It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Thrust to weight Ratios and the f-35

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Hi
I have been having fun recently calculating thrust to weight ratio on various jet. Most need to use burners to do pure vertical climbs which is fair.

When I play with the number the F-35 does not appear to able to do sustain vertical climbs. I appreciated that it very manuverable and can do m 1,6 but.....

Or is it aerodynamically efficient enough that it does it regardless Or does it Have more than 40,000 lbs of thrust?

Thank for the input




posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: SmilingROB

what are you thoughts on the B2? done any math?



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: SmilingROB

The F135-PW-100 in the A is rated at 43,000 pounds, the PW-600 in the B is 41,900, and the PW-400 in the C is 43,000. They are doing a PIP program to get to the full ratings.
edit on 2/24/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: jedi_hamster

What about it? The thrust to weight?



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

40,000 is the highest number I could find mention on F-16 .net , wiki etc.

Thank you Zaphod for the 43,000 lbs.

This was an impulse post on my behalf. i.am at the library because I burned all the data on my phone looking up planes and comparing numbers From memory the the best number I got for the F35 was varying with loads from .63ish to .81(burner)

I will produce a number for the B2 but it's irrelevant because of the antigravity unit ...ha ha ha hah.

My apologizes for for being unprepared. I will post my numbers Asap.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: SmilingROB

They're currently at 40,000. If I remember the timeline correctly, the next PiP will bump them up to the next level.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: jedi_hamster

What about it? The thrust to weight?


more or less, yeah. i saw some claims about B2 connected to townsend brown's research, never did any serious research about B2 myself so i'm not sure what's true and what isn't.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: jedi_hamster

The official T/W, max takeoff weight, max power is right around 0.2 or so. It will improve as it lightens, but it's never going to get very good.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: jedi_hamster

The official T/W, max takeoff weight, max power is right around 0.2 or so. It will improve as it lightens, but it's never going to get very good.


so it's true, just not really that impressive?

or are you dodging the orange clothes here?



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: jedi_hamster

Bombers never have a good T/W. They're designed to cruise long distances as efficiently as possible, not throw themselves around like a fighter. Even the B-1 is only about a 0.65 or so.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

[cut]

i'm an idiot. thanks, Zaphod.
edit on 24/2/2017 by jedi_hamster because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: SmilingROB



Thrust to weight Ratios and the f-35


IMESHO, the F-35 is a waste and a doomed design because they gave it only a single engine and it is bulky in flight.
The US Navy is reconsidering replacing the F-18.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: jedi_hamster

Bombers never have a good T/W. They're designed to cruise long distances as efficiently as possible, not throw themselves around like a fighter. Even the B-1 is only about a 0.65 or so.


en.wikipedia.org...

Even the XB-70 was in that range. Its also to be pointed out that the F135-PW - is early in its development cycle (even though it is itself a derivative of the F119) and no doubt Pratt will incrementally improve thrust, fuel economy, and increase the number of flight hours between overhaul etc so

They also are using it as a baseline for a presumed 6th gen fighter in the 45K thrust range.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: redoubt

I don't think it is doomed by any measure. I'm not a fan of the F-35 (haha thats funny esp with the B model), but the Navy needs a stealth airframe and this one is ready to go.

I think you will see a High - lo mix for the future esp with the F-35C. The -18 E/F plus the advanced version mixed in with F-35's

The F-35 can provide BARCAP and a formidable strike capacity esp in contested airspace. The -18's can act as missile trucks with a long range A2A missile (like say a meteor) with the E-2 and F-35 (or USAF aircraft) providing cuing



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: redoubt

No they aren't. They're looking at buying new aircraft to replace the ones that can't fly because they're in such horrible condition. Something like 2/3rds of the Hornet fleet is currently not available for anything.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 11:34 PM
link   
The F-35A is a 29,098 lb aircraft (empty) with a 43,000 lb thrust engine. Max takeoff weight is 70,000 lb. That means the thrust-to-weight ratio will vary from 0.61 to 1.48. The thrust-to-weight ratio will be greater than 1 when the aircraft has less than 13902 lb of pilot, fuel, and payload.

Of course, actual engine thrust will vary depending on a number of conditions.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Love the F-35 hate
. It will serve it's purpose and beyond. All the anti F-35 folks treat us as if we consider it the 'end all platform'. It is far from it.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Theprimevoyager

It's been comedy gold watching the mental gymnastics over Red Flag. It'll be a damn good platform, but what's coming after it will be game changing.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




but what's coming after it will be game changing.


???????????



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

All the big three are working towards sixth generation as we speak.




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join