GGTharos Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 (edited) My understanding is that the VTOL thrust is close to the 40000lbf mark, which is taken at face value gives the F-35 about 8000lbs of fuel+armament. Internal fuel is about 13000lbs full, the empty aircraft weight around 32000lbs. Edited April 27, 2010 by GGTharos [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvsgas Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 There was and old video in You Tube showing the F-35 demonstrator. It it the LM technician demonstrated what the pilots would have to do in order to set the weight for vertical landing. I think it has been posted here many times. To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topol-m Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 (edited) :blink: I guess without air refueling it`s going nowhere with such a small amount of fuel and weaponry. Probably normal landing will be used the most, then VSTOL, and then VTOL in what... tiny percent of the flights? Edited April 27, 2010 by topol-m [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 (edited) This is why it's a STOVL aircraft, topol-m ;) Edit: According to the official docs, vertical thrust is 39700lbf, empty weight 30000lbs. This gives you about 9000lbs of useful fuel + weapons for VTOL. Loading full fuel + 2 JDAM + 2 AMRAAM would put you at 48000lbs weight. That means you can go do your mission, and return at a weight suitable for vertical landing. Takeoff must be STOL, or like you suggested vertical + immediate refuel. Same document indicates 2x payload and 1.8x range increase vs. Harrier.STATS.pdf Edited April 27, 2010 by GGTharos [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvsgas Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 I know the video is here, I just don't feel like looking at every post, here is the link again. I know this is not a 100% but it should give us an idea http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbnWg4v6iHk To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topol-m Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 (edited) This is why it's a STOVL aircraft, topol-m ;) Yeah , yeah I know but STOVL is not that exciting and exotic as VTOL :D Better put another engine in there Lockheed! I know the video is here, I just don't feel like looking at every post, here is the link again. I know this is not a 100% but it should give us an idea http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbnWg4v6iHk :thumbup: Edited April 27, 2010 by topol-m [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avilator Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 Is a vertical/short takeoff/landing more risky than a conventional one in terms of equipment failures affecting safety of flight? (i.e.: engine failure during vertical flight=possibility of crash; engine failure during forward flight=possibility of gliding to a safe landing) If so, would it only be used when absolutely needed, or would they be done more regularly to keep in practice? I only respond to that little mechanical voice that says "Terrain! Terrain! Pull Up! Pull Up!" Who can say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow. -Robert Goddard "A hybrid. A car for enthusiasts of armpit hair and brown rice." -Jeremy Clarkson "I swear by my pretty floral bonet, I will end you." -Mal from Firefly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 Or bump this one up to 50000lbf vertical ... really it doesn't seem like a possibility though. Dry thrust of this engine is 26000lbf about (25 if the document is very accurate) and for an installed engine at mach 0, you're looking at about 78%-80% thrust. If we assume it has been optimistically configured to have a couple percent more performance at mach 0 installed thrust vs. the typical installed engine thrust loss, we're still getting something a bit over 20000lbf. The lift fan is rated at around 18000lbf IIRC, so there's really no wiggle room there. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 Yes it is riskier. If the engine fails, you drop straight down. On the other hand, probability of engine failure has also gone down a whole lot. Is a vertical/short takeoff/landing more risky than a conventional one in terms of equipment failures affecting safety of flight? (i.e.: engine failure during vertical flight=possibility of crash; engine failure during forward flight=possibility of gliding to a safe landing) If so, would it only be used when absolutely needed, or would they be done more regularly to keep in practice? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topol-m Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 Is there any automatic ejection system in case of critical engine failures or some unrecoverable close to the ground maneuver in takeoff/landing mode? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 Not that I know of, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. The question here is, are the sensors for sensing such a problem reliable enough to not give you false negatives or positives? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avilator Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 Is there any automatic ejection system in case of critical engine failures or some unrecoverable close to the ground maneuver in takeoff/landing mode? I don't know the answer to that, but maybe the landing gear is strong enough to at least protect the pilot while the airplane is inside the envelope that would require immediate ejection? That's just a thought, maybe my thinking is totally off? I only respond to that little mechanical voice that says "Terrain! Terrain! Pull Up! Pull Up!" Who can say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow. -Robert Goddard "A hybrid. A car for enthusiasts of armpit hair and brown rice." -Jeremy Clarkson "I swear by my pretty floral bonet, I will end you." -Mal from Firefly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topol-m Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 Not that I know of, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. The question here is, are the sensors for sensing such a problem reliable enough to not give you false negatives or positives? Yeah that could be a problem but in situations like engine stop could come inhandy. I don't know the answer to that, but maybe the landing gear is strong enough to at least protect the pilot while the airplane is inside the envelope that would require immediate ejection? That's just a thought, maybe my thinking is totally off? Speaking of falls, from several metres the gear could save him (those kinds of falls though may result in spinal and other injuries), but past that point the aircraft will be like a can of beer that you jumped on :D [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avilator Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 Speaking of falls, from several metres the gear could save him (those kinds of falls though may result in spinal and other injuries), but past that point the aircraft will be like a can of beer that you jumped on :D But that point would be rendered moot if the pilot ejected, because the results would be pretty much the same. I only respond to that little mechanical voice that says "Terrain! Terrain! Pull Up! Pull Up!" Who can say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow. -Robert Goddard "A hybrid. A car for enthusiasts of armpit hair and brown rice." -Jeremy Clarkson "I swear by my pretty floral bonet, I will end you." -Mal from Firefly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topol-m Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 But that point would be rendered moot if the pilot ejected, because the results would be pretty much the same. That`s a question of programming the system. There are certain situations at certain altitudes in which there is no doubt the plane and pilot will be lost, but the pilots reaction might be too late. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avilator Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 What I meant was that you would have a bent airplane and possibility of spinal injury in either case. Funny diagrams BTW!:lol: I only respond to that little mechanical voice that says "Terrain! Terrain! Pull Up! Pull Up!" Who can say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow. -Robert Goddard "A hybrid. A car for enthusiasts of armpit hair and brown rice." -Jeremy Clarkson "I swear by my pretty floral bonet, I will end you." -Mal from Firefly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antartis Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 1 Asus Prime Z-370-A Intel core I7-8700K 3.70Ghz Ram g.skill f4-3200c16d 32gb Evga rtx 2070 Ssd samgung 960 evo m.2 500gb Syria, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Normandy 1944 Combined Arms A-10C, Mirage-2000C, F-16C, FC3 Spitfire LF Mk. IX UH-1H, Gazelle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvsgas Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123205241 Left to right, AF-02 and AF-01, F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters, fly over Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., prior to their landing the afternoon of May 17. (Official U.S. Air Force photograph) Left to right, AF-02 and AF-01, F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters, fly over Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., prior to their landing the afternoon of May 17. (Official U.S. Air Force photograph) To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zakobi Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 Can't remember where, but saw that the F-35 also was meant to replace the A-10... Must have been my book, which came out before the A-10C upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvsgas Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 Can't remember where, but saw that the F-35 also was meant to replace the A-10... Must have been my book, which came out before the A-10C upgrade. According to LM website, it is suppose to replaced A-10 http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35-capabilities.html To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvsgas Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 Have you guys seen LM 2009 Year in Review? http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/aeronautics/products/f35/09-2842009YIR.wmv To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvsgas Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 (edited) Anyone have videos / pictures of the C model? :D http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/ Edited June 9, 2010 by mvsgas To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topol-m Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 ^^^ Nice pics Visually are there any noticeable differences between A and C? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mnemonic Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 ^^^ Nice pics Visually are there any noticeable differences between A and C? Hook and flippable wings. I suppose they have more length than in A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exec Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 Much larger wings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts