|
F35 v Harrier
Just idle curiosity but how do they compare for endurance? Could the F35 stay in the air without Tankering as long as the Harrier? just in general terms no secrets wanted. |
Originally Posted by effortless
(Post 10265593)
Just idle curiosity but how do they compare for endurance? Could the F35 stay in the air without Tankering as long as the Harrier? just in general terms no secrets wanted. Would both aircraft be on internal fuel or in normal fuel fit? More particularly, which Mark of each type? Looking at Wiki it suggests the combat radius of the F35 on internal fuel is twice that of the Harrier GR9. |
"F35 on internal fuel "
coughs... |
Effortless,
As Pontius rightly says, there are a load of variables in that question. However, the overall answer would be: 'The F-35B can stay in the air a lot longer than a Harrier'. That would apply to a non-tanking sortie. This might help a little: here are some approximate internal fuel capacities: Harrier II: 7,500 lb Tornado: 11,200 lb (note, this figure may be slightly higher by a few hundred pounds for the RAF version) Typhoon: 11,200 lb F-35A: 18,000 lb F-35B: 13,500 lb F-35C: 19,600 lb F-16: 7,000 lb F-15: 13,600 lb F-4: 13.400 lb As you can see, all variants of the F-35 have a fairly healthy internal fuel load. That is due to the design incorporating a large number of fuel tanks integrated into the airframe. Hope this helps, best regards as ever to all those watching their fuel gauges out there on task: Engines |
Well, yes, Engines. But the determinants of range include fuel fraction, lift/drag ratio and engine SFC. So while the F-35B carries nearly 80% more internal fuel than the Harrier, it's also a lot heavier and (outside of hover mode) its engine has a lower bypass ratio. Also, unlike most aircraft with afterburners, it doesn't carry external fuel. It will be interesting to see what the range is like on the combat profiles that get used in service.
The larger point is that it's much easier to get range if you don't have to do high-g or supersonic. But then, you also have to look at how much supersonic/high-g is included in any given mission profile. |
Surely the answer to the question is an F35B if doing the same mission profile as a Harrier has a longer range using that performance range. Using the full performance of the F35B might well result in a shorter endurance than a Harrier flying in an economical mode with minimal external stores.
|
If I may... If you took a GR9 in a ‘two bag’ fit with 11.7 on crew in (broadly SOP) and a full (internal obvs) F-35B - and subjected them to the same taxy, ATC, weather, there with 2 x 500lb weapons, back without and a sensible recovery fuel - the answer for a Hi-Hi-Hi profile is ‘about the same’ with the F-35 winning by a nose. |
Originally Posted by orca
(Post 10265842)
If I may... If you took a GR9 in a ‘two bag’ fit with 11.7 on crew in (broadly SOP) and a full (internal obvs) F-35B - and subjected them to the same taxy, ATC, weather, there with 2 x 500lb weapons, back without and a sensible recovery fuel - the answer for a Hi-Hi-Hi profile is ‘about the same’ with the F-35 winning by a nose. |
No experience of the Dave but tin-wing Harrier planning figures were 100lbs/min at low level and 50lbs/min at high level. Good pilot rule of thumb stuff. Mog |
orca, as I said at the outset it is all in the mission definition. Which can sustain the greater mission rate? As a low-low CAS bomb truck the Harrier managed 10 missions per day and I one exercise 1Sqn achieved 300 in 3 days. How would the Harrier fare on night missions?
|
The F-35C figure compares favourably with the Buccaneer. Assuming the Bucc doesn’t go with a bomb bay tank but has slipper tanks fitted instead, the F-35C is only 500lbs short of the Bucc. Both aircraft would then retain fully capable internal weapons bays. |
PN - I agree entirely, just used Hi-Hi-Hi as the F35 is unlikely to do much else! (Just my opinion). I don’t really understand the question of how the Harrier would fare at night...from a cockpit point of view the GR9 was fabulous at night. The FA2 was more relaxing - less to confuse you! |
Is this question about pure range or capabilty? I am not convinced there are any valid conclusions to be drawn from a back-of-an envelope comparison between 2 airframes used for such different purposes and with such a wide disparity between their respective operational capabilities. The only real similarities would appear to be a STOVL facility and single-pilot ops.
|
Well, if you want to get picky and ask for only relevant facts and realistic context you’ll reduce the amount of aviation subject matter available to us has beens by 90% over night!😉 I’ve always wondered whether the Falklands conflict would have turned out differently if we’d still had the Sea Hornet...what do you think? |
We might have made a difference with the F4 (the Leuchars FG1s were still carrier-capable, the crews weren't). We thought getting airborne from a cat launch (assuming the USN lent us a flat-top...) would be OK but getting back aboard might be a bit more challenging. Having filled up with beer one happy hour, I informed the Stn Cdr that I had solved the problem. He was very interested until I explained that all we had to do was paint the piano keys at the front of the ship!
|
Yes, F4s would have been nice - and Gannets - but we were operating with the deck pitching 2 degrees and more a lot of the time and I believe that "normal" carrier-borne aircraft pull stumps at about 1/2 degree of pitch. OK, biigger ships might have been a little less prone to pitch but not that much. A face full of water off the front is not a nice moment, nor is a view of the Admiral's cabin scuttle on short finals! Mog |
I believe that "normal" carrier-borne aircraft pull stumps at about 1/2 degree of pitch https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d1e...06d11c7e62.pdf |
Not sure what the rules were in ‘82 but in my time we were limited by +/- 2 degrees in pitch and +/- 3 in roll. I always thought the higher roll limit odd because the boat rolling towards you in the hover was ‘not great’ - whereas a pitching deck could be dealt with using a gumshield and ‘manly’ arrival. The weirdest thing about CVS pitch and roll was the monitoring device in Flyco had two settings. One essentially showed half the deflection of the other. No one knew which one was right - so we used the one that showed the lowest! I was lined up one day - looking at the bow with an amount of disbelief that we were within limits. I asked and was essentially told to ‘Grow up’. Post launch Homer told me that my playmates wouldn’t be joining me - deck now out of limits! Cue an hour of boning around Biscay on my own wondering how the landing would pan out... Some years later I was waved off approaching the USS Carl Vinson (can’t remember how far out but I was ‘on the ball’ so let’s say 0.3nm) that I messed up because the ship pitched dramatically nose up. That gave me a very compelling ‘plan view’ of the ship, therefore natural reaction was to feel very high and take power off. Paddles (LSO) very unimpressed by plummeting F-18E - hence a wave off. Of course - had I just ‘flown the ball’ - all would have been well and I’d have saved myself another trip around the USN’s patented ‘most convoluted way of arriving’ visual pattern!! I seem to recall the next go wasn’t sparkling but at least it stuck! |
orca, it was an innocent question. Simply how capable was the GR9 at night ops?
|
Hi PN - the answer is - for an aircraft without radar or Tactical Data Link, brilliant. (UK specifically - other players had an APG, but the nose mounted FLIR the GR7/9 had was very useful). |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.