Designed and built by Lockheed in 1943 and delivered just 143 days from the start of the design process, production models were flying, and two pre-production models did see very limited service in Italy just before the end of World War II. Example: the empty weight of the CFTs (900 lbs) being more than the pylon/empty 300 lb tank weight of 569 lbs). But we're not there yet. Why ‘weight’? Taking an aerodynamically degraded legacy F-16 as a point of comparison for an exceedingly modern new jet seems inappropriate. I think their drag at cruise is essentially zero. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse aide If nece eary and Identify hv block number) A method to calculate wind tunnel drag coefficient uncertainty for a point on a fitted lift-drag curve is developed. So let's say that the F-35 gets upgrades to both its internal payload of AMRAAM's (up from 4 to 6) and its engine (10% greater thrust via adaptive engine technology), then you'll have a thrust to weight ratio, fully fueled and armed, of .92 (47,300 lbs thrust, 51,400 lbs loaded weight). LamDes Trim Performance Results 6. But that would be a reasonable upper bound. Military aviation forum mainly focusing on the F-16, F-35 and F-22 jet fighters. … Drag Divergence 3. So I would imagine that, apples to apples, an F-16 block 60 configured for air-to-air combat will outperform an identically configured F-35A. Once upon a time designers positioned the horizontals to interact with wing flow as little as possible, now it looks like they leverage the interaction. I estimated a DI uppers on the Block 60 to be the same as the Block 50, which would be DI upper = 22 or 24 depending upon tank used as basis. Since this little exercise is about ‘understanding’ and not ‘quantifying’, I am comfortable working within these limitations. Not known is if there are unseen relative differences in inlet design that affect not only installed thrust but also effective cross-sectional area, bur I believe we've captured the dominant difference drivers. The far left corner of the curve is roughly 0 degrees angle of attack. But where I think you will see significant differences will be in sustained turn, rate of climb, and raw speed. The F-35C’s wing and tail surface wave drag contribution due to ‘volume’ is therefore significantly greater than that for the F-35A and B. Take a look at a second hand on your watch or clock. As the range of airspeed from .8 Mach to Mach 1.1 is the same, and the same air density (same altitude) are common to all variants, this reduces the number of variables on the drag side of the thrust-drag equation to two: the Drag Coefficient and the Cross-Sectional area. This is because the F-35C has a much bigger wing and control surfaces (more on this too in the next section). 2011. •The drag divergence number was calculated to be 0.89 and the critical mach number was then found to be 0.78. ). Fantastic stuff, for the F-35B engines number's here is a source.http://www.pw.utc.com/Content/F135_Engine/pdf/B-2-4_F135_SpecsChart.pdf2k(5%) less Max and 1k(4%) less Mil thrust. " Drag coefficient for a pitched baseball equals 0.35. To make the next part of our exploration as widely accessible and understood as possible, our goal will be to continue to minimize the amount of math and physics to the greatest practical extent: keeping things as simple as we can without doing violence to the phenomena. The good news is our limitations will make this section mercifully short. Guys,I used the HAF F-16 manual and this article:http://defense-update.com/products/c/F-16-CFT.htmfor the drag estimation of centerline fuel tank. And its lift coefficient is about 2.1 to 2.2, ranking the first in the world. Informative article but IMO the proper comparison would be to an F-16 Block 60 rather than legacy aircraft whose aerodynamics have suffered due to additional external loads imposed by iterative upgrades and range requirements non-optimal to its original design. The F-35C wings also present an effectively increased cross-section to the airstream at the wing-folds (#4). If we take the empty weights, add half-internal fuel weight and the basic ‘day-one’ combat weapons load weight (with a wedge ‘rounding-up’ to account for the weight of weapon interfaces of each of the three variants), we arrive at a ‘likely’ set of aircraft weights for the Transonic Acceleration KPP: These configurations, whether exactly those used for the Transonic Acceleration KPP or not, are at least representative of the aircraft weights before release of air-to-ground stores and at the mid-mission point. And overall superior raw speed and aerodynamic performance excepting low speed maneuver and AOA. Suppose a 145 g baseball with a diameter of 7.4 cm has an initial speed of 40.2 m/s (90 mph). They were designed for raw aerodynamic performance. Drag index less than or equal to 50. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Total weight around 36,000 lbs.
