The F-35 Thread

[joey45]

Just got a new wallpaper..

[mwd2]

Is it correct, that all three versions (A - CTOL, B - STOVL and C - CV) are in active testing phase - i mean, i saw last Nov they did some carrier touchdowns and takeoffs - did they use the C or an A version?

[mvsgas]

Is it correct, that all three versions (A - CTOL, B - STOVL and C - CV) are in active testing phase - i mean, i saw last Nov they did some carrier touchdowns and takeoffs - did they use the C or an A version?

 

C version. F-35A landing gear and tail hook are not rated for carrier operations.

[mvsgas]

click on image to enlarge

PACIFIC OCEAN (Nov. 6, 2014) An F-35C Lightning II carrier variant joint strike fighter makes an arrested landing aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68 ). The F-35 Lightning II Pax River Integrated Test Force from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 is currently conducting initial at-sea trials aboard Nimitz. (U.S. Navy photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin by Alexander H Groves/Released)

 

click on image to enlarge

141102-N-ZZ999-115 WASHINGTON (Nov. 2, 2014) A graphic describing the F-35C Lighting II carrier variant joint strike fighter. (U.S. Navy photo/Released)

 

Click on image to enlarge

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (Oct. 31, 2013) An F-35 Lightning II launches an AIM-120 advanced medium range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM) over a military test range off the California coast. The AMRAAM was fired from an F-35A (AF-6) conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant fighter operating from the F-35 Integrated Test Facility at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. (U.S. Navy photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin by Paul Weatherman/Released)

Edited May 9, 2015 by mvsgas

[Hummingbird]

The lift gain is offset by the F-35's body lift, which looks significant. The C makes the most lift, but it's not a gain proportional to just wing areas. Given that the fuselages are the same though, only one aircraft can posses the better area distribution for trans/supersonic flight. I'd imagine that would be the A since it's most likely to be used in the fighter role given how widespread it will be. Also if you look at the dimensions of the A, it's basically a slightly bigger F-16. Wing loading and TWR is practically the same as the F-16, as are the length and wingspan (though aspect ratio is a bit worse).

 

As for fuel load, the A actually has a better fuel fraction. The C's wing allows it to achieve better range, but it's most likely going to gobble fuel much faster in combat because of the added weight. The loss of acceleration from the weight and the drag (at high speed) will only compound this.

 

Dunno why my response was removed, just noticed :huh:

 

Anyway..

 

Yes the F-35 does enjoy some body lift (most fighters do), but like with the F-15 the boxy fuselage design is much less efficient at this than an actual lifting body design (F-14 & Su-27 etc), or the more aerodynamically optimized shape of the F-16's fuselage which provides for a higher L/D ratio. Hence I don't see the F-35A coming near the F-16 in ACM, for which it would have to beat out the F-15 first as well.

 

Thus the extra 50% wing area available for the C variant will still constitute a massive increase in lift, something which will help it a lot in sustained maneuvers below Mach 0.8, where the A variant will no doubt be hopelessly outclassed.

 

Hence I expect the F-35C will be the best variant of the three when it comes to actual ACM.

 

The F-35C's much bigger wing will obviously provide a huge increase in lift (notice the increased size of the TE & LE flaps as well):

Edited May 9, 2015 by Hummingbird

[mvsgas]

Dunno why my response was removed, just noticed :huh:

 

Anyway..

 

Yes the F-35 does enjoy some body lift (most fighters do), but like with the F-15 the boxy fuselage design is much less efficient at this than an actual lifting body design (F-14 & Su-27 etc), or the more aerodynamically optimized shape of the F-16's fuselage which provides for a higher L/D ratio. Hence I don't see the F-35A coming near the F-16 in ACM, for which it would have to beat out the F-15 first as well.

 

Thus the extra 50% wing area available for the C variant will still constitute a massive increase in lift, something which will help it a lot in sustained maneuvers below Mach 0.8, where the A variant will no doubt be hopelessly outclassed.

 

Hence I expect the F-35C will be the best variant of the three when it comes to actual ACM.

 

The F-35C's much bigger wing will obviously provide a huge increase in lift (notice the increased size of the TE & LE flaps as well):

 

Why not use the thread you started before for this topic?

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=132674

[Exorcet]

Yes the F-35 does enjoy some body lift (most fighters do), but like with the F-15 the boxy fuselage design is much less efficient at this than an actual lifting body design (F-14 & Su-27 etc), or the more aerodynamically optimized shape of the F-16's fuselage which provides for a higher L/D ratio. Hence I don't see the F-35A coming near the F-16 in ACM, for which it would have to beat out the F-15 first as well.

