F-35 internal fuel, range

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

playloud

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 283
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 04:07

Unread post08 Jan 2020, 17:02

Gums wrote:Secondly, the big effect of altitude is the engine's performance. e.g. we cruised at 20K to 25K in the Sluf because the motor and drag combination was best for range there. And we were SLOW!!! We could gradually climb higher, but gained little miles per gallon. So from Korat to Hanoi we would get to 25K, then we started a full grunt descent about 100 miles out. The Viper motor was really great up at 30 - 35K, and if clean we could handle 40K slightly supersonic in mil for a minute or two, then tap burner and get back to 1.1M for another minute or two ( family model with centerline tank). I routinely demo'd this to students when coming back from Mountain Goat ( we flew "strange" field insturment approaches at SLC and the Goat)

Gums sends...

Such good performance in the Viper. Then I read this...

Morten Hanche - Google Translated wrote:"With the F-35 we get more of this, compared to what we are used to today. Discovering how much more was a positive surprise for me. In full war equipment, the F-35 effortlessly operates 10,000 to 15,000 feet higher than our F-16 manages, without the use of an afterburner. The speed of the cruise is simply 50 to 80 knots higher. In the F-16 , I have to use the afterburner and take off speed before a missile shot. F-35 cruiser both faster and higher. That's why I'm ready to shoot far at any time."

https://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampf ... elt-annet/
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1851
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post09 Jan 2020, 01:31

Shouldn't be surprising. The F-135 generates twice the military thrust of the older F-16 engines at similar weights (with the older F-16s lugging EFTs).
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3608
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post09 Jan 2020, 15:08

So does that mean a cruising altitude of say, 50,000 feet or more?

One of the things the F-35 gets dinged on a lot is its ceiling, at least compared to F-15's, Flankers, certainly F-22's and the SU-57. Most articles describing this make it sound like the F-35 will struggle to maintain 35,000ft, and for the life of me I can't see why they'd think this?

Everything's internal, little drag - check. Not a big wing (except on the C), but gets plenty of lift from its fuselage/lifting body design - check. Huge engine, to power it to higher altitudes, especially vs. legacy fighters - check. But this myth just keeps getting repeated, and I'm not sure why?

You would think you could look at an F-16 weighed down with tanks/weapons/drag and understand that in that configuration it can still fly at 25,000 ft or so, perhaps higher. By simply removing all of that and assuming 50% internal fuel, you arrive at a much higher altitude - around 40,000ft. It therefore seems to be no stretch that the F-35 can (at least) do the same, and in all likelihood more.

But I guess F-35 bashing is still cool... :(
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2325
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post09 Jan 2020, 15:11

weasel1962 wrote:That part I maintain what I said. Long ranged interception does not stem from the Su-27. You can trace the Soviet roots down to the Yak-25 thru Su-15 and the split between PVO (long ranged interception) and Frontal aviation.


Yes, I admit that I overlooked the PVO and their "fleet" of long range interceptors. But notice that even considering this, these long-ranged aircraft were still by far the minority.
For example during the time that the Su-15 was in service, a much wider array of short-ranged fighter aircraft ranging such as the Mig-21, Mig-23, Mig-25 and the Mig-29 were fielded or already in service.
And during the time that the Yak-25 was in service, a much wider array of short-ranged fighter aircraft ranging such as the Mig-17, Mig-19 and the Mig-21 were fielded or already in service.
So the longer-ranged aircraft were clearly and vastly a minority and were only used for a single and specific role (intercepting enemy aircraft, namely bombers and long range recon aircraft), this and again until not so long ago.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2325
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post09 Jan 2020, 15:31

mixelflick wrote:I share your opinion of the Mig-29, and agree wholeheartedly it couldn't have failed in a more spectacular way. The Iraqi's had some of their best pilots flying them, but it didn't matter. Reduced to spare parts/teeth/eyeballs. Post Gulf War 1 findings of the Iraqi air force found that the Mig-25 was perhaps their most successful aircraft. They were most disappointed in their Mig-23's (which was more or less expected), and likewise their Mig-29's (which wasn't)


Yes, I also agree with what you said above. I definitely agree with you that the most effective Iraqi aircraft during Desert Storm (I don't like the "Gulf War I" designation for this war/conflict since IMO "Gulf War I" would be the "Iran vs Iraq War", this again in my humble opinion) since it was able to shot down a Coalition aircraft (F/A-18) and wining an engagement against a pair of F-15's by damaging one of them and forcing the other to retreat.
Apparently there wasn't any other Iraqi Air-to-Air victory during that conflict (although there's a unconfirmed claim of a Mig-29 shooting down a RAF Tornado).

