F-35 internal fuel, range

geforcerfx · by **geforcerfx** » 17 Oct 2017, 06:05

yup that's it, thanks dragon couldn't find it in my "F-35" folder need to spend a night and organize that folder a bit. If advent technology engine turns out to be as amazing as they are hyping it then the F-35's will have a 50,000lb thrust engine (afterburner) that can cruise at .75 and only sip 3200lbs of fuel, freaking insane. That's a 1,000nmi combat radius upgrade right there, not to mention the insane increase to the already (very?) healthy subsonic acceleration.

Dragon029 · by **Dragon029** » 17 Oct 2017, 06:10

If it makes it any easier, this is my personal repository of F-35 data (my thread on range data).

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 17 Jan 2018, 18:10

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:OK well, I didn't know that. Thought 2 engines means it'd burn more fuel..

I apologize if the post sounded angry. I hate the loss of nonverbal communication in text. I only wanted to pass along the knowledge.

Yeah it came off that way, LOL. But it's all good. I learned a great deal given your explanation and that's why we come here! I'm just a guy who loves planes. Was my dream to be a fighter pilot (but bad, bad stigmatisms). I wanted to fly the F-15 and still love that jet. When I found out a Viper had the same/better legs, I was shocked.

But the F-35 being what it is, it impresses me more every day. A jet capable of carrying 5,000lbs mixed air to air/ground load, ridiculous SA/sensors, mach 1.6 dash speed AND 9g capable carrying that load. And oh, Lockheed threw in an invisibility switch. To add to all this, it has great legs.

I think when it's all said and done she'll have an F-15 like reputation, she'll be that dominant.

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 17 Jan 2018, 18:42

hornetfinn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:In any case, it really looks like the F-35 has some great legs. You always hear about how much gas Flankers carry/great range but you never hear about how much drag there is from lugging a meaningful weapons load around. Their AAM's look to be real draggy, hung off of a draggy airframe.

The F-35 sure is impressive...

It sure is... F-35A

1. Has similar dimensions to F-16
2. Has about 2.5 times the internal fuel of F-16 or 80% of internal fuel volume of Strike Eagle with CFTs
3. Can carry 5,000 lbs of weapons internally
4. Carries advanced targeting pod, insane amount of avionics systems and extensive EW capabilities internally
5. Can do Mach 1.6, 9G and 50 degree AoA maneuvers while carrying all of the above
6. Is the stealthiest fighter jet in existence according to everybody in the know

Someone really needs to make a graphic reflecting these points, asking - can your fighter do this?

I thought I saw one here, but can't recall where. In any case, this was a great summary. It really illustrates the magnitude of what Lockheed has accomplished. This ain't the F-111...

Dragon029 · by **Dragon029** » 17 Jan 2018, 19:49

While this thread is revived, could someone help me find the source article where it was stated that F-35s participating had twice the combat endurance of F-15Cs during training exercises?

IIRC they specifically talked about F-15s going out on vuls, coming back to refuel, going again and coming back again while F-35s stuck around the entire time, with reference to the F-35's being force multipliers / seeing things that the 4th gens didn't.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 17 Jan 2018, 20:37

that would be a nice one to add to the collection of quotes.

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 17 Jan 2018, 20:56

Pretty sure I already quoted it. Nope... I didn't. I know the quote of which you speak. I'll see if I can find it.

ETA: My google-fu is weak today. I recall the interview. I want to say the F-35 pilot was a Lt Col or Col, possibly from Hill AFB. I also want to say the article was around the time frame of the F-35 turkey shoot up there in Michigan last year or in 2016.

Maybe the F-16.net WayBack Machine will find it when Spaz reads this thread...

operaaperta · by **operaaperta** » 17 Jan 2018, 21:25

Hi Dragon,

The quote you are looking for is near the end of this video

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... TgDTC8_PM0

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 17 Jan 2018, 21:35

She's got legs & knows how to use 'em.... ZZ TOP... :doh:

Q: "How's the range of the aircraft from an operator perspective?"

CAP: [Lt. Col. Scott “Cap” Gunn USAF] "I think people that say it doesn't have the range are someone that probably looks at a single-engine aircraft and think so it's just an F-16. It aint an F-16.

I fly on a regular basis two training stories worth of training that I would do in an F-15C model with two external tanks on it. So I would go up go out and do one offensive push where we do basically one offensive strike into the area and out and hey I'm bingo I've got to go home on fuel with the F-15C.

In the F-35 I'll go out and do two of those without any problem and one of the things that we found out in the exercise up in Wisconsin, was after we were done firing our weapons after we were done getting everybody into and out of the combat area, if we wanted to go on to keep fighting at that point they would ask us to stick around because of all the sensors we could provide and the data link we could provide to help the 4th gen aircraft who still had missiles on board. We still had fuel and the sensors to be able to provide that information form.

So it's got legs, it's got really long legs." viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52482&p=355916&hilit=Gunn#p355916

Dragon029 · by **Dragon029** » 18 Jan 2018, 05:44

Cheers guys, I've added it to my archive:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dragon029/wiki/kinematics

element1loop · by **element1loop** » 20 Jan 2018, 10:24

So is a glut of Alled tanking capacity emerging in a decade or so? Has this F-35 madness touched off yet another airpower calamity?

What a lemon. :wtf:

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 20 Jan 2018, 16:16

Better range (much better) than an F-15C with wing tanks? Fantastic..

I bet it out-ranges most Flankers, given their draggy airframes. It carries a ton of gas, but if I'm not mistaken range is strongly correlated to lift/drag index.

viper12 · by **viper12** » 20 Jan 2018, 20:05

mixelflick wrote:It carries a ton of gas, but if I'm not mistaken range is strongly correlated to lift/drag index.

Range is correlated to this ratio, but it's only proportional in a cruise/climb ; it still appears in the equation for a constant altitude : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(aeronautics)#Jet_propulsion

element1loop · by **element1loop** » 21 Jan 2018, 02:41

Does anyone remember the link to the LM article detailing a 5.7 hour cross-country range/endurance flight test/ verification? (obviously requiring a landing with the 2,500 lb reserve intact)

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 21 Jan 2018, 03:08

I bin lookin' but interrupted search to post this - again - for this thread. First found by 'SWP' many moons ago now - in Oz:

"...Mr Burbage: We have 16 key performance parameters on this airplane. Half are logistics and sustainment-related, half are aeroperformance-related and one or two are in classified areas. We have an oversight body called the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the JROC, that looks at those requirements every year and makes decisions on them—'Are we going to meet them, are we not going to meet them? If we are not going to meet them, what is the impact of that?' We have one this year which was the range of the Air Force airplane which had a specific set of ground rules associated with how that range is calculated which is not similar to either of the other two airplanes. The airplane flies a large part of its mission at a non-optimised altitude in the original calculation. The JROC agreed to change the ground rules to fly that airplane as the other two were flown and, when that happened, the airplane had excess margin to the range requirement. For any performance-related requirements, we artificially penalise the engine by five per cent fuel flow and two per cent thrust. Those margins are given back as we mature the design and get more and more solid on exactly what it is going to do. They are there for conservative estimation up front. We have not taken back any of those margins yet so, when those margins are taken back, the airplane will continue to be well in excess of its basic requirement. The airplane is meeting all of the other requirements today...." 20 March 2012 Australian Federal Parliament F-35 Inquiry viewtopic.php?f=58&t=18916&p=220218&hilit=cross+country+test#p220218

Bin Lookin' at the OLD LM Flight Test Updates - this example is NOT what is required but use it as 'reference' for lookin'.

"...18 December 2009: USMC Pilot Completes Longest Duration Flight
US Marine Corps pilot Maj. Joseph Bachmann completes the longest flight on an F-35 to date during the fifteenth flight of BF-2. The 3.7-hour mission, which includes aerial refueling, is in preparation for the ferry flight that will take the aircraft directly from Fort Worth, Texas, to Patuxent River, Maryland...." http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_arti ... item_id=11

Here we go - here we go - here we go (it is bleedin' hot here upside down in these parts & no aircon...) :doh:

"...17 December 2013: Longest Flight Duration
Lockheed Martin test pilot Paul Hattendorf was at the controls of F-35A AF-7 for a 5.2-hour mission systems test flight from Edwards AFB, California. The flight, which also marked 500 hours for AF-7, was the longest test mission to date for the F-35 program. Coincidentally, Lockheed Martin test pilot David Nelson completed a 5.2-hour mission on the same day in F-35A AF-3...." [Did it ARF? Air ReFuel? Did it land back at Edwards AFB?] http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=136

And AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN...

"...25 February 2014: Longest Flights To Date
Two F-35 pilots broke the single flight F-35 duration record during the first AMRAAM launch at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. Air Force Maj. Mark Massaro flying BF-18 and Air Force Maj. Andrew Rollins flying AF-6 completed the round trip from Edwards AFB to the range in 5.7 hours. The previous duration record was 5.1 hours...."
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=136