 

I'm hesitant to say that the F-35 (or F-15) fuselage shape is significantly less efficient. While there may be a disadvantage to their shape, the fuselage is certainly not negligible when it comes to lift calculations. What I wanted to get at with the fuselage lift is that wing area isn't going to proportionally drive aircraft life. 150% wing =/= 150% lift, also the ratio is actually 135%. On comparison to the F-16, that was not to imply F-16 like performance (though I think the A will be capable of this) but to suggest that both planes arrived at those relative dimensions because it's an optimum for their intended roles.

 

The C is hands downs better aerodynamically below Mach .5 and probably some ways above that, although this advantage will be eroded to some degree by weight and possibly the g limit. The weight ratio between the two (empty) is 118%. Not enough to offset the wing, but it's a pretty decent hit to performance. As the two have the same engine, comparing TWR should give a decent idea of the available acceleration without regarding aero forces. The ratio is about 117%. As mentioned before, while the C carries more fuel, it has inferior fuel fraction. At cruise, it will be more efficient. However if it needs to accelerate or rapidly climb, the weight penalty will probably become evident. If my hunch that the C is noticeably draggier at transonic speed is right, the gap could be even wider.

 

The wing area increase is larger than both the weight and thrust differences, so it's not unreasonable to think that the C will have better turning ability at low speed, but that doesn't guarantee anything at higher speed. Even if we're talking about dogfights, you need to get to the merge first. If the A has better high speed acceleration and sustained turn rates, it will better be able to control the fight at BVR ranges, and if the fight translates into WVR, the A may be more likely to start off in a better position. Also, in combat that is larger than 1v1 or 2v2, staying at higher speed is probably more advantageous because it gives your missiles more energy and takes away from your enemy's missiles. Generally if you're going slower, you're more vulnerable. Modern missiles are going to out turn you no matter what you do anyway. All of this is part of the reason why I think the A will make the better fighter, I'm looking past just slow WVR dogfighting.

 

 

 

Hence I expect the F-35C will be the best variant of the three when it comes to actual ACM.

In the regime where its strengths can be brought into play, I agree. I don't think it will hold and advantage in all areas though. It will be interesting to see how it turns out when the numbers are actually in, whenever that may be. It must be said that there is a clear lack of hard data and use of speculation on my part, but the topic is too interesting to pass up.

[mvsgas]

lZ7rx5vKZb4

[mvsgas]

On the video Sithspawn posted and on this one

5bXBaS8bY_Y

It seem the weapons bays doors take a beating just before touch down on vertical landings. I wonder if the doors help create a "air cushion " of sorts. I wonder if that is the same effect the Harriers ventral fins or guns pods have.

[Hummingbird]

I'm hesitant to say that the F-35 (or F-15) fuselage shape is significantly less efficient. While there may be a disadvantage to their shape, the fuselage is certainly not negligible when it comes to lift calculations. What I wanted to get at with the fuselage lift is that wing area isn't going to proportionally drive aircraft life. 150% wing =/= 150% lift, also the ratio is actually 135%. On comparison to the F-16, that was not to imply F-16 like performance (though I think the A will be capable of this) but to suggest that both planes arrived at those relative dimensions because it's an optimum for their intended roles.

 

135%?

 

62.1 sq.m. is 145.4% of 42.7 sq.m., and the C variant also features larger horizontal stabs, so overall we're talking about 150+ %.

 

The C is hands downs better aerodynamically below Mach .5 and probably some ways above that, although this advantage will be eroded to some degree by weight and possibly the g limit. The weight ratio between the two (empty) is 118%. Not enough to offset the wing, but it's a pretty decent hit to performance. As the two have the same engine, comparing TWR should give a decent idea of the available acceleration without regarding aero forces. The ratio is about 117%. As mentioned before, while the C carries more fuel, it has inferior fuel fraction. At cruise, it will be more efficient. However if it needs to accelerate or rapidly climb, the weight penalty will probably become evident. If my hunch that the C is noticeably draggier at transonic speed is right, the gap could be even wider.

 

The wing area increase is larger than both the weight and thrust differences, so it's not unreasonable to think that the C will have better turning ability at low speed, but that doesn't guarantee anything at higher speed. Even if we're talking about dogfights, you need to get to the merge first. If the A has better high speed acceleration and sustained turn rates, it will better be able to control the fight at BVR ranges, and if the fight translates into WVR, the A may be more likely to start off in a better position. Also, in combat that is larger than 1v1 or 2v2, staying at higher speed is probably more advantageous because it gives your missiles more energy and takes away from your enemy's missiles. Generally if you're going slower, you're more vulnerable. Modern missiles are going to out turn you no matter what you do anyway. All of this is part of the reason why I think the A will make the better fighter, I'm looking past just slow WVR dogfighting.

