F-35 has longger leg than Su-35

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 918
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post30 Nov 2016, 18:22

F-35 consumed 5000lb of fuel to fly from Florida to Oshkosh, which is 900 miles (1450km)
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... ight-stuff

That is more than 5300km with internal fuel!
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5554
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post30 Nov 2016, 20:10

270 kts seems pretty slow. :?:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 850
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post30 Nov 2016, 20:35

sferrin wrote:270 kts seems pretty slow. :?:

indicate air speed is not the same as ground speed
Offline

vanshilar

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2015, 11:23

Unread post30 Nov 2016, 21:05

This has been discussed before. The performance figures given by the article are so far off from other sources that there was likely something misinterpreted between what the pilot said and what the reporter wrote.

For example, the distance is 900 miles, yet the article says it was a "two hour, ten minute jaunt", "at 270 knots". One of those numbers is wrong, since flying at 270 knots for 2 hours and 10 minutes will only get you 673 miles. It's more likely that the pilot said something like "knots indicated airspeed" or something and the reporter simply wrote down "knots" not understanding the significance of those latter words. Hey, the pilot probably means the airplane instruments were indicating 270 knots so that's how fast the plane was traveling relative to the ground, right?

It's also possible that the 5000 lb of fuel is referring to a per-hour rate rather than the total. Otherwise the implication is that it only burns around 2300 lb of fuel per hour, which implies that it can loiter for roughly 7-8 hours on a full tank of gas. (While fuel burn rate will be higher with a full tank of fuel, this trip was presumably done at cruise rather than max endurance, so the rate for max endurance will be somewhat lower.) More experienced aviators around here can probably chime in with typical fuel burn rates on clean F-16's, F/A-18's, etc. to compare with this.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post01 Dec 2016, 00:06

So, I was trying to work out the range of the F-35 from it's thrust, fuel, and estimating it's specific fuel consumption, but all I get is that it should probably go through all of it's fuel in something like an hour at Military thrust. On the other hand, if it has enough dry thrust to maintain M 1.2, then it's cruising thrust has got to be a lot less than full.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7719
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post01 Dec 2016, 03:30

gta4 wrote:F-35 consumed 5000lb of fuel to fly from Florida to Oshkosh, which is 900 miles (1450km)
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... ight-stuff

That is more than 5300km with internal fuel!

Also...

During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.

Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 676
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post01 Dec 2016, 03:36

popcorn wrote:During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.

Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”

Do you have a link to this?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24283
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post01 Dec 2016, 03:50

The AOPA NIEMI story is also on this forum & has clues to 'how to land an F-35A' & HANCHE has still not written about this.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... ight-stuff

FORUM: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27588&p=297930&hilit=Vickers+Niemi#p297930
Last edited by spazsinbad on 01 Dec 2016, 05:20, edited 1 time in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7719
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post01 Dec 2016, 04:26

zerion wrote:
popcorn wrote:During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.

Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”

Do you have a link to this?



From the link in the OP.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

doge

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 400
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 16:07

Unread post01 Dec 2016, 05:06

Transatlantic
Major Will Andreotta
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/three-a ... tic-flight
During the transatlantic flight, each of the three F-35A's received seven aerial refuelings—three from a KC-135 Stratotanker that turned around to head back to the United States, and four from a KC-10 Extender that accompanied the fighters all the way to England (see above).
Even though the F-35A holds 18,000 pounds of fuel—the aircraft will be used to penetrate deep into enemy territory undetected once it enters service—the Air Force makes sure that during an ocean crossing, each of the fighters is constantly topped up so that in the event of a malfunction, either in one of the fighters or in the tanker, each aircraft has enough fuel to get to an airport for an emergency landing.

US─UK
With no refueling can go?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24283
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post01 Dec 2016, 05:14

Search the F-35 forum using the search word range you will find this 'F-35 range' is noted officially in the 'F-35 FAST FACTS' and unofficially as a higher number but who knows the true story. Pick a number - any number...

F-35 FAST FACTS: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... final_.pdf (96Kb)
Range (internal fuel)
F-35A >1,200 nm / 2,200 km; F-35B >900 nm / 1,667 km; F-35C >1,200 n.mi / 2,200 km
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: 6583
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post01 Dec 2016, 06:29

Listen to this about the range of the F-35 at 15:45.....

https://youtu.be/QTgDTC8_PM0
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24283
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post01 Dec 2016, 07:36

Last two minutes of above video about RANGE excerpt.

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: 6583
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post01 Dec 2016, 07:46

Speaks volumes doesn't it... :wink:
Offline

vanshilar

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2015, 11:23

Unread post01 Dec 2016, 09:23

I posted a comparison of the range of current Western multirole fighters (Super Hornet, Rafale, Typhoon, F-35, Gripen E) on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/c ... _fighters/

I basically just compiled all the official publicly stated range information I could find about them, mostly assuming optimum cruise conditions. It's basically an "Internet-level" analysis, so please don't plan your deep strike missions around it. The key takeaways I think are:

1. The Rafale can go somewhat farther than the others on an air-to-air mission. It can reach around 900 nm while the others can all reach around 750-800 nm.
2. Everybody but the F-35 is using their max external fuel tanks to do so. For the Rafale, that means 3 2000 L tanks, which means it's not going supersonic. If it used 3 1250 L supersonic tanks instead, it would probably have a range of around 750-800 nm in line with the others, but that's just speculation on my part. I didn't find any information on that. The F-35 is reaching that range on internal fuel.
3. Everybody's performance suffers, except the F-35. Only the Typhoon beats the F-35 on thrust-to-weight ratio. The Rafale and Typhoon still have significantly lower wing loading than the others though. It really kind of puts the lie to the "everybody at 50% internal fuel" type of comparisons when you account for the external fuel tanks and base your fuel left around them instead.
4. The Gripen E only has a bit over 1000 lb left over for weapons if it goes on its "max fuel" missions (2 450 gal tanks and 1 300 gal tank). So yeah it's not going to do much if it wants that range. The Super Hornet has around 6000 lb for weapons (3 480 gal tanks). The Rafale has around 8000 lb left (3 2000 L tanks) or around 13000 lb left (3 supersonic 1250 L tanks) depending if it uses "big" or "regular" tanks. If it uses "big" tanks it ain't going supersonic. The Typhoon has around 13300 lb left (3 1000 L tanks). And the F-35 is still on internal only, so it still has its >18000 lb payload capacity. Presumably someday part of that may include external tanks as well, but it shows how the F-35 can really carry a lot of stuff a long way when it goes just as far on its internal fuel as the other planes when they're carrying 3 external fuel tanks.

The guy said training missions which he used to do with an F-15C with 2 tanks, he now can do two using the F-35. I'm sure he doesn't mean that the F-35 has twice the range, since he can just stay in the area and loiter until the next training mission starts, but it does sort of set the range of the F-15C with 2 tanks as a lower boundary on the F-35's range. Anyone know what that would be offhand?

Edit: The F-15C (no CFT) manual gives the ferry range with 3 external fuel tanks as 1933 nm (2144 nm if you decide to drop them when empty). It gives the combat radius for a counter air mission as 424 nm on internal fuel or 551 nm using a centerline tank (610 gal). I guess so it sort of brackets the possible combat radius of the F-35 but...well, not a particularly tight bracket.
Next

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests