F-35 internal fuel, range

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

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post11 Dec 2019, 00:49

From that 50.pdf, p36, implies the AN/ASQ-239 can jam by itself.

For engine inlets what we learned was the rivets in the engine inlets are also a big radar reflector, therefore in the F-35 the inlets are all composites so there is not a single rivet involved in the construction of the inlets. You also have to hide the engines, for the spinning titanium blades are a big radar signature. So, for the F-35 you can actually put your head in the intake and still have no view of the actual engine in the F-35. Finally, we have to align the edges so that not only are the edges aligned from the leading edge to the wing to the horizon tail, but actually the fuselage is aligned with the vertical tails, and the angles associated with the inlets are also aligned with the horizontals, so not only can we isolate a spike but we can actually mitigate the return of energy to the adversary, and we have to embed the antennas, so everything has to be flush mounted from the electronic warfare gear to the targeting pods, to the jamming pods, to any of the antennas - everything has to be flush mounted to the airplane from the beginning.

Finally, we get to the rear quarter. I have found, as many in this room have found, that when you drop a bomb on somebody they tend to get angry about that, so it is not only ingression to the target, you need to egress as well, and those mobile targets since they move around you do not know where they are so it is not enough to be stealth in a tiny quadrant of the airplane, you have to have all-aspects stealth. And then you have to carry your stores internally. If you do all these things and you do not carry the weapons internal to the airplane, you are going to compromise your signature and you are going to undo all the effort to reduce the signature, and it has to be designed in, from the beginning.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Dec 2019, 01:55

Ten pages from 'the "50"' PDF are attached: http://www.fisher.org.il/Fisher%20Insti ... ons/50.pdf (30Mb)

Air Power Challenges in a Changing Strategic Environment 2012 (pub 2013)
F-35 in the Symmetric Conflict Stephen O'Bryan, Vice President,
F-35 Business Development and Customer Engagement, Lockheed Martin, USA
Attachments
F-35 in the Symmetric Conflict - Air Power Challenges 2012 Israel Conf 50 + Cover pp10.pdf
(348.98 KiB) Downloaded 182 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post11 Dec 2019, 02:22

Nice job, thanks.
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2337
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post11 Dec 2019, 03:14

Salute!

I don't know how many of you have flown around the older planes like the Double Ugly or Hun or Thud or........

But the Sluf surprised everyone. We had about 9,000 lb internal, and in combat we flew with 2 x 300 drops, so figure another 3500 + lbs, and their weight and drag. With 10 x Mk-82 we had a radius of 350 to 400 n.m. and 15 or 20 minutes of playtime before making 4 or 5 passes. Came back with plenty of gas and no refueling. Drove the Double Ugly folks crazy. It was our fan motor!! Contrary to much negative waves, the Viper was also an economical bomb truck. The thing was more drag limited than weight limited, so best loadout was big bombs like Mk-83 and Mk-84. Coming home it was better than the Sluf.

This new guy looks fantastic, with more gas internal than the law should allow. I would like us to have a F-35 driver tell us the fuel flow at normal cruise and 25,000 to 30,000 feet. The Sluf and Viper were about the same, with Viper maybe a bit better. On RTB we both burned about 1,500 lb/hr at .8M and 30,000 feet. I cannot recall our burn going in, but it was much higher.

This new kid on the block gives we old farts a great feeling. You know where you are. You know how to get to the target. You ain't worrying about running outta gas! And the bad guys ain't gonna you're there until your bomb hits. Gotta love it.

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Dec 2019, 05:25

Corsair A-7D Flight Manual Sep 1972: 600 pages USAF VERSION
https://www.filefactory.com/file/1slhgt ... Manual.pdf (56.5Mb)

Firstly due to file size limits for the forum attached is a 57 page PDF from the above manual OPERATING LIMITS ONLY PDF.

Cannot upload anything after a WIN10 update today. ??? MSG says "waiting for a response from F-16.net" (ain't dat de truf)

Musta bin a problem because earlier was DOWNLOADING a large file - I guess AGAIN my INTERNET CONNECTION is CRAP.

Now SECONDLY etc the Performance Data & MISSION planning 121 page PDF attached below. SUCCESS! :shock:
Attachments
Op Limits ONLY CORSAIR II LTV A-7D Flight Manual OCR pp57.pdf
(4.9 MiB) Downloaded 158 times
Flight + Perform Data CORSAIR II LTV A-7D Flight Manual OCR pp121.pdf
(6.97 MiB) Downloaded 157 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6399
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post11 Dec 2019, 06:12

Gums wrote:Salute!

I don't know how many of you have flown around the older planes like the Double Ugly or Hun or Thud or........

But the Sluf surprised everyone. We had about 9,000 lb internal, and in combat we flew with 2 x 300 drops, so figure another 3500 + lbs, and their weight and drag. With 10 x Mk-82 we had a radius of 350 to 400 n.m. and 15 or 20 minutes of playtime before making 4 or 5 passes. Came back with plenty of gas and no refueling. Drove the Double Ugly folks crazy. It was our fan motor!! Contrary to much negative waves, the Viper was also an economical bomb truck. The thing was more drag limited than weight limited, so best loadout was big bombs like Mk-83 and Mk-84. Coming home it was better than the Sluf.

This new guy looks fantastic, with more gas internal than the law should allow. I would like us to have a F-35 driver tell us the fuel flow at normal cruise and 25,000 to 30,000 feet. The Sluf and Viper were about the same, with Viper maybe a bit better. On RTB we both burned about 1,500 lb/hr at .8M and 30,000 feet. I cannot recall our burn going in, but it was much higher.

