.
So he can sit "on the roof" for 2.5 hrs. :devil:

He never said how far the "station" was form his base, so his 2.5 hrs statement is meaningless info. :bang:
As was my joke above. :devil:

Well, an F-16 with less fuel and a higher DI has a >2hr station time, at 750km. If we use some deductive reasoning, we can conclude that an F-35A will likely have 2.5hrs on station at >750km.
Offline
User avatar

doge

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 242
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 16:07

Unread post23 Jul 2019, 10:36

I dug up. 8)
Looks to me as Morten "Dolby" Hanche has revealed quite specific numbers about the F-35 range. 8) (2 years ago but.)
https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/fors ... id2353192/ (The language is Norwegian. I used Google Translate.)

That's over 30% of F-16's range...
How long is the range of the F-16? 8) :devil:
The F-35 has the ability to carry weapons and fuel internally. This contributes to the aircraft getting considerably better range than previous aircraft due to less air resistance. In relation to today's Norwegian F-16, we estimate that the F-35 will have a full 30% more range with corresponding weapons load. This design also ensures that the F-35 can fly at maximum speed of 1.6 times the speed of sound (Mach 1.6) even with internal weapons. Older aircraft often have tanks and weapons hanging on the wing or abdomen, which results in high air resistance. It again means that it is almost impossible to achieve the performance (primarily speed and G-load) that is often stated for the type of aircraft. The F-35, which has both fuel and weapon load inside the fuselage, thus has reduced air resistance and consequently better acceleration and maneuverability than older aircraft with similar weapons load.
Offline

jacarlsen

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 129
  • Joined: 02 Jul 2004, 12:08
  • Location: AIM Norway, Kjeller, Norway

Unread post23 Jul 2019, 14:45

Some 8 years ago we had an operational and test pilot visit us at Kjeller Depot. He showed pictures/video and talked about the bombing carried out in Libya 2011. After the presentation I asked him how this would have gone if Norway had used the F-35. The answer was that now they had flown fuel and loaded F-16's from Crete, tanked on route, bombed, tanked on return and landed Crete. With the F-35 they would have done the same without refueling to and from the target.
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2113
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post24 Jul 2019, 03:37

wrightwing wrote:
vilters wrote:Station: Place where trains depart and arrive
On the station: Is a roof.
So he can sit "on the roof" for 2.5 hrs. :devil:

He never said how far the "station" was form his base, so his 2.5 hrs statement is meaningless info. :bang:
As was my joke above. :devil:

Well, an F-16 with less fuel and a higher DI has a >2hr station time, at 750km. If we use some deductive reasoning, we can conclude that an F-35A will likely have 2.5hrs on station at >750km.


DI from different airplanes cannot be compared. A store with the same incremental drag effect on two different airplanes will have different DI because DI is incremental drag coefficient, which includes reference wing area. Same drag, different wing area, different drag coefficient, different DI.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23102
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Jul 2019, 04:28

mixelflick wrote:Someone once relayed an anecdote as to gas, range and the gun. Loosely, they asked F-35B/C drivers which they'd prefer: More gas, or a gun? They almost universally wanted more gas. To me, that speaks volumes. I guess I would too, flying over the ocean with my airfield always moving!

BUT that is the best part - so good to get home to mother. IF that is done at maximum arrested landing weight of fuel it is even better. In case anyone not aware the carrier is called 'mother' in navy brevity code. Is it called that today? Not sure - I'll check. "Mother - Parent ship" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiserv ... ity_code#M

Everyone would LIKE to be back at mother with max gas at CHARLIE TIME. <burp> :devil: "CHARLIE. 1. Land aircraft on ship. 2. The expected landing time on a ship." http://nato.radioscanner.ru/files/artic ... app7e_.pdf (0.25Mb)
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1639
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post24 Jul 2019, 04:48

Assume 1500nm range. 300+kts cruise speed yields close to 5 hours. Take 1+hr to get to 750km and another 1+ back. 2.5 hours on loiter before tanking should be achievable.
Offline
User avatar

doge

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 242
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 16:07

Unread post24 Jul 2019, 14:02

I dug the Range further. 8)
It seems to have been said for three years ago. :doh: (From RIAT16)
https://twitter.com/RAeSTimR/status/751039626232598528
Tim Robinson@RAeSTimR
Editor in Chief of AEROSPACE - the flagship magazine of the Royal Aeronautical Society.
7 Jul 2016
Range of F-35 compared to F-16 is some "30-70% better, depending on mission" says Norwegian MoD spokesman. #RIAT16
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2049
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post24 Jul 2019, 16:10

doge wrote:That's over 30% of F-16's range...
How long is the range of the F-16? 8) :devil:
The F-35 has the ability to carry weapons and fuel internally. This contributes to the aircraft getting considerably better range than previous aircraft due to less air resistance. In relation to today's Norwegian F-16, we estimate that the F-35 will have a full 30% more range with corresponding weapons load.


