F-35 consumes 5000lb fuel and flew 1450 Km.

I pointed out in my first post above something similar regarding IAS and knots. What I meant is the range claim stays the same whatever the claimed speed.
So what does we know about Flanker opimal Altitude and IAS?
Between those two jet, CI is different, then there is Cd.
And at which parameters are Ranges claimed, etc etc.

knots or IAS.. it doesn’t matter much.
.

While I will apologize for the tone ahead of time (I can be rude to certain posters), and I do appreciate opposite points of view when they come from intelligently formed arguements.

However, a trend is apparent. Those most vociferous in their criticism of the F-22/35 tend to be those who author posts like the above that show they have no idea what the h*ll they are talking about.

knots or IAS.. it doesn’t matter much

knots = 1.852 km/h
IAS = indicated air speed which change dramatically with altitude even if aircraft moving at the same speed

And IAS can either be in knots or mph
In other words , it matter alot

Next stupid thread will perhaps be the F-35 out leg the Flanker or something along those lines..

And why would that be stupid ? the yet have more fuel fraction and quite efficient engine. It entirely possible that it could out range the Flanker

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dragon029/comments/3g7c4o/f35_5000lb_fuel_burn_for_airventure/

This jet is highly efficient in cruising. It flew from Florida to AirVenture, 900 miles (1450KM) and consumes only 5000lb of fuel.

knots or IAS.. it doesn’t matter much.
The clear takeaway, is that this was a one way trip flight. Whatever the article claims, the jet most likely had no weapons. We don’t know if take-off and climbing to cruise ceiling is included. Lots of holes in here.
Next stupid thread will perhaps be the F-35 out leg the Flanker or something along those lines..

1 kt = 1.852 km / hr.

270 kts = 500.04 km / hr.

500.04 / 60 = 8.334 km / min.

If F-35 flied 2 hrs and 10 mins with the same speed of 270 kts, then the range that it flied shall be: 8.334 x 130 = 1,083.42 km.

ro/ro0= 1083/1450=0.75 -> square -> 0.56 -> flown theoretically at 6000m/18500ft (does not include climb, descent, wind and traffic which will raise the computed altitude (cruise speed is different from distance from point A to B divided by distance)

Quick sheet here: http://www.experimentalaircraft.info/flight-planning/aircraft-navigation-speed.php
Standard Atmosphere: http://www.braeunig.us/space/atmos.htm

Done in 3 min (and had to be edited 😮 )

1 kt = 1.852 km / hr.

270 kts = 500.04 km / hr.

500.04 / 60 = 8.334 km / min.

If F-35 flied 2 hrs and 10 mins with the same speed of 270 kts, then the range that it flied shall be: 8.334 x 130 = 1,083.42 km.

…with the disclaimer “in full war equipment” i’m guessing he refer to “warload” TM,
-a couple of 2000 lbs bombs presumably, since that is when F-35 shine

optimal alt for F-35 is ~27k

Hanche (F-35 pilot) has said that the F-35 cruises 10000-15000 feet higher and 50-80 knots faster than the F-16 (link has google translate). So if you get your aviation information from F-35 pilots and Obligatory, the F-16’s optimum cruise altitude is 12000-17000 feet.

[QUOTE=obligatory;2359500]optimal alt for F-35 is ~ 27K

But the slide you inserted is titled “military power”, which is defined as max thrust below afterburner. I doubt the jet would use military power for a cross country to an airshow, so optimal range profile may have different speed and altitude that that chart.

Likely around 35-40k feet

That’s were a Boeing 747 would fly…

If anything I would Say 30000ft’ish

optimal alt for F-35 is ~27k

So you extrapolated optimal cruise altitude from that chart?
Or did you pull that from the university of Vermont undergraduate paper on the F-35 based on student analysis using an F-16 airfoil?

you cant just use boeings jumbo jet range as F-35 range, F-35 is shorter ranged than the jumbo too

I’m not.

I am just pointing out that the f-35 doesn’t look less aerodynamically deficient for flying long range than a modern wide-body airliner – so what if the F-35 looks fat.

Incidentally, did the Globalflyer cruise at mach 0.8 – 0.9, or carry a huge payload like the example above?

optimal alt for F-35 is ~27k

Let me fix it for you.
y
There is a significant difference between ground speed and IAS depending on which altitude.

So at which altitude did this F-35 flew those 900miles on only 5000Ib fuel?

Likely around 35-40k feet

you cant just use boeings jumbo jet range as F-35 range, F-35 is shorter ranged than the jumbo too

as always, it depend what you compare with, the jumbo is short legged compared to globalflyer,
this plane looks to have envious low wing load and high fuel fraction, coupled with very low fuel consumption.

We’re comparing the flight range of the F-35 with other recent, tactical combat aircraft, obviously.

as always, it depend what you compare with, the jumbo is short legged compared to globalflyer,
this plane looks to have envious low wing load and high fuel fraction, coupled with very low fuel consumption.

That is a “clean” airframe, not a “sleek” one.

At subsonic speeds the F-35 is sleek enough – certainly no less sleek than a Boeing 747, and nobody has every called the Jumbo ‘short-legged’.

Let me fix it for you.

There is a significant difference between ground speed and IAS depending on which altitude.

So at which altitude did this F-35 flew those 900miles on only 5000Ib fuel?

With the weight of only 5000 Ib of fuel you could be flying quite high and save even more fuel. Therefore IAS and ground speed would be very different.