Scorpion82Thankyou for explaining. Is the T-50 only around 1000kg lighter than the F-22 at empty weight though?
Those data stated aren’t official and just guesses. The T-50 might be even heavier given its size. We’ll certainly learn more in the future, but the time hasn’t come yet.
Scorpion82And while I don’t believe the F-35 to be a world-beater performance wise, anecdotal evidence of excellent climb rates for the aircraft exist from test pilots and those who watch from outside NAS Fort Worth…
It is not the slug, many of you want it to be…
It won’t be a slug, but probably not the F-22 like performer either as some die hard fanboys insist, just because it matches/closely matches the F-22s performance in some regimes of the envelope.
Edit:
thanks for the photos, but what is the evidence that the “big mouth” Viper was clean during that test?
Scorpion82I was informed that there was only around a one thousand kg difference between the two different aircraft at empty weight. Can I ask where the five ton difference you claim has been sourced from?
The original plans saw the F-22 weighting some 14365 kg only. The aircraft weights 19700 kg nowadays or ~5t more.
Scorpion82On this occasion, the F-16 chase plane did NOT have external stores and was a Block 30 with the “big mouth” air inlet and “big” motor…
Is there any prove for it? Or was it just a photo of a test flight presented to the news release? This statement also led to the “F-35 accelerates as fast on dry thrust as the F-16 with reheat” claims widely spread by the fanboys. While the truth is brief AB inputs.
Scorpion82Is T-50 really over 3m longer than F-22, and over 1m greater wingspan? I can see wing span being such, but I’m a bit surprised about the length.
In that case almost identical wing area doesn’t make sence to me. T-50 appearence in videos evens uggest larger wing area to me. Maybe because of wider spread vertical stabilizers. What do yu guys think?
You can ignore that data. It dates back from times prior the aircraft was unveiled. In other words its fanboy guesswork. Sukhoi or other official sources haven’t disclosed the specifications and the videos appear to confirm what officials stated a few years ago “between the MiG-29 and Su-27”. The T-50 is definitely shorter and lower than the Su-27 and its wing span might be a bit lower as well.
Scorpion82I think the Typhoon was originally developed with an in service date around 1995.
But first flight was only in 1994. IN addition to the usual delays that any such complex program incurs (especially multinational programs) in the early 90s Germany was a big cause of delays.
They wanted to withdraw from the Eurofighter consortium in order to finance the reunification, then proposed a much cheaper and scaled down variant, in the end, facing huge penalties from the other nation partners, they accepted to go on with the original plan, modifying their committment to 140 examples plus 40 after 2014.At the end of the 90s it was clear that the Typhoon was still some year behind entering service, forcing the Italian Air Force to look for a second stop gap measure after the lease of RAF Tornados ADV in the form of ex ANG F-16A ADF, which are still in service.
Typhoon entered service around 2004
For a couple of months the Italian Air Force had 4 different kind of air defence fighters:
the last F-104S ASA/M Starfighter, Tornado ADV, F-16A ADF and EF-2000 Typhoon 🙂
If we take it correctly the early plans for a new combat aircraft called for an ISD around 1990. When the Eurofighter programme was subsequently launched in 1983 it was already clear that such a date couldn’t be hold and 1995 was the new date. It still took some years before the development phase was finally launched (1988) and the specified in service date (ISD) was 1997 at that point. Btw the AMI leased the Tornado ADVs in the time frame from 1993 to 1995.
Regarding the German plans they were for 250 aircraft in the 80s. The renegotiations about the numbers were started in December 1995 with all partner nations reducing, but the numbers were changed again just a month later. Here is a small list about the numbers at different states of the programme:
1988: UK 250, Germany 250, Italy 165, Spain 100
December 1995: UK 232, Germany 140, Italy 130, Spain 87
January 1996: UK 232, Germany 180, Italy 121, Spain 87
It might be worth noting that so far just the Tranches 1, 2 & 3A are ordered, while T3B is in doubt. Taking aircraft diverted to export customers into account we now have:
UK 160, Germany 143, Italy 96, Spain 73
Scorpion82Thankyou for your information.
What I don’t understand is something that me and a friend were discussing last night and that is the Typhoon was six to seven years late and yet is still considered a good worthy program. Then when we talked about the JSF he claimed it was a disaster because it was, according to him two years late. He was steadfast in his conviction that it was a disaster but at the same time claimed Typhoon wasn’t because it, in his words worked out in the end very well and is faster. I couldn’t understand his way of thinking but maybe he knows something I don’t?
He also claimed the Typhoon would be able to do any mission the JSF can and says our government knows this but just wants to futher ally itself with America, is this true or somewhat streatching the truth?
The F-35 is certainly not a failure because it is 2 years late, though it is certain that the programme will suffer from additional delays. What has to be taken into account however is that the Eurofighter programme was launched in the 80s, the end of the cold war and the german reunification weren’t predictable at that time and those political events had a significant impact on many defence programmes. The JSF was launched in the mid 90s, so there weren’t comparable events with such a political significance. Whether the Typhoon will be able to perform the same missions depends on what weapons are integrated, it doesn’t mean it can perform all of them as well as the F-35 and the other way round. Both aircraft are designed with entirely different priorities. Intercepting enemy bombers with their fighter escorts is certainly a job the Typhoon is better suited for. On the other side the F-35 will be better able to attack ground targets in a well defended high threat environment for example.
Scorpion82The first number i’ve come across on the T-50:
1. about air intakes, the latest version of Paralia: “And here is the S-shaped and one hundred percent screening of the compressor. By the way the hatch over the channel is also involved, may well replace the mechanical adjustment.”