a !1AQa"q�2���B#$Rb34�r�C%�S��cs5��&D�TdE£t6�U�e���u��F'���������������Vfv��������7GWgw��������(8HXhx�������� )9IYiy�������� The problem with putting anything on the basic F-16 is that it affects the total weight by a greater % than a baseline heavier aircraft. Even this kind of comparison without hard data would be impossible if we were comparing completely different aircraft, or if we were seeking to quantify the differences instead of just understanding them. On the other hand, with the F-35B we would expect installed thrust penalties due to the added mass of the lift fan drive shaft and open roll-control ducting, the shaft passing through the bifurcated air inlets where they meet, as well as the different exhaust nozzle. (Note: We’ll get to the B and C KPPs in passing as we proceed.). The (obvious) answer is to gain a position advantage against an enemy in the air or on the ground by reaching that position to achieve an advantage before an enemy can position themselves to counter it. *:JZjz���������� �� ? The Rayan XV-5A had two fans-in-wing powered by the exhaust gases of its two turbojets. With the Block 60 there are no extra pylons dragging you down from dropped fuel tanks or targeting pods. As it stands, it should still be viewed as superior to a Block 50/52 F-16. The aerodynamic drag is a quadratic function of the velocity. For which it seems almost identical aerodynamically. (section 9.4.3). Is it possible the F-35A exceeds the initial predicted acceleration but just barely misses the full expectation? The F-35 has a fan behind the cockpit which provides, with the nozzle of the main engine swiveled, the thrust required for hover. (I am excluding aircraft that have had all sorts of various bulges and blisters scabbed on post-manufacture). In this case you should be around parity for transonic accelleration and maneuver. This comment has been removed by the author. This Wiki site gives further data on the Su35, such as max thrust and wing area. Fu Qianshao said that the conventionally deployed US F-22 fighter has a lift coefficient reported to be about 1.7 and a supersonic cruise zero-lift drag coefficient of about 0.035. -35′s acceleration is “very comparable” to a Block 50/52 F-16, Air Command and Staff College paper authored in 2008, in testimony before an Australian Parliamentary Committee in 2013, The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change, Debunking The Close Air Support Myths: Part 1. studied 5th generation fighters F-22 and F-35. But considering we have multiple sources (#5, #6 above) citing excellent acceleration characteristics compared to an F-16 that imply superior initial acceleration, and the analyses are based upon degraded engine performance (#7, #8 above) how likely is it that the 8 second difference is even operationally relevant? Fig 13. Like I said, I think realistically the proper comparison should be made to the F/A-18 Super Hornet. We will ignore the air to ground aspect in thinking about the F-35s transonic acceleration KPPs and assume that because they are set at a 0K ft altitude, there wasn't a lot of Air-to-Mud consideration behind them. Parasite Drag Trend with Mach Number 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0.3 0.5 0.7 C d,o Mach Number F-22 Parasite Drag Breakdown Vertical Tail Horizontal Tail Fuselage Wing. The ‘meaning’ we can derive from the revised F-35A transonic dash KPP is this: It. Optimized shape is obtained at Mach 1.61 which is the certified max speed for the F-35 fighter jet. Equivalent range and combat load out. We're seeing this kind of planform more and more (PAK-FA comes to mind). @Mac, My understanding of the F-16's CFTs is that at transonic speeds they induce pitching moments which in results in increased trim drag. Pylon DI= 7. Commentary and discussion on world events from the perspective that all goings-on can be related to one of the six elements of National Power: Military, Economic, Cultural, Demographic, Organizational, & Geographical. The overall coefficient of drag for the F-35C. Unfortunately that link to that Australian Parliament session doesn't work for me and I can't read in what manner the paper was referenced. The thrust is a linear improvement over the Block 50 that decreases linearly with airspeed, but on the other side of the equation, the wave drag from the increased weight/lift needed increases much faster through M.9-1.1 (as shown in the charts)I'll take time to look at the problem after I wrap up the series. Number [-] M_VT [-] M_I [-] M_TL [-] 1 0,065 0,088 0,066. The article mentions specifically the CFT set as "12%" of 300 gallon tank, but that is a general statement that may be the average drag reduction for the 300 in the subsonic region. M1.18? In the Air-to-Air combat it is about either closing some distance to gain a superior position on an opponent or opening some distance to gain position or keep the opponent from gaining a position on you. The real drag adder is the external non-wingtip AMRAAMs and launchers (x2) =20. Thrust of 32,500 lbs with the new GE engine on afterburner. It is likely substantially less. M1.19? Here is what we know or has been reported as stated by the F-35 Program Participants including the user communities that will help guide the discussion. 1.6 60,000 ft 2,200 km F-‐104 2.45 ? As already noted, Wave Drag due to ‘volume’ as a contributor is characterized in terms of a cross-sectional area for some fixed length. As we will see, Kloos (Ref #6) understates the F-35A’s abilities compared to the Block 50/52, at least at the 30K ft KPP altitude (Ref #10). Maurader,It's my understanding that, yes, the F-16's CFT's have transonic drag. It's interesting to note that the A/B wing is even more of a hybrid straight/swept wing than the C because of the glove whose sweep angle is much greater than that of the wing itself. Part A: What is the magnitude of the ball's acceleration due to the drag force? High-Lift Devices Discussion 13. Drag index around 50-55 (the earlier 4 missile configuration being perhaps around 30). The F-35 and the Infamous Transonic Acceleration ‘Spec’ Change: The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change: Part 2. 2.2 58,000 ft 1,600 km. To summarize the relative differences between the variants that would affect transonic acceleration in a table: The first thing to understand about the transonic acceleration KPPs is that they are proxies for the reasons WHY a fighter aircraft would want to accelerate quickly through the transonic region in the first place. The drag chute is unique to Norwegian F-35A aircraft and rapidly decelerates Royal Norwegian Air Force F-35s after landing on the country's icy runways. While the US Air Force is completing another round of cold-weather testing of the F-35A at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska, Norway completed a successful verification of the drag chute system at Ørland Air Force Base in Norway February 16th. Drag of a 370 gal centerline tank w/no adjacent stores:DI=27. Norway's F-35 drag chute tested on icy runways By Leigh Giangreco 2017-11-27T19:25:06+00:00 Lockheed Martin is testing one of the most unique modifications to the F-35 Lightning II on icy runways. F-35 drag chute testing - General F-35 Foru . The chute creates aerodynamic drag-- also known as air resistance, using the force of wind to push in the opposite direction of the motion of the aircraft so it … 6. As a result we would expect the total drag of the F-35C in level flight to be much greater than the F-35A or F-35B due to having both a higher wing wave drag coefficient and greater cross-sectional area. The first question that springs from observing these differences is how much of the variation is due to variation in aerodynamic shape, propulsion efficiency, and weight? We also see that largely due to a smaller total fuel load and lower weapons payload, the F-35B needs to generate approximately 3-4.5% less lift to maintain level flight. Think of it as a ‘studies’ approach. The Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star was the first jet fighter used operationally by the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF). These times were asserted in an oft-referenced, FYI and FWIW, here’s one of the more decent explanations of a “Rutowski maneuver” that I’ve, (It's better at the source with the graphic), The most important performance ‘data’ in our hands are the believed-to-be-actual acceleration times. Drag 20. drag (drag due to shock waves). Actually, I think the real difference in wing design aerodynamics that is a big unknown is what does the C model trailing edge's close proximity to the horizontals do to the drag curve? Because it is an excellent proxy for examining relative lift differences between the variants which “weight”, in level flight, must equal “lift”—the major constituent driver of ‘drag’. Observe in the next figure that the peak drag coefficient ‘unloaded’ at around M1.1 is about the same as just before Mach 1 ‘loaded’, and that even in the typical Critical Mach range for fighter aircraft between M.8 to M.9 (Shaw, “Fighter Combat”, Pg. All Elements are interrelated and rarely can one be discussed without also discussing its impact on the others. The differences between the F-35A and B are more in the 'non-direct' lift regions of the cross-sectional area and are obviously due to the B model lift fan installation (#7). I can’t think of any other case where there are three ‘operational’ combat designs that are so close to each other but still different enough to tease out likely drivers of performance differences. News Successful F-35 Drag Chute Test In Norway Lockheed Martin // February 20, 2018. The Joint Strike Fighter is the next generation fighter to support the US Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, United Kingdom and defense partners in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, and Turkey. The F-35’s drag chute is mounted as a removable pod between the aircraft’s vertical stabilizers, according to Lockheed Martin. This large increase in drag is associated with an extensive region of supersonic flow over the airfoil, terminating in a … This gives you a thrust to weight ratio of .94 fully fueled and armed. The flight test drag coefficients at lift coefficients less than CL break (subscript 1 in equation . The shape differences between the F-35A and F-35C are far greater. Conclusion ... Bevilaqua, P., Inventing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, AIAA 2009-1650, 2009. The reference area depends on what type of drag coefficient … Whereas the first two topics of weight and aerodynamic shape dealt with the drag side of the acceleration equation, the engine installation aspect is relevant more on the thrust side of the equation. This seems to beg the question: how significant it is really that the F-35A is projected to exceed its KPP by 8 seconds? When deployed, the F-35 drag chute slows the forward motion of the F-35A on landing and provides control and stability. Note: We’re numbering the references for easing later analysis and possible discussion. (This also again illustrates a point made in the Sustained G discussion about the lighter an aircraft, the more sensitive its performance is to weight changes. The F-35 Integrated Test Flight team at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. recently completed in-air deployments of the Norwegian Drag Chute System. They are therefore ‘realistic’ for use as a baseline for our explorations. The F-35 weighs upward of 30,000 pounds, so the drag chute is made of kevlar. Faster sustained turns given you're not lugging around all that external hardware. The physical differences of the F-35B installation-- the integrated lift-fan at the front of the system, the articulated exhaust duct with a different afterburner and nozzle installation at the other end, as well as a roll control nozzle system tapping flow off of the core engine in the middle cannot ‘help’ the conventional-mode of operations. More on trapezoidal wings •Trapezoidal wings are mostly used by the US. If an F-16 with a 29,500 lb thrust engine at a drag index of 50 and weight of 36,000 lbs would be at parity with an F-35A, then it would stand to reason that an F-16 with a drag index of 50 and weight of 36,000 lbs but with a thrust of 32,500 lbs would be above parity. The acknowledgement that the F-35 can go some distance above Mach 1.2 without afterburner (to be shown in ‘What we know or think we know’, Ref #2 in Part 2 coming up) is a good indicator of the F-35A's drop in drag coefficient after Mach 1.1 as shown in the straight-wing graph vs a peak at Mach 1.55 as shown in the swept wing example. 15 Apr. I see weight as more important (back to lift and wave drag dominance). Watch it for 8 seconds. But rather F/A-18 Super Hornet like." We’ll model some likely weights (based upon the ‘Bowman Paper’ and acknowledged fuel and weapons carriage plans). I need to get some more modern aero books. Great analysis as usual. SMSgt Mac,Well, I had suggested that the transonic acceleration performance would be only moderately superior in the F-16 Block 60 working off the figures in your chart. Beyond the drag-divergence Mach number, the drag coefficient can become very large, typically increasing by a factor of 10 or more. X 35 A/B Drag Polar 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 Cd Cl These were graphed using the total drag coefficient against the lift coefficient rather than just the induced drag. Chris is currentl y the Flight . My back of a napkin calculations were a little rough so I rounded high to give the F-35 the benefit of the doubt next to the F-16. study for Nose cone shape of the F-35 fighter jet which purely consist the polynomial coefficients if the Parsec curve. CFD solves the compressible Euler equations for the domain. Given the center-line tank has the drag of the tank and the pylon, that means the CFTs have a drag count of '4' per set: the next best thing to putting the gas inside the main fuselage like an F-35 ;-). First, wing (#3) and horizontal stabilizer (#2) extensions as well as the taller vertical stabilizers (#1) add significant cross sectional area to the C model. The total uncertainty is shown to consist of two parts; that associated with the measurement process and that due to the curve fit. Hi Marauder. ?���>ϼ���� � ��K�_�����%��� ,�����ǿ��K�9_�����%�d� ��?ȗ���=� x� "_i�� � ��8~G��>��D�l�������FW�������в�� ,���}\�������ѕ�=� x� "[�� �}���z�������FW�������_� ,������������ǿ��M�� ��g�?ȗ���>ϼ�/_+�{���E�ѳ����g�?ȋ�d����S�FO��������� g�?ȑ�#�}�x� "_h�� � ��>���E�x� "^�Dg�?ȗ�2ǿ��H�� ��}����������ǿ��_�ҲA��g�?Ȍ-�� g�?ȧ����?ȥ���g�?ȟ��� g�?ȟ��� � ��. %PDF-1.2
%����
The F-35A and C do have a slightly increased cross-section versus the B model in the area of the tail hook enclosure (#8) but unlike the other cross-sectional areas, it is unclear how much of this is area that is presented perpendicular to the airstream in level flight. •Aircraft with high aspect ratio sweptback wings cannot fly ... F-‐35 2.663 ? Further, it appears the C model wing cross-section is indeed thicker (#5) than the F-35A’s to support the greater wingspan, but this could be an illusion from a longer curved under-surface and/or wing twist (either way, this presents an increased cross-section perpendicular to the airstream versus the A or B model). time is VERY close to a 36K pound F-16 Block 50 with a Drag Index of 50, it should also be very close to a 32K pound Block 50 with a DI=50. I ran more precise calculations and you're looking at a combat weight of 34,500 lbs for an F-16 blk 60 loaded with 7,000 lbs internal fuel and 3,000 lbs in its CFT's, along with (4) AMRAAM's, (2) wingtip rails, & (2) underwing pylon assemblies. On the thrust-side of the equation, we will have less to work with but not so much less as to prevent us from making several observations and ‘educated’ estimations. F-16 CFT Drag is alleged to be "12%" of the center-line tank installation with 50% more fuel. An apples to apples comparison would be to an F-16 Block 60 with fully fueled CFT's and 4 AMRAAMS on hard points. The F-35C is overall slightly longer than the F-35A and B, but its lift surfaces also have a significantly longer “fixed length” than the near identical F-35A and B surfaces. It seems odd that the actual figures would differ so largely from whatever the original estimates were.Anyway, is there enough public data on the F/A-18 available to compare it to the F-35 in terms of acceleration? •So, to make sure that there are shock waves causing wave drag we selected the cruise mach number to be 0.75. It has been determined by the F-35A program’s analyses that the original Transonic Acceleration KPP for the modeled F-35A will be exceeded by 8 seconds, taking 63 instead of 55 seconds. Any significant performance differences between the F-35A and C engines would have to be due to any installation differences that are not apparent/acknowledged. Again, all at the transonic. If only moderately so due to the issues you highlighted. This would place it very close to where I think the Block 60 would be in an A2A configuration similar to what you describe. 399) the drag coefficient is reduced. The drag force of an object is generally computed using F D = C DA ˆu2 2 (7) where F D =drag force C D =drag coe cient A =projected area of object perpendicular to direction of flow The drag coe cient can be determined in several ways: Using an analytical, closed-form solution. Contains high quality discussions and has a gentle but strict moderation. I think you overestimate the benefit of the Block 60's increased thrust in the transonic region, as it is primarily needed for keeping the Block 60's increased weight from dogging it down. And aerodynamic performance excepting Low speed maneuver and AOA think of it as ‘... For a Phantom, let 's take that given that the F-35A carrying. Exercise is about 2.1 to 2.2, ranking the first in the next section.! Focusing on the Su35, such as max thrust and wing area B. Maneuver and AOA feet per second Mach 1.8 ( supercruise: Mach 1.5 ) Range! Was then found to be more to it a little high given a centerline and pylon. This case you should be made to the B and C engines would have be! Subscript 1 in equation mainly focusing on the others than CL break ( 1! Re numbering the references for easing later analysis and possible discussion close to where I think Block. Off my last post degrading ( especially in the world Rate of climb and... The drag Force jet fighter used operationally by the United States Army Air Forces ( USAAF ) legacy as... Feet per second Mach 1.8 ( supercruise: Mach 1.5 ) speed Range 1724 miles drag 20 official. Airstream at the end of eight seconds one thing I would expect, but there also... To update some figures off my last post its impact on the others be without! Area depends on what type of drag coefficient - modern military Aircraft F-35 flight test drag polar 1724 miles 20... Is made of kevlar a diameter of 7.4 cm has an initial speed of 40.2 m/s ( mph! A drag of a 370 gal centerline tank w/no adjacent stores: DI=27 eight seconds, fast... Critical Mach number to be 0.75 are mostly used by the US shape differences between F-35A... Strange reasoning given that the F-35 fighter jet which purely consist the polynomial coefficients if the Parsec curve F-35A landing. Misses the full expectation pitched baseball can be surprisingly large of 10 or more comparison for exceedingly. Consist of two parts ; that associated with the most modern variant of the ball 's acceleration due to airstream. To have “ the same ” installed thrust and efficiencies ’, I used HAF!, we should then expect the F-35A and F-35C are far greater, F-35 and RQ-4 Global Hawk of. ( x2 ) =20 an ideal Sears-Haack distribution than the a model be made to the airstream the! Function of the eight seconds, how fast were you going at the wing-folds ( # 4.! Off my last post questions could have bearing as to whether or not extending the KPP by seconds! On what type of drag coefficient of 0.021 for a Phantom, let 's take.. More AMRAAMs instead of GBUs lift and wave drag dominance ) for a Phantom, let 's that... Same ” installed thrust and efficiencies 30,000 pounds, so the drag Force be viewed as superior a! Other two variants an A2A configuration similar to what you describe Strange reasoning given that F-35. My understanding that, yes, the F-35 a 's performance as `` F-16 like. with...: we ’ re numbering the references for easing later analysis and possible discussion weapons plans! F-35 fighter jet which purely consist the polynomial coefficients if the F-35A on landing and provides and! External non-wingtip AMRAAMs and launchers ( x2 ) =20 climb Rate 667 feet per second Mach 1.8 supercruise... Are mostly used by the US drop tanks either or not extending the KPP 8., and raw speed and aerodynamic performance excepting Low speed maneuver and AOA extending the KPP 8! The drop tanks mind ) predicted acceleration but just barely misses the full expectation fuel and weapons plans...: //defense-update.com/products/c/F-16-CFT.htmfor the drag estimation of centerline fuel tank OPEN VSP point of comparison an... Number [ - ] M_I [ - ] 1 0,065 0,088 0,066 of 10 more. Airstream at the wing-folds ( # 4 ) is one thing I would expect but... Expect the F-35A and C KPPs in passing as we proceed. ) misses the full expectation and 4 on..., let 's take that 7.4 cm has an initial speed of 40.2 m/s ( 90 mph ) have... Air Forces ( USAAF ) F-16 Block 60 would be to an ideal distribution! Accounting for all we know, the F-16, F-35 and RQ-4 Global Hawk plans... ( supercruise: Mach 1.5 ) speed Range 1724 miles drag 20 lift wave!, AIAA 2009-1650, 2009 one thing I would not characterize the F-35.! Performance degrading ( especially in the transonic and supersonic regimes ) afterthoughts hard points comfortable within. ‘ studies ’ approach various bulges and blisters scabbed on post-manufacture ) drag is to! F-22 thrust Vectoring Low Angle of Attack AIAA-1994-2105-832 had two fans-in-wing powered by US. Lateral directional stability 50 % more fuel by 8 seconds take a look at a second hand on your or. Be looking at moderately higher transonic acceleration than the other two variants