Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is It True That A F-35C Is Super Heavy.  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3757 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6739 times:

I was just reading something on the F-35C, that stated that it weight is 70000 lbs, that near a Tomcat weight, so is this true, and why is this smaller plane so heavy?

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6734 times:

That's got to be max take off

User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 week 2 days ago) and read 6659 times:

I believe that's mainly because it can carry a lot of internal fuel and a rather impressive weaponsload.
The 40Klbs engine probably gives it enough oomph to get away with it.
Also the Marinised F-35 has a considerably bigger wing (it looks a lot like an F-22 from some underside angles)
giving it a lower wingloading aiding with carrier ops.

I wonder why the USAF and MARINES didn't go for the larger wing also, it would certainly aid the F-35 with one
of its most criticised points namaely wingloading.



[edit post]
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4004 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 week 2 days ago) and read 6656 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):

Max take-off weight is in the 60,000 lbs class according to Globalsecurity.org (as you could easily have found out yourself).

The planned MTOW cannot really accidentally be exceeded since it is determined by available engine power and the wing's lift capability. What grows when the aircraft is overweight is empty weight, thus reducing the useful load.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1626 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6413 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 3):
Max take-off weight is in the 60,000 lbs class according to Globalsecurity.org (as you could easily have found out yourself).

And there are other sources on the internet that list it as 70,000. Really, I don't think we will know until it's in service.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlinewvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6353 times:

I thought it was the F-35B they were having the weight issues with is the F-35C causing problems also?

[Edited 2011-12-12 16:43:21]

User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6332 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
I was just reading something on the F-35C, that stated that it weight is 70000 lbs, that near a Tomcat weight, so is this true, and why is this smaller plane so heavy?

What does its size, compared to the Tomcat of all things, have anything to do with its weight?

Another excellent F35 thread.


User currently offlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 592 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6313 times:

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 2):
I wonder why the USAF and MARINES didn't go for the larger wing also, it would certainly aid the F-35 with one
of its most criticised points namaely wingloading.

It is my understanding that size is a liability should it ever come down to ACM. An Eagle driver once told the planform area of an F-15 is almost identical to that of a tennis court, and the much smaller F-16 made it formidable in visual engagements. There are, of course, litterally thousands of other factors that drive wing sizing.

Cheers!

SLCPilot



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6230 times:

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 5):
I thought it was the F-35B they were having the weight issues with is the F-35C causing problems also?

It did. Originally, it was 1,000kg overweight in 2004. It's now 200kg underweight now.

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 2):
I believe that's mainly because it can carry a lot of internal fuel and a rather impressive weaponsload.
The 40Klbs engine probably gives it enough oomph to get away with it.
Also the Marinised F-35 has a considerably bigger wing (it looks a lot like an F-22 from some underside angles)
giving it a lower wingloading aiding with carrier ops.

I wonder why the USAF and MARINES didn't go for the larger wing also, it would certainly aid the F-35 with one
of its most criticised points namaely wingloading.

Wing loading is a bogus metric. As I said before, full span slats and flaps, and LERX's, as well as large lifting bodies have destroyed the meaning it had. Fighter jets today are no longer tubes with wings stuck to them. The F-16 has a higher wing loading than the old F-4 Phantom II, but I don't think anyone will argue that the F-4 was more maneuverable than the F-16. In fact, here's a list of the wing loading of some jets right now to help blast that argument some more:

3rd Gen US fighters
F-4E: 78 lb/ft²
F-8: 77.3 lb/ft²
F-105D: 93 lb/ft²

4th and 4.5th Gen US Fighters
F-16C Block 30: 88.3 lb/ft²
F/A-18C/D: 93 lb/ft²
F/A-18E/F: 94 lb/ft²
F-15C: 73.1 lb/ft²
F-14D: 113.4 lb/ft²

5th Gen US Fighters
F-35A: 91.4 lb/ft²
F-22: 77 lb/ft²

Eastern bloc fighters
MiG-29: 90.5 lb/ft²
Su-35: 84.9 lb/ft²
PAK FA: 96 lb/ft²


User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4004 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 5956 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 4):

And there are other sources on the internet that list it as 70,000. Really, I don't think we will know until it's in service.

OK. Anyway, I would like apologize to 747400sp because this is indeed interesting. Here we have an 'affordable F-16 and AV-8B replacement' with a gross weight heavier than that of the F/A-18C and approaching that of the F-15C and F-14.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3757 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 5903 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 9):
OK. Anyway, I would like apologize to 747400sp because this is indeed interesting. Here we have an 'affordable F-16 and AV-8B replacement' with a gross weight heavier than that of the F/A-18C and approaching that of the F-15C and F-14.




