Visual comparison and contrast with Raptor, Eagle, Viper

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 01 Mar 2019, 15:58

An acquaintance shared some photos he took of the F-35 in a four ship with an F-16, F-15, and F-22. A NASA F-18 is in one photo -- it was used as a photo ship. I was struck by just how much smaller the F-35 is compared to the Eagle and Raptor. Even though I know the F-35 is NOT an F-22... at first glance of an F-35 next to an F-22, my immediate reaction is that the F-35 is much further distant than the F-22. I've seen the line drawings & illustrations comparing the F-35 to various aircraft from a front and dorsal perspective, but seeing it in a photo is different for some reason.

The F-35 will never have the visual signature of the F-16 (at least when it is clean). The Viper is just plain tiny in comparison, from a visual perspective from front or rear.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 01 Mar 2019, 20:16

Thanks for comparo…. (rotated 36 degrees etc.)

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 01 Mar 2019, 21:27

I got the idea to create this thread from a post by marsavian in the F-35 and Airshows thread. That link will jump you into the appropriate place (p.74) of that long thread.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 01 Mar 2019, 21:49

Ah you dun dood it. viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24622&p=412842&hilit=visual#p412842 Here are examples of comparos.

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 02 Mar 2019, 02:02

I fought the Gimp... and, well... Gimp lost. But what a pain in the **** it was. NOT intuitive Gimp is.

I didn't bother throwing the images into AutoCAD and really precisely lining things up... but I did manage the following:

shania · by **shania** » 02 Mar 2019, 11:25

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 02 Mar 2019, 14:36

Well, nutz... why didn't I think of that?

Nicely done! :cheers:

basher54321 · by **basher54321** » 02 Mar 2019, 14:42

Is there a slight altitude difference there?

Probably not far off though I suppose here is one I did based on dimensions a while back.

: F16-F35; F-16C.jpg (63.43 KiB) Viewed 80604 times

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 02 Mar 2019, 14:51

basher54321 wrote:Is there a slight altitude difference there?

Probably not far off though I suppose here is one I did based on dimensions a while back.

F-16C.jpg

Basher, it's certainly possible, but I don't know? IMO, any altitude difference is slight. The image manipulation was based on photo #2 in the five frame sequence shown above in this thread. Based on the skybackdrop between the Eagle's two air intakes and fuselage, it appears the fourship flew almost directly above the photographer. Image #5 shows the aircraft as they are receding in the distance,and would appear to show they are at the same altitude for all practical purposes.

I applied no scaling to individual airfame images.

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 02 Mar 2019, 14:57

Basher, in your comparison image above, how did you line up the two images? Did you overlay the engine nozzle exhaust plane?

basher54321 · by **basher54321** » 02 Mar 2019, 15:17

No Steve - dimensions converted to pixels and scaled individually - you can move the images wherever you like after that.

You have to be careful with dimensions and check whether they include pitot tube, wingtip missiles etc.

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 02 Mar 2019, 15:19

steve2267 wrote:I fought the Gimp... and, well... Gimp lost. But what a pain in the **** it was. NOT intuitive Gimp is.

I didn't bother throwing the images into AutoCAD and really precisely lining things up... but I did manage the following:

F-16, F-35, F-15, F-22 lineup (1024).png

I am struck most by wing area. The jump from F-16 to F-35, and F-15 to F-22. Add to that lift contributed to by the body of the F-35 and 22 and I guess you can see why each is so superior to it's teen counterpart. We know how much lift is generated by the F-15's fuselage, given that Israeli Eagle that landed - without one wing! The F-22's smooth, blended underside is a sight to behold, and if anything has even greater fuselage lift.

It's also mind boggling how much more fuel each carries vs. its predecessor.

What does the Eagle carry, 13,850lbs? 18,000lbs in the Raptor. And especially the F-35... F-16 carries 7,000lbs, and the F-35A a whopping 18,070!!! Throw in the fact they're clean when combat configured, and I guess that seals it - no comparison, much better legs vs. the teen series.

Fantastic pieces of engineering. Given all of that, it certainly makes the SU-57's podded engines/tunnel arrangement rather archaic. Not sure about the J-20, but to my eye it looks like they bolted the wings on a fuselage that doesn't fit. Sort of a mish mash of two different planes...

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 02 Mar 2019, 15:54

basher54321 wrote:No Steve - dimensions converted to pixels and scaled individually - you can move the images wherever you like after that.

You have to be careful with dimensions and check whether they include pitot tube, wingtip missiles etc.

Does the oft-quoted length figure of the F-16 include the nose pitot tube? That is, is the 49.5' length from the tip of the pitot tube to the end of the vertical fin?

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 02 Mar 2019, 16:02

When one stands near an F-35, it 'feels' much larger that its planform might suggest (in comparison to the Viper). Two principle reasons for this are, 1) as discussed, the F-35 has lotsa fuselage volume; and, 2) when all that volume is further from the ground (i.e. you have more ground clearance in order to open the bays and have some degree of ease in loading them) it feels like a very large aircraft. Next to a Viper (even a clasic Hornet) those jets 'feel' like greyhounds in comparison.

Compare some images of pilots or plane captains preflighting an F-35 vs whatever and notice how much clearance there is above their head and the bottom of the wing.

Here's a for example for F-35 -- https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q ... 5493873458

basher54321 · by **basher54321** » 02 Mar 2019, 16:02

Yes that includes the pitot tube so from the tip.