The F-35 Thread

[GGTharos]

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

[mvsgas]

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.

[topol-m]

: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

[GGTharos]

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

[mvsgas]

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

[topol-m]

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

[Avilator]

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?

[GGTharos]

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.

[GGTharos]

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?

[topol-m]

Is there any automatic ejection system in case of critical engine failures or some unrecoverable close to the ground maneuver in takeoff/landing mode?

[GGTharos]

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?

[Avilator]

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?

[topol-m]

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

[Avilator]

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.

[topol-m]

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.

 

 

 

[Avilator]

What I meant was that you would have a bent airplane and possibility of spinal injury in either case.

 

Funny diagrams BTW!:lol:

[Antartis]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mvsgas]

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)

[zakobi]

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.

[mvsgas]

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

[mvsgas]

Have you guys seen LM 2009 Year in Review?

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/aeronautics/products/f35/09-2842009YIR.wmv

[mvsgas]

Anyone have videos / pictures of the C model?

 

:D

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/

 

Edited June 9, 2010 by mvsgas

[topol-m]

^^^ Nice pics

Visually are there any noticeable differences between A and C?

[Mnemonic]

^^^ 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.

[exec]

Much larger wings.