F-35 Range

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

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5816
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post31 Jul 2006, 01:39

skrip00 wrote:But then again P&W did make those awesome engines that power the F-22A, and they built upon that success to make the F135.




Regardless, of ones preference..............competition is good! Personally, I'll take a F/A-35C Lightning II equipped with GE F-136 Engines. :twisted:



FLY NAVY 8)
Offline

skrip00

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 557
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2006, 23:15

Unread post31 Jul 2006, 01:45

Yeah, 2 engines are good in terms of choices.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5816
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post31 Jul 2006, 01:49

skrip00 wrote:Yeah, 2 engines are good in terms of choices.



I doubt we would have P&W F-100's making over 32,000lbs of thrust if we never had GE-F110's............
Offline

LordOfBunnies

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 588
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2005, 05:28
  • Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Unread post31 Jul 2006, 01:50

Skrip00, I believe the F120 engines for the YF-23 were also pretty cool and innovative. I don't know if they were better or even compatible with the 22, but they were cool. Anyone have good info on the F120? If you ask people which they're prefer they will almost always say GE.
Peace through superior firepower.
Back as a Student, it's a long story.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5816
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post31 Jul 2006, 02:19

LordOfBunnies wrote:Skrip00, I believe the F120 engines for the YF-23 were also pretty cool and innovative. I don't know if they were better or even compatible with the 22, but they were cool. Anyone have good info on the F120? If you ask people which they're prefer they will almost always say GE.



I believe the GE F-136 is a derivative of the earlier F-120 just like the F-135 is a by product of the F-119 that powers the F-22 Raptor. :roll:
Offline

asiatrails

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2005, 02:11

Unread post31 Jul 2006, 02:19

skrip00 wrote:With the new EMALS launch system, it may have enough muscle to throw F-35s into te air without them needing a/b.


The big advantages of EMALS are the ability to integrate it into a ramp for better ballastics on launch, the elimination of steam ingestion, and a lot of space gained throughout the ship.
Offline

skrip00

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 557
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2006, 23:15

Unread post31 Jul 2006, 02:40

Or just use a regular flat deck. Cant launch an E-2 off a ramp.
Offline

asiatrails

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2005, 02:11

Unread post31 Jul 2006, 03:40

Now that would be interesting, but they will probably be on the way out when the EMALS gets into service.

I search of the impossible, the USN managed to get a T2 off a ramp at Pax river one time.
Offline

asiatrails

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2005, 02:11

Unread post31 Jul 2006, 03:42

Read the Great Engine War for P&W business practices.
Offline

idesof

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 634
  • Joined: 29 May 2006, 22:59

Unread post31 Jul 2006, 05:00

LordOfBunnies wrote:Skrip00, I believe the F120 engines for the YF-23 were also pretty cool and innovative. I don't know if they were better or even compatible with the 22, but they were cool. Anyone have good info on the F120? If you ask people which they're prefer they will almost always say GE.


The F-120 is the basis for the F-136. The F-120 was superior to the F-119, but lost out because it was a higher-risk design, for much the same reasons that the F-23 lost to the F-22. Much as I love the Raptor, it pains me to think that such an absolutely marvelous design as the F-23 was never mass produced. Probably the greatest fighter that never was... :cry:

Same thing happens when I think of the A-12 (which the Navy traded that POS super bug for), or the F-16XL, which was decades ahead of its time, and which the air force traded the thoroughly conventional mudhen for. I hate, HATE people and organizations that are risk-adverse.

Of course, the F-117 and B-2 are something else entirely. Those took guts, and what glory was paid back in return. To think that the B-2 first flew back in 1989. Unbelievable. In some ways, the B-2 has got to be considered the aerospace engineering miracle of the century.

As for the Navy, when have those pansies taken any sort of risk lately? The super bug deserves the Navy, and the Navy deserves the super bug... :evil:
Offline

skrip00

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 557
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2006, 23:15

Unread post31 Jul 2006, 17:48

The F-120 is the basis for the F-136. The F-120 was superior to the F-119, but lost out because it was a higher-risk design, for much the same reasons that the F-23 lost to the F-22.


Hah! The F120 never made it into production! But, I'll admit GE/RR can make good engines, but please, keep the bogus claims out of here. There is no evidence to support your reasoning. As far as I'm concerned, the F119 is the better engine as it appears to be offering greater than expected performance in flight today. The same can, and will be said for the F135.

As for the YF-23... I can list numerous reasons for its loss, but it usually comes down to these two:
1. No TVC (which means poorer WVR combat and even supersonic manuverability.)
2. Poor weapons release design/philosophy (More prone to failure, even less storage capacity than F-22's. F-22 main bay is a single unit.)

However, we have a "winner" in service. This typically means we have a good fighter.

As for the A-12.... good riddance. It's death allowed for the JAST program to truely evolve into JSF and to greenlight production of one of the best carrier aircraft out there.
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1092
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19

Unread post01 Aug 2006, 07:10

The YF-22 didn't have a single main bay. The F-22A does though.
Offline

end

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 09:19

Unread post28 Sep 2006, 14:12

Let's compete with Su-27
The Su-27 is twin engines fighter, F-35 is single engine, so the fuel consume rate of F-35 should be half Su-27.
Su-27 internal fuel is approximately to 9,3 tons, F-35 is over 8.3 ton.
The combat radius of Su-27 is 1500 km, but the F-35, you guys say range, ok, that isn't matter, 1200nm approxi radius to 700 km or make you more satisfied to say 900km that enough!
No matter radius or range, F-35 ONLY is 2/3 of Su-27 at most!
I don't know why you guys so happy? I am so worried that....... :(
I think therefor I am
Offline

idesof

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 634
  • Joined: 29 May 2006, 22:59

Unread post28 Sep 2006, 14:45

end wrote:Let's compete with Su-27
The Su-27 is twin engines fighter, F-35 is single engine, so the fuel consume rate of F-35 should be half Su-27.
Su-27 internal fuel is approximately to 9,3 tons, F-35 is over 8.3 ton.
The combat radius of Su-27 is 1500 km, but the F-35, you guys say range, ok, that isn't matter, 1200nm approxi radius to 700 km or make you more satisfied to say 900km that enough!
No matter radius or range, F-35 ONLY is 2/3 of Su-27 at most!
I don't know why you guys so happy? I am so worried that....... :(


Can anyone translate this? Only part I got was, since the F-35 only has one engine and the Sue Twenty-seven has two, then the F-35's SFC should be half. Since that is a wild, not to mention incorrect, assumption, I don't think the rest of the post really matters. If it does, a translation would be appreciated. Thanks! :D
Offline

skrip00

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 557
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2006, 23:15

Unread post28 Sep 2006, 17:31

F-35 has stealth and high technology avionics which allow it to outperform an Su-27.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests