See the bottom of this graphic…

I’m not commenting on the “fixed” airframe drag on F-35(don’t have the stamina anymore). But its something in between yes. All that fuel inside rather than outside. The Wing swept angle and Airfoil Is another part of the Fixed drag.

But what i said, is when you put on all that weight, the FCS on F-35 will have to compensate by trimming the jet in flight. Which means nose up. Here is the Lift/weight and drag comes in.

Funny enough, when you guys sweet talk about the F-35 being “clean” outside, well all that volume and weight goes inside the jet.
F-135 or not, the Airframe is showing its limitations.

Would be interesting to know how much fuel the F-35 carry on daily flight.. is it always topped on Take-off, When will the next Block allow 9G manuvere etc

What is amusing is that if this discussion were to turn to the Su-27/30/35 family of aircraft, which of course have relatively large fuel fractions relative to other 4th generation designs, you would happily turn everything you just said around and argue the opposite.

All fighter designs are collections of compromises. Sukhoi designed the Su-27 with a huge internal fuel capacity because they wanted it to have long range without external tanks. The F-15C, like most other 4th generation designs, was built with the assumption that it would be carrying external tanks most of the time. Which of these decisions was correct? Obviously they both have some advantages and disadvantages.

One could simply acknowledge that, but of course that wouldn’t support trolling very well would it?

Have we been to the moon?

Hang on, let me get my calculator…

:confused:

… it isn’t looking good. 🙁

Gentlemen, do we all know how to count? Let’s not believe in a word, but check what they tell us. Ok?

What is that even supposed to mean?

There have been over 200 F-35s produced and they have flown over 100,000 hours thus far. This hasn’t been about models or estimates for a long time.

The F-35A will fly about 670 nautical miles in a strike profile and about 760 nautical miles in an air to air mission.

There is plenty of air…

:stupid:

…and there you have it.

Nobody has come within ~20k ft of the altitude you are proposing operating at, and even then it was in a highly specialized experimental vehicle, but you think there is “plenty of air” for your doodle to fly.

in fact in 500 km altitude some air can still be detected..but space starts at 100 km for specific reason.
Most aero braking will happen between 80-30 km altitude for space rockets so there has to be lots and lots of air….not for 747 or F-16 though.

Solar Impulse carries half or more of its mass as batteries for nite flying…so a bigger ship can easily carry a small jettisonable rocket.

It is big..it is in wingarea biggest ever designed ( doodled as you prefer )..latest has 110 m span. The lifting fuselage sorta doubles the area.

The flying flat iron/ brick called shuttle actually revealed that the control can be regained ( aerodynamic ) at 110 km altitude. Shuttle design has 50 x more wingloading than this what I am proposing.

A space shuttle:

1. Isn’t in level flight.

2. Is moving at hypersonic speeds at those altitudes

Sir HOPSALOT !

I had this space going idea too; http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewt…?f=94&t=116239

Possibly you could reconsider when you realize that this is still coutable with Bernoulli physics.

Vincent Burnelli / De Monge lifting body retought in an solar ship in almost size of the Paul Allen Stratolaunch would actually be able to operate at 46 km ( correct 36 km ) ( in paper the lift force at 900 km/h ) brings the 25 metric tons rocket into that altitude ( 46 km ). I did not even bother count the absolute altitude for the ship without payload but it may be under 50 km ( I hoped for 80 km initially ) I also had no precise data of the air qualities above 45 km ( 38 km ).

Key element to understand this is the low IAS number…the plane will fly at very low IAS number all the way to avoid the coffin corner. You all understand this right ?

Have a good day ladies and gentlemen !

———————————————–

EDIT : Sorry the altitude where I counted the highest altitude with payload is to 36 km…..I had it written down elsewhere and had to recheck it.

So also the empty ceiling has to be lower perhaps just 38-40 km.

Last edited by topspeed; 30th July 2017 at 08:47.

What does this have to do with fighters, military aviation, or reality?

I too could “design” amazing aircraft if unconstrained by the laws of mathematics or physics.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]255046[/ATTACH]

Sopwith Triplane like C-130 gunship are fighting aircraft.

Sopwith Triplane -was- a fighting aircraft, ~100 years ago. That is like saying that the USS Constellation is a “fighting ship.”

[ATTACH=CONFIG]255020[/ATTACH]

The AC-130 may be in service today, but is a specialized ground attack platform only and has nothing to do with a discussion of fighters. (or electric power, or anything else in this thread)

An aerodyne capable to fly high if able to fly 100-120 km/h at sealevel will fly 700-800 km/h at 30-35 km.

Um, no. The Sopwith Triplane could fly significantly faster than 100-120km/h at sealevel and of course couldn’t come anywhere close to flying at 30-35km. Do you have any idea how few aircraft can come close to that altitude?

Even the U-2, a highly specialized high altitude aircraft, which can incidentally fly well above 100-120km/h at sea level, can’t come close to 30-35 km altitude.
(nor could the far more modern Proteus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_Proteus )

That may have some strategic use. No aeroplane missile can hit it…and it can target anyone it wishes….while using no fossil fuel.

I have no idea where you got this impression. Like everything else you have posted in this thread it has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.

The AIM-54 Phoenix missile could reach as high as 30km altitude… reaching such an altitude would be trivial with modern technology if there was a good reason to do so.

As for what your imaginary armed Helios could “target,” with what? It has no radar, effectively zero load carrying capacity, and is effectively stationary in a discussion of any other aircraft.