Forum: General F-35 Forum

wrightwing wrote:

http://www.dailyairforce.com/707/F35As-combat-radius-drops-to-584nm.html

Quote:

But programme officials are also debating whether to change how the range of the F-35A is calculated, the source said. The equation does not include a buffer margin of 5% of fuel capacity, which is intended to be preserved through the end of the flight test period in 2016. Eliminating the buffer margin adds another 72.4km to the aircraft's combat radius, the source said.

Don't like the answer you get?? Do your math differently. At least that seems to be the philosophy here Rolling Eyes

F-16.net Sponsor

The Baby Seal is a SLUF and a half, with an afterburner.

Wing loading is a booooogus parameter. Fuselage lift and various high lift devices (not to mention that different organizations use different measures for wing area) make it pretty much worthless.

Even more so in FBW jets when the CG is moved back it seems

Those highly swept back short wings gave the Thud great speed at low level and great stability at speed - but very poor turning ability and very high wing loading.

Like the F-35 it was designed to get to the target undetected - and thats about where any similarity ends IMO

The F-105 would go in low at high speed to deliver a single nuclear payload in its internal bomb bay - well that seems to be the brief Kartveli designed it to.

In Vietnam fuel was stuck in the bomb bay and tanks and bombs were hung off the wings making the poor handling even worse.

The F-105s weak point was that the hydraulic system was not protected and a few hits on the system would mean loss of control and the pilot having to eject.

This was supposed to have been modified in F-105s from ~1965/66 on making it less vulnerable.

southernphantom wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

http://www.dailyairforce.com/707/F35As-combat-radius-drops-to-584nm.html

Quote:

But programme officials are also debating whether to change how the range of the F-35A is calculated, the source said. The equation does not include a buffer margin of 5% of fuel capacity, which is intended to be preserved through the end of the flight test period in 2016. Eliminating the buffer margin adds another 72.4km to the aircraft's combat radius, the source said.

Don't like the answer you get?? Do your math differently. At least that seems to be the philosophy here Rolling Eyes

It's not a matter of doing the math differently. It's a question of whether the KPP was in fact met, or not. The additional 72.4km brings the radius over 600nm, using whatever math you want to use. If the other proposed measures are utilized, then the range should increase even further.

This comparison is exactly what APA did....And it is dead wrong. Look at the planform of the F-105 and compare it to the F-35. The F-35 has a wide-body fuselage for body lift vis-a-vis the F-105 which will enhance the F-35's sustained turn performance far greater than what Kopp could predict. Considering an F-15 could get a wing shot off and limp back to base with one wing and body lift then Body lift is clearly not to be discounted easily. Despite the wing loading being supposedly similar, the edge for sustained turn performance goes to F-35. Not only that but lack of external stores is clearly a plus for F-35 vs. the F-105 as the F-105 could only carry a tac nuke internally and had to dangle all of those 250 and 500 lb. bombs off of external pylons which is one heck of a drag penalty. The lack of external stores and a large fuel fraction allow the F-35 to be faster and take less time to get to speed and altitude where it would be able to decide the fight quickly and easily if a dogfight between the two aircraft were to ever ensue. It's all about energy and if you take longer to get to both speed and altitude to obtain T and V you are dead. Please note that talking about avionics and structures is pointless for OBVIOUS reasons such as the F-35 being the newer plane and such.

I'm pretty sure an F-105 could kick an F-35's @$$.

All the F-105 would see would be the rear end of the F-35. The two aircraft weigh about the same, but one of them has half again as much thrust.

LoL...Gleaming information provided by your Wiki source. Seriously, 105 almost never flew missions without tanks, and I would bet that its combat range is WITH tanks. I think its a very poor comparison.

hcobb wrote:

All the F-105 would see would be the rear end of the F-35. The two aircraft weigh about the same, but one of them has half again as much thrust.

At low altitude I wouldn't be so sure. High wing loading is an advantage on the deck because of better gust response (IIRC).

F-35 would rattle apart trying to race an F-105 down on the deck.

on the deck, yes. Those planes of that era were speed machines beyond specifications.

Agreed. Wiki states the F-35's wing loading as being slightly less than F-105 but look at the center fuselages of the two aircraft and juxtapose them. The F-105 doesn't look like it has a lifting body for a fuselage like the F-35 does. In fact, the F-105 looks like a pencil with wings in comparison. Henceforth the high density air turbulence response on the F-35 is going to thrash the pilot around a lot and tear him a new one.

tacf-x wrote:

Agreed. Wiki states the F-35's wing loading as being slightly less than F-105 but look at the center fuselages of the two aircraft and juxtapose them. The F-105 doesn't look like it has a lifting body for a fuselage like the F-35 does. In fact, the F-105 looks like a pencil with wings in comparison. Henceforth the high density air turbulence response on the F-35 is going to thrash the pilot around a lot and tear him a new one.

F-105B and later had an area ruled fuselage.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Baby Seal vs Lead Sled