Do not worry ptrjong, your forgiven.   Also, thank you DiamondFlyer, for back me up.  





747400sp


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 week ago) and read 5703 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
I was just reading something on the F-35C, that stated that it weight is 70000 lbs, that near a Tomcat weight, so is this true, and why is this smaller plane so heavy?

The only time a Tomcat wieghed 70000, 72000 was it's max gross, was when it was loaded down with six AIM-54, two AIM-9 and two external tanks. Which happened usually only in flight test or if a shooting war had broken out betweewn NATO and the Warsaw pact and you had Backfires inbound.


User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4004 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5693 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 11):

Various sources give 74,350 lb (33,720 kg) as the F-14A's MTOW, which may be theoretical, but still.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5591 times:

IIRC the Tomcat had different Max Take Off weights for carrier and land based operations. I think 70,000lb was the max the catapult could put off the deck. The MTOW of 74,350lbs was for land operations.

BTW I'm pretty sure that 6 phoenix + 2 aim-9 + max internal and external fuel didn't near reach MTOW for land ops. I'm also pretty sure it could get off a carrier in that configuration but couldn't land back on a carrier with 6 phoenix and min fuel.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4779 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5381 times:

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 7):

It is my understanding that size is a liability should it ever come down to ACM. An Eagle driver once told the planform area of an F-15 is almost identical to that of a tennis court, and the much smaller F-16 made it formidable in visual engagements. There are, of course, litterally thousands of other factors that drive wing sizing.





Think about what you are saying and try to imagine the real size of a tennis court.


Now, back to reality, compared to an F16 the Eagle is huge, and many expressions may have been used to express it's size ,


But, Just try using a little less imagination..



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 592 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5252 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):

Max Q,

You ARE right! An F-15 does NOT have the area of a tennis court. That being said, I am working on getting together an image that shows them both on the same scale.

Thanks for making me think a little more about quoting what is told to me without thinking a little more about it first! I don't have Internet at the house, so it may take me a little while to generate the image.

Fwiw, I don't think you can park an F-15 within the dimensions of a tennis court! We'll see  

Cheers!

SLCPilot



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 592 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 days ago) and read 5228 times:

Howdy,

While I do not claim this image to be an exact scale, it is probably close enough for government work! The F-15 clearly does not have the area of a tennis court. At the same time, it is impossible to park one within the boundries of a tennis court!

Cheers!

SLCPilot





I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5058 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 12):
Various sources give 74,350 lb (33,720 kg) as the F-14A's MTOW, which may be theoretical, but still.

You forgot the 8 ounces.  


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4779 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5005 times:

That's a great comparison image SLC,





The F15 is certainly a huge fighter, but the unquestioned biggest fighter out there was the magnificent F14 Tomcat.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2319 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4916 times:

Biggest Fighter/Interceptor, Tu-28/-128,

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=357

http://www.flankers-site.co.uk/modl_other_files/tu-128_04.jpg

That was a big fighter.



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4779 posts, RR: 19
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4653 times:

Hey, that's only about three inches long, how is that biggest ?!







Seriously, you have me there, have to be careful about comparisons on this website..



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Is It True That A F-35C Is Super Heavy.
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Super SeaSprites For The RAN, Is It The End? posted Mon May 15 2006 09:59:38 by Ozair
IAF Scored Over Uasf Is It True. posted Thu Jun 24 2004 18:11:45 by HAWK21M
Nighthawk 1 At Kjfk Now, Who Is It? posted Sun Nov 27 2011 10:06:27 by EGSUcrew
Article On Eads And Germany - Is It Accurate? posted Thu Aug 6 2009 13:08:44 by Tugger
I Have Old Soviet Air Force Stuff, What Is It posted Tue Jul 21 2009 19:03:01 by Espion007
Is It Me , Our Dose F18 And E-2 Look Smaller? posted Sun Aug 17 2008 17:26:23 by 747400sp
Is Super Hornet That Much Better Than F-14? posted Sat Dec 11 2010 11:10:28 by bmacleod
USN F-4B Phantom #153045...Where Is It? posted Sun Dec 16 2007 21:47:39 by FlagshipAZ
Who's Plane Is This? And What Is It Used For? posted Sat Dec 1 2007 20:52:26 by Boeingluvr
The Chinese J-10 Fighter: Is It Any Good? posted Mon Sep 24 2007 21:11:18 by Alberchico
Who's Plane Is This? And What Is It Used For? posted Sat Dec 1 2007 20:52:26 by Boeingluvr

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format