If you were offered a $5000 bonus for every pound you could shave off the design of the X-35 Lightning II(JSF)
http://www.westimpi.com.cn/news/zqr/zqr1...
Just for fun.
Answer:
There's little information on these sites about the materials used, and I'm no aerospace engineer, but some ideas seem obvious. I assume that carbon composites are being used extensively in the body, and lightweight metal alloys where metal is irreplaceable. Beyond these, the major structural weight is in the engine. Of course high-temperature ceramics should be used in place of metal components wherever possible. Probably the area with the biggest potential for weight reduction with technological advances is the fuel. Jet fuel is enormously heavy, and compromises are made to account for the wide range of performance needs of a fighter aircraft. We might take a lesson from aircraft carriers and use catapults for ground-based launches to reduce fuel needs at takeoff. And perhaps computer-controlled fuel feeds that supply different fuels for maximum efficiency at different altitudes and for different performance needs. A solid fuel component for high altitude flying might save some weight, if the necessary mechanisms don't offset the weight savings. And then of course there's always skinnier pilots. You could probably save a lot of weight just by recruiting more females to fly.
The landing gear looks large and superfluous, if it has vertical takeoff capability. The pilot can be removed and operate the plane by remote. Fuel is a big weight, liquid hydrogen has three times the energy density, but three times the volume. Weapons are also heavy, but not reducible.
I actually used to work on the F-35 and weight was a paramount issue.
A lot of things that were discussed in the other answers regarding material choices were used as well as things like tightening up tolerances in machining processes and using peer reviews of the design and analysis to ensure that every possible ounce was taken out.
I'd try to design it with delta wings, single rudder, no tailplanes.
The Lightning is not a big mover in the air, so no need for such additional controls. Maybe use swept back air intakes too like the Raptor.
How many dollars did i get?
I am not an aerospace engineer either, but have a degree in composites. The obvious thing is to check metal components and means for composite substitution. Are the landing gears, cockpit features, etc. all composites? Metal is absolutely your best bet to check on first.
Another application you can save weight on in the construction of composite panels - for example, the wings, is the amount of resin being used. Perhaps in some of the layup procedures of the major components, you can cut back on resin quantity --- even if it is slight, the volume of the panels are very large and will produce results.
Also, I am uncertain if all bolts, screws, nuts, etc are already composite, but there are companies that produce molded bolts, screws, etc. Assuming there are thousands of these components, this could save allot on weight. Typically in molded fasteners, there is an issue of stripping, but an epoxy is usually added to ensure integrity. Adding this epoxy does add weight - so be sure to compare a metal bolt to a molded bolt + epoxy.
A dumb suggestion would be -- can we make the aircraft smaller in any applications? Can we cut some dimensions somewhere?
$5000 a pound?!
I'd lose ten pounds and offer to fly it!
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: