In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Paper airplanes always look good. I'll wait until they actually have
: the thing designed completely and are bending metal. Any bets that
: it's heavier and has shorter legs than the current paper says?
:
:Not really, but it's certainly not going to miss the target by enough to
:lose 1/3 of its range. Things have changed a bit for aircraft design
ver the last thirty or forty years - it's not that hard to get a close
:estimate of weight and performance for new aircraft now.

Want to bet? And what is that "over 600 nautical miles" combat range
(for ALL F-35, apparently) predicated on? The only range statements I
see on FAS for this aircraft are pretty much 'hand waving' sorts of
answers.

Figuring out range estimates are fairly straightforward, since drag and
engine fuel flow are reasonably well defined. If they stuck better
engines into the F-18, they'd probably get better fuel efficiency, too
(the modified versions they're using are nice, but not *that* nice).

The F-18 also has to deal with the increased drag of all of those
external stores and fuel tanks. That makes a *huge* difference in range.

I'm just wondering why you think it's so outrageous to expect a much
newer fighter to have much better fuel efficiency...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.