 

Tbh I think that the top speed of these two variants will be the same, as it's apparently limited by the canopy (same as on the F-16), and since the C variant has more wing it should also loose less energy in maneuvers as it doesn't need to pull as high an AoA as the A variant to achieve the necessary lift for the same maneuver.

 

Hence I definitely see the C variant holding the advantage in both STR & ITR, except at speeds where the load limit is surpassed.

 

As for climb rate, I can't say, more lift naturally helps here, but wether it's enough to offset the lower T/W ratio that is uncertain.

[beaupower32]

...

Edited May 29, 2015 by beaupower32

[Exorcet]

MY mistake, Wiki listed C wing as 620 sq ft, probably the 62 m^2 figured accidentally transcribed there. So that's going to widen the low speed gap in aero performance.

 

On top speed, yes they are probably the same since it's not an aero limit, but acceleration can still differ. Just like a light F-16 will beat a fully fueled one in accel, but still have to respect the same canopy limit.

[Namenlos Ein]

[wilky510]

Just some random pictures of my plane. Also a video of my plane doing flare drops. I am in the Blue and Yellow Shirt, white LSU hat.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3t99z8ETKw

Thanks for the awesome pictures buddy! Especially the flare one. I might have to put that as my background now.

[tflash]

^^ second that! Great stuff!

[Basher54321]

Now it (F-35B?) flies like an F-15 and has a 35,000 lbs thrust engine ?

 

Plus drones not future shock :)

 

 

[outlawal2]

Now it (F-35B?) flies like an F-15 and has a 35,000 lbs thrust engine ?

 

Plus drones not future shock :)

 

 

So you doubt the word of the test pilot that flies this plane daily.. and has flown multiple fighter aircraft in combat missions?

 

Sorry, but I will take his informed word over unsubstantiated and overly biased naysaying any day..

[Basher54321]

So you doubt the word of the test pilot that flies this plane daily.. and has flown multiple fighter aircraft in combat missions?

 

Sorry, but I will take his informed word over unsubstantiated and overly biased naysaying any day..

 

Didn't think that was implied - but as you have incorrectly assumed that is what I was getting at then I will inform you he is on a previous video stating the thrust rating was 43,000 lbs - which is why I have to assume it's the B version he is on about - have not seen a 35,000 lbs figure anywhere before.

 

 

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35/f-35b-stovl-variant.html

[Neon67]

Now it (F-35B?) flies like an F-15 and has a 35,000 lbs thrust engine ?

 

Plus drones not future shock :)

 

 

So you doubt the word of the test pilot that flies this plane daily.. and has flown multiple fighter aircraft in combat missions?

 

Sorry, but I will take his informed word over unsubstantiated and overly biased naysaying any day..

 

You know those test pilots are always trying to sell the airplane they are using for the interview right ?

They are not allowed to make bad publicity

[Sierra99]

Sorry, but I will take his informed word over unsubstantiated and overly biased naysaying any day..

 

Uhummm...I'm just curious...Who signs his paycheck? even if he is a military test pilot, the venue being filmed was obviously a show and tell session and therefore subject to editing and the whims of his employer. To imply his word is canon and the last word on the subject is shortsighted and foolish.

 

Simple fact is the F-35 is a conglomeration of compromises. Not saying it can't do all of the jobs they envision it doing... But it will NEVER do any of them as well as an aircraft actually designed for a specific mission.

[GGTharos]

It does one job, and that's Strike. It can do other jobs on the side, but other aircraft might do them better.

 

Which compromises do you not like and for what reason?

 

Simple fact is the F-35 is a conglomeration of compromises. Not saying it can't do all of the jobs they envision it doing... But it will NEVER do any of them as well as an aircraft actually designed for a specific mission.

[Rangi]

Why shouldn't we cut the canopy within 3 inches of the canopy frame? Also has anyone seen a close up of an Australian or European one to see if this warning is in metric?

[PiedDroit]

(edited my own stupidness):

It's because of explosive charges used to remove canopy in a aircraft assisted escape system they'd probably cut canopy on if it was on ground as canopy really shoots off !!

Edited May 15, 2015 by PiedDroit

[outlawal2]

 

You know those test pilots are always trying to sell the airplane they are using for the interview right ?

They are not allowed to make bad publicity

 

Of course they are trying to sell the plane but you guys are basically calling the guy a liar due to your own biases...

 

Same kind of attitude that ran Kinney off and just as that was unacceptable so it is here as well..

 

Internet tough guys behind the keyboard... But I would love to see you accuse the pilot face to face.. But that sure isn't going to happen..

 

<smh>

:cry:

[NineLine]

Ok guys, keep this thread clean, share news and info about the F-35, but lets keep the extra stuff out of it.