By reading Hanche's words, my deduction is that the F-16 (in that case) would absolutely and at least carry two (2) BIG external fuel tanks under the wings (and perhaps even a 3rd fuselage external fuel tank).
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1639
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post26 Jul 2019, 06:08

Do the Norwegian F-16s operate with 600 gal tanks? If so, the 30% increase is more impressive.

Otherwise internal fuel + 2 x 370 gal + centerline 300 gal tank = ~13500 lbs fuel carried for an F-16A. It would be roughly logical that an F-35 that carries 18,000 lbs of fuel would have ~33% more range when it carries 33% more fuel. If 600gal tanks then that adds 3000lbs.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23102
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Jul 2019, 06:54

"... If 600gal tanks then that adds 3000lbs." 600 US gallons jet fuel weighs approx. 4,000 pounds https://jscalc.io/embed/oyHJrYooUr1wDQPb

An A4G carried either 150 gallon tanks (1,000 lbs) or 300 gallon drop tanks (2,000 lbs of fuel) plus weight of drop tanks.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5918
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post26 Jul 2019, 08:05

blain wrote:You can either carry a lift fan or you can carry 6,000 lbs more fuel and have a larger weapons bay. I seem to remember the Marines doing alright with F-4s in Vietnam and fighting two major wars in the Middle East with Hornets and Intruders. Wars in which they really didn't STOVL.

Now the focus is China. Some people say it might be good to have fighters with range. The Marines say the F-35Bs gives them the option of operating close to the enemy or behind enemy lines from expeditionary bases. It's not World War II when you are both fighting far from home on islands in the South Pacific where the geography and strategy favors seizing islands and establishing bases. If you want to seize and operate from expeditionary airbases you will likely be doing that in the enemy's back yard. TBH - I'd rather punch and jab from close from the end of the opponent's reach than get close to his face and try to slug it out.

Saddam's military might not notice you have an EAB on his territory, but I wouldn't try that against the Chinese when you likely won't need to. If range in fighters is important then the Marines need an adequate mix of fighters with that element. Three squadrons are not enough. If the Marines split the buy they would end up with 210 Bs and 210 Cs.


Image



As usual with this subject you make false assertions based on your presumption and then "debunk" them when they were never true in the first place. If you're interested in details I can lay them out line by line. One of the things I really enjoy about you Blain is in a scenario where a Marine is rescuing a kid from a burning building, an airman is beating his wife, and a sailor is passed out on the lawn, you'd criticize the Marine for not carrying the kid how you think he should.

I'll bottom line this really fast. The USMC, is begrudgingly a part of the US Navy. and like the Navy we put a premium on expeditionary warfare and projecting power from the sea and a half dozen handy other phrases that are used to explain why we matter and how our capabilities are unique and can't be replicated by the alternatives. Anywho, Its just our little way of saying "we hear you whining, and we don't care, thanks anyway."
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5918
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post26 Jul 2019, 08:13

Hmmm. At some point range and payload is going to matter for the Marines, especially in the Pacific. There is only so many big deck amphibs you will be able to operate off from and defensible islands. I'm surprised there is no one in the Marines advocating for a 50/50 mix of Bs and Cs.


Im surprised at your surprise. the Marines prefer STOVL because it fits their operational model and based on their actual combat experience, and not what you think (take a bite of that humble pie) they should do. this is whats called a "trade off" wherein one option is preferred at the expense of something else.

If I proposed B-52s for the Navy in lieu of CVNs, or that they should go with a 50/50 mix of CVW/B-52 since B-52s have a larger bay and more range, How much time would you spend explaining why this cannot happen? Would not your time be spent better doing other things? And if you devise a concise explanation, why would you assume he would understand?

The Marines rejected the f-14 in preference for those Hornets, despite the F-18 numbers not being as rosy as some Tomcat numbers, a decision that has been "justified" to say the least. maybe they've earned the benefit of the doubt?

crosshairs wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Legacy Hornet drivers are going to be impressed with the F-35B. F/A-18C only has 10,800 internal. The 13,300 on the F-35B is like a Hornet with a centerline.

The F-35C is like an F-14 with drop tanks.


Minus the speed, acceleration, altitude, maneuverability, or numbers of aams.


you think F-35C can't top 8 AAMS?

Swing and Miss, we already Tomcat guys who have flown F-35C and I got to hear from a test pilot how the F-35C is more maneuverable (and of course much easier to fly, so a nugget won't spend 3 years try to learn how to extract performance from it. A lot of this stuff your'e going to have to take to extremes before the F-14 has advantage, and those extremes are all dangerous for Tomcats and only for test pilots in almost all cases.)

I'm a Tomcat fan, but at one point we have to let the bird designed 50 years ago rest in peace.
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: socalhornetpilot and 11 guests