Yes, I also agree with what you say about the Mig-23 and IMO a proof of this is that the Mig-23 service was relatively short-lived in many "Eastern" Air Forces being "quickly" superseded or replaced by the Mig-29 in many of those same Air Forces which means that even for the Soviets the aircraft was likely seen as a disappointment as well.
As such the case of the Mig-29 being a 'disappointment' was/is much more severe when compared to the Mig-23.


mixelflick wrote:MiG-29 6-18-1

Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Syria) 0-2-0
Gulf War (Iraq) 0-5-0
Transnistria War (Moldova, Russia) 0-0-0
Brothers in Rescue incident* (Cuba) 2-0-0
Slovenian War (Yugoslavia) 0-0-0
Croatian War (Yugoslavia) 0-0-0
Bosnia (Serbia) 0-0-0
Kosovo (Serbia) 0-6-0
Kargil War (India) 0-0-0
Ethiopian-Eritrean War (Eritrea) 3-5-0
Georgian border violation 2008 (Russia) 1-0-0 (***)
Darfur War (Sudan) 0-0-1


Ok, the first number is the aircraft shot down by Mig-29's while the second (middle) number is how many Mig-29's were show down by enemy aircraft. But what's the third number?


mixelflick wrote:* It did shoot down 2 Cessna Skymasters... :)


(***) Yeah, and it also manage to shot down an unarmed Georgian UAV, LoL :mrgreen:

“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5476
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post09 Jan 2020, 16:51

ricnunes wrote:and wining an engagement against a pair of F-15's by damaging one of them and forcing the other to retreat.


Do you have any information on this engagement? :?

Never mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurra_Air_Battle
"There I was. . ."
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3608
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post10 Jan 2020, 13:11

The third number in the Mig-29's combat sequence I took to mean.... a draw. If that's true, it would seem the Mig-29 entered many an air battle only to wind up on the losing end. Whatever the number is/represents, it's still a damning record for an aircraft meant to be the backbone of Soviet aviation.

The account of Foxbats dueling Eagles is indeed riveting. Especially when you consider the F-15 was designed a generation later, and was a direct response to the Soviet fighter. What I found most fascinating about this engagement was that Hehemann's F-15 survived a hit in his left engine by an R-40. BIG missile, with a BIG warhead ranging anywhere from 84-220lbs. If I'm not mistaken the Iraqi's used a 125lb warhead in DS, or thereabouts. This compares to the AIM-7M's weighing 86-88lbs and AMRAAM's (about 40lbs).

Between this and an Israeli F-15 surviving an entire wing being sheared off, the Eagle is one tough bird!!!
Offline

aussiebloke

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2017, 22:29

Unread post10 Jan 2020, 14:37

The Format is:
[Name of aircraft] Air-to-air kills – Air-to-air losses – Losses to ground fire
[Name of conflict aircraft was used in]
[Nation that used aircraft in said conflict]
Air-to-air kills – Air-to-air losses – Losses to ground fire

https://migflug.com/jetflights/the-comb ... ly-in-use/
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5476
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post10 Jan 2020, 15:00

mixelflick wrote:The third number in the Mig-29's combat sequence I took to mean.... a draw. If that's true, it would seem the Mig-29 entered many an air battle only to wind up on the losing end. Whatever the number is/represents, it's still a damning record for an aircraft meant to be the backbone of Soviet aviation.

The account of Foxbats dueling Eagles is indeed riveting. Especially when you consider the F-15 was designed a generation later, and was a direct response to the Soviet fighter. What I found most fascinating about this engagement was that Hehemann's F-15 survived a hit in his left engine by an R-40. BIG missile, with a BIG warhead ranging anywhere from 84-220lbs. If I'm not mistaken the Iraqi's used a 125lb warhead in DS, or thereabouts. This compares to the AIM-7M's weighing 86-88lbs and AMRAAM's (about 40lbs).

Between this and an Israeli F-15 surviving an entire wing being sheared off, the Eagle is one tough bird!!!


The R-40 hit probably wasn't direct and used it's proximity fuse.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2325
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post11 Jan 2020, 03:43

aussiebloke wrote:The Format is:
[Name of aircraft] Air-to-air kills – Air-to-air losses – Losses to ground fire
[Name of conflict aircraft was used in]
[Nation that used aircraft in said conflict]
Air-to-air kills – Air-to-air losses – Losses to ground fire

https://migflug.com/jetflights/the-comb ... ly-in-use/


Thanks aussiebloke :thumb:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2325
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post11 Jan 2020, 03:45

sferrin wrote:
ricnunes wrote:and wining an engagement against a pair of F-15's by damaging one of them and forcing the other to retreat.


Do you have any information on this engagement? :?

Never mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurra_Air_Battle


Yes, that was it :wink:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Previous

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], outlaw162 and 37 guests