This new kid on the block gives we old farts a great feeling. You know where you are. You know how to get to the target. You ain't worrying about running outta gas! And the bad guys ain't gonna you're there until your bomb hits. Gotta love it.

Gums sends...


Billie Flynn would be a good source....
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post11 Dec 2019, 06:25

marsavian wrote:From that 50.pdf, p36, implies the AN/ASQ-239 can jam by itself.

Remember that the 4 towed decoys are controlled by the -239 so it can jam through them.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3478
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post11 Dec 2019, 15:45

marsavian wrote:From that 50.pdf, p36, implies the AN/ASQ-239 can jam by itself.

For engine inlets what we learned was the rivets in the engine inlets are also a big radar reflector, therefore in the F-35 the inlets are all composites so there is not a single rivet involved in the construction of the inlets. You also have to hide the engines, for the spinning titanium blades are a big radar signature. So, for the F-35 you can actually put your head in the intake and still have no view of the actual engine in the F-35. Finally, we have to align the edges so that not only are the edges aligned from the leading edge to the wing to the horizon tail, but actually the fuselage is aligned with the vertical tails, and the angles associated with the inlets are also aligned with the horizontals, so not only can we isolate a spike but we can actually mitigate the return of energy to the adversary, and we have to embed the antennas, so everything has to be flush mounted from the electronic warfare gear to the targeting pods, to the jamming pods, to any of the antennas - everything has to be flush mounted to the airplane from the beginning.

Finally, we get to the rear quarter. I have found, as many in this room have found, that when you drop a bomb on somebody they tend to get angry about that, so it is not only ingression to the target, you need to egress as well, and those mobile targets since they move around you do not know where they are so it is not enough to be stealth in a tiny quadrant of the airplane, you have to have all-aspects stealth. And then you have to carry your stores internally. If you do all these things and you do not carry the weapons internal to the airplane, you are going to compromise your signature and you are going to undo all the effort to reduce the signature, and it has to be designed in, from the beginning.


Yes! There have been numerous articles stating that, which gives F-35s spherical EW coverage, along with the ability to use the APG-81 in the frontal hemisphere, and towed decoys.
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2337
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post11 Dec 2019, 16:50

Salute!

This was the graphic I wanted to use, and we actually lived up to it when at Korat. Rule of thumb for RTB after dropping was 7 pounds per mile to get hinme with 1,000 pounds. Climb to 30 or 35K, cruise at about 1,500 lb/hr and maybe 450 kt ground speed, then descend near idle at 100 miles out, 3 degrees on the HUD and take whatever speed ya got . Ten years later I was using the same RoT for the Viper, and it was closer to 6 pounds per mile. Sometimes we would stay low and zip across Cambodia from III Corps at 500 feet.

Image

The fun part was USAF got silly about theater orientation and we had to have Double Ugly "friends" our first few sorties. Hell, I had several hundred missions over III and IV Corps, and don't think they had anywhere near that. They had to hit tanker on the way and then coming home. If we played games with them by dropping in singles, they would get antsy. On more than one mission they actually let us loiter while they got some gas and then came back so we could resume busting trees.

Didn't take long for the word to spread about our staying power and ,of course, our 15 meter CEP. Good thing, as the Dragonfly squadron had folded up a few weeks before and they were the first choice by the FAC's for close work.

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2498
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post11 Dec 2019, 17:26

Gums, what was your RoT for the Dragonfly?

If the F-35 is 6lb per mile, that would be phenomenal, given how much heavier it is than the Viper.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2337
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post11 Dec 2019, 19:54

Salute!

RE: Dragon fly
We burned about 1/2 pounds per hour less than the Sluf or Viper on two engines when loaded, but cruised at almost half the speed. So with load of 2 x 750, 2 x 500, 2 x 250 and 2 x 100 gal tanks we would go to 20K and cruise at 300 knots TAS and maybe 1500 - 2000 pounds per hour. Our normal missions were less than 100 miles from Bien Hoa, but we could get out to 200 without having to use the single engine routine.
We mainly used the single engine capability for loitering or when we stayed around our target longer than usual and came home on one motor. I flew from Pete Field to England AFB two times non-stop with just the two wing tanks and on one motor after getting above 20K. About 750 nm or so, at 160 knots TAS/300 TAS and a decent tailwaind.

Gums replies.....
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2993
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post12 Dec 2019, 08:02

That's very interesting Gums. Do you know if similar single engine capability has ever been used in any other twin-engined fighter aircraft or was it just Dragonfly specialty?
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2337
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post13 Dec 2019, 03:58

Salute!

Best guess is no other attack or fighter plane routinely shut down a motor.

You must remember the extreme power we had over the Tweet. It had about 1,000 lb total thrust. Our J-85 had 2,800 lbs of thrust, and then we had the other one!! At idle, each burned maybe 300 or 400 lb/hr. At holding speed loaded, each motor burned about 700 or 800 lb/hr. By shutting down one motor and pushing the other up to a more economical power setting, we could hold at maybe 1200 to 1300 lb/ hr. After expending, single engine cruise allowed a higher speed than for loiter and fuel was about the same. So at 25k and 300 kt TAS figure a little over 4 lbs per mile.

Gums sends....
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

f119doctor

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2019, 00:07

Unread post13 Dec 2019, 17:22

The Fairey Gannet anti-submarine patrol plane had the Double Mamba twin engine driving coaxial propellers independently. They could shut down one engine for extended patrol endurance. This is the only other twin engine combat plane that I have heard of the routinely shut down one engine for fuel economy reasons
P&W FSR (retired) - TF30 / F100 /F119 /F135
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Dec 2019, 20:38

Good call. However some 'woebetides' happened to those when procedures not followed during 'single-engine' demos etc.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: boogieman, Google [Bot] and 18 guests