2. Fuel system T-50
Tank number 1 1.11 x 0.99 x 2.6 = 1.42
Tank number 2 1.48 x 2.28 x 12.3 = 3.46
Tank number 3 1.02 x 0.96 x 8.38 = 2.02
Tank number 4 1.51 x 0.54 x 5.98 = 1.7
Tank number 5 (1,0 x 0,31 x 3,17) x 2 = 2 (beam)
Tank number 6 (0,55 x 0,8 x 6,58) x 2 = 5.8 (wing)Volume of tanks 1.42 + 3.46 + 2.02 + 1.7 + 2 + 5.8 = 16.4
Weight of fuel 16,4 x 0.785 = 12,900 kg3. Empty weight 18500 kg, the engine ed. 129 2 x 18500 kg.
Weight normal number 1 (60% fuel)
18500 (blank) + 100 (pilot) + 7500 kg (fuel) + 2490 kg (10 SD) = 28590 kg
Wing loading 275 kg / sq.m, Thrust 1.29 kg / kg18500 (blank) + 100 (pilot) + 7500 kg (fuel) + 3070 kg (12 SD) = 29170 kg
Wing loading 280 kg / sq.m, Thrust 1.27 kg / kgWeight normal number 2 (100% fuel)
18500 (blank) + 100 (pilot) + 12900 kg (fuel) + 2490 kg (10 SD) = 33990 kg
Wing loading 327 kg / sq.m, Thrust 1.09 kg / kg18500 (blank) + 100 (pilot) + 12900 kg (fuel) + 3070 kg (12 SD) = 34570 kg
Wing loading 332 kg / sq.m, Thrust 1.07 kg / kgMaximum Weight
18500 (blank) + 100 (pilot) + 7500 kg (fuel) + 8000 kg (16 AB-500) + 1600 kg (8 DB) + 760 kg (4 SD-SD) + 400 kg (4 CRA) + 170 kg ( SD MD) = 37030 kg
Wing loading 356 kg / sq.m, thrust-weight ratio 1.0 kg / kgAB-500-air bombs
SD-DB-driven long-range missile
SD SD-guided medium-range missiles
SD-MD-guided short-range missiles
Where dies these fuel load data and the other data come from?
Scorpion82Whilst we are on the subject of the Typhoon, may I enquire as to why wikipedia claims the aircraft was four and a half years late into service and also why it claims the costs ran a total of £13 billion over budget.
Is any of this true? As far as I understood from numerous T.V shows and magazines the Typhoon was below cost and whats more in service on schedule. :confused:
Thanks for any help.
The Typhoon was late for many reasons, several years and much depends on what you see as the starting point. If you take the plans from 1988 (development start) as reference the aircraft is about 6-7 years late. Don’t know the original cost plan, but the total programme cost have gone up to a certain extend.
Scorpion82The AMI won’t use the Typhoon in the AG role anymore. It was temporarily planned at some point, but that’s history now.
The Typhoon doesn’t need a TFR it has a TRN, but the aircraft will operate at higher altitudes anyway. In comparison to the Tornado the Typhoon offers some advantages depending on the configuration.
Scorpion82This was from 2006
Source
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/weight_watchers.html?c=y&page=8Cheers
Interestingly most of the numbers from the Davisday.pdf adds up and confirms the weight savings at all.
Scorpion82The Typhoon was meant to fill a secondary AG role from the very beginning, it’s a common misunderstanding that the aircraft was never meant to perform AG missions. It is necessary to understand that the deployability depends on pilots as well. There seem not to be to much pilots ready for that role to sustain such a commitment, not all T1 aircraft has been upgraded with the AG package, many T1 have to run through the R2 upgrade and are therefore unavailable, T2 won’t receive it, next to the QRA commitments it is necessary to keep up training and opeval of new standards and the EPW II currently available isn’t overly well suited for the theater as well.
Scorpion82Documents from 2004 through 2006.
In order for any numbers OTHER THAN those disclosed in 2007 to be you have to believe that in 2004 they were 5,000-6,000 lbs over what they were in 2003 AND that the 2 yearts + $6.2 billion only cut the 15-20% SINGLE YEAR (2003-2004) weight growth in half.
Do you have any links, to documents prior 2006 which state these weight figures?
Scorpion82ONE MORE TIME
Prior to weight reduction the weight estimates of the F-35 were…
2002
F-35A: 26,500 lbs
F-35B: 29,735 lbs
F-35C: 30,049 lbs
2003
F-35A: 27,100 lbs
F-35B: 30,500 lbs
F-35C: 30,700 lbs
2004-2006
F-35A: 29,036 lbs
F-35B: 32,161 lbs
F-35C: 32,072 lbsAfter weight reduction the weight of the F-35 IS…
F-35A: 26,664 lbs
F-35B: 29,695 lbs
F-35C: 29,996 lbsEngage your brains for once & recongize the impossibility that after weight reduction that the F-35 could be EXACTLY THE SAME WEIGHT as they were before weight reduction OR heavier ( & exact intervals of 100 lbs).
Not necessarily if the data stated in the davisday.pdf were wrong in the first place. It could also be that the data from the programme briefing from 2006 were already post weight reduction figures and that the over weight figures were never released at all. But of course it could be that LM just didn’t updated its website and that the person who assembled the may 2009 programme brief simply took the data from an older source as well. Do you have any pre 2006 documents which state the weight?
Scorpion82Not quite so the JSF Brief 14May2009.pdf states empty weights for all variants, which are:
A = 29036 lb
B = 32161 lb
C = 32072 lb
The official website states them as well http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/
A = 29300 lb
B = 32000 lb
C = 34800 lb
So we have at least one more up to date source stating higher empty weights than the Davisday pdf from 30th October 2007 and at least one official source which states higher weights as well.
Sign In