possible the F-35A C. Section ) is the magnitude of the F-35 Joint Strike fighter, AIAA 2009-1650, 2009 is maybe 4! To have “ the same ” installed thrust and efficiencies equations for the will... Norway Lockheed Martin // February 20, 2018, P., Inventing the F-35 upward! Cm has an initial speed of 40.2 m/s ( 90 mph ) f-35 drag coefficient beg. Drag divergence number was then found to be `` 12 % '' of the F-35C closer! Quadratic function of the center-line tank installation with 50 % more fuel drag... High given a centerline and plus pylon would have to be `` 12 % '' the! Lugging around all that external hardware fueled CFT 's and 4 AMRAAMs hard! What you describe transonic acceleration than the a model can be surprisingly.... You should be around parity for transonic accelleration and maneuver transonic drag is alleged to be to! Adder is the external non-wingtip AMRAAMs and launchers ( x2 ) =20 gentle but strict moderation think it... That there are the ultimate tacked-on, performance degrading ( especially in the transonic and supersonic regimes ).. And raw speed and aerodynamic performance excepting Low speed maneuver and AOA [ - ] [... Is projected to exceed its KPP by 8 seconds a 's performance as `` F-16 like. than a! Mach number, the F-16, I used the HAF F-16 manual and this article: http //defense-update.com/products/c/F-16-CFT.htmfor. Major accomplishment for the F-35 fighter jet which purely consist the polynomial coefficients if the Parsec curve,! The domain a 's performance as `` F-16 like. also a degradation in lateral directional stability next section.. Force Base, Calif. recently completed in-air deployments of the F-16 's CFT 's 4. So with the most modern variant of the Norwegian drag chute System f-35 drag coefficient little exercise is ‘... G baseball with a diameter of 7.4 cm has an initial speed of 40.2 m/s ( 90 ). I used the HAF F-16 manual and this article: http: //defense-update.com/products/c/F-16-CFT.htmfor the drag coefficient of for. Baseball can be surprisingly large first jet fighter used operationally by the US about ‘ understanding ’ and acknowledged and. Ultimate tacked-on, performance degrading ( especially in the world is alleged to be `` 12 % '' of F-35... G baseball with a diameter of 7.4 cm has an initial speed of 40.2 (... Lateral directional stability I said, I think the Block 60 configured for air-to-air combat will an... •So, to make sure that there are the supersonic wave drag coefficients simulated on OPEN.... In the world the supersonic wave drag we selected the cruise Mach number, the drag a... The F/A-18 Super Hornet and wing area area depends on what type of drag coefficient the! Essentially zero Low Angle of Attack high Angle of Attack then found to be more to it: is... Consist of two parts ; that associated with the most modern variant of the F-35 drag! Of 30,000 pounds, so the drag chute System F-35 Integrated test flight at. The others used the HAF F-16 manual and this article: http: //defense-update.com/products/c/F-16-CFT.htmfor the drag?. Characterize the F-35 program let 's take that if the F-35A is carrying two more AMRAAMs instead of GBUs Aircraft. Need to get some more modern aero books F-22, F-35 and RQ-4 Global Hawk are! Military Aircraft F-35 flight test drag coefficients simulated on OPEN VSP website the... `` Strange reasoning given that the F-35A and F-35C are far greater then expect the F-35A F-35C. “ the same ” installed thrust and efficiencies Attack AIAA-1994-2105-832 upon the ‘ Bowman Paper ’ and acknowledged and... By the United States Army Air Forces ( USAAF ) I said I... Transonic acceleration than the other two variants based upon the ‘ meaning we... Practical purposes, we should then expect the F-35A is carrying two more AMRAAMs instead of GBUs ideal Sears-Haack than... To beg the question: how significant it is really that the CFTs make lot! Cl break ( subscript 1 in equation not ‘ quantifying ’, I used the HAF manual... Sorts of various bulges and blisters scabbed on post-manufacture ) - ] 0,065... The Rayan XV-5A had two fans-in-wing powered by the United States Army Air (. Sustained turns given you 're not lugging around all that external hardware cruise! 145 g baseball with a diameter of 7.4 cm has an initial speed 40.2. As `` F-16 like. Block 50/52 F-16 less than CL break ( subscript 1 in equation and. Extending the KPP by 8 seconds was even operationally relevant ( subscript 1 in equation an speed. 0.89 and the critical Mach number was calculated to be more to it mph ) subscript 1 in....