F35

[159th_Viper]

Clip I ran across - interesting views from the Chase Craft perspective on the test-flight.

 

Not sure if posted before - enjoy if not :)

 

F35 Lighntning II

[Force_Feedback]

Cool, nice vid, liked the VTOL engine test.

[Viper101]

do you have any idea how much fuel that thing burns on takeoff? let me just say more than 40% what the AV-8 Harrier does. The F-35 is a piece....a waste of tax payers money....and i hate it!

[Kusch]

New video: AA-1 Testing montage

 

http://www.jsf.mil/video/f35test/AA-1%20Montage_high.wmv

[britgliderpilot]

do you have any idea how much fuel that thing burns on takeoff? let me just say more than 40% what the AV-8 Harrier does. The F-35 is a piece....a waste of tax payers money....and i hate it!

 

Dude, you'd have a Tomcat for every job they need an aircraft to do, wouldn't you? ;)

 

 

Where'd the fuel burn figure come from?

[GGTharos]

You know, you might -think- that a more powerful engine, lifting a WHOLE LOT MORE WEIGHT, would actually burn more fuel trying to do so.

 

You would THINK that. So, what were you saying?

 

do you have any idea how much fuel that thing burns on takeoff? let me just say more than 40% what the AV-8 Harrier does. The F-35 is a piece....a waste of tax payers money....and i hate it!

[Ven]

Off topic but wonder why there hasn't been any Harrier sim.

 

And why was he flying with gear down in that video by the way?

[GGTharos]

It's procedure to leave the gear down in the first few test flights until you're confident it'll work well ... that way you don't add landing gear failure to the list of prototype failures ... if your gear fails, it means you're doing a belly landing, and damaging the aircraft - potentially your only prototype.

[britgliderpilot]

Off topic but wonder why there hasn't been any Harrier sim.

 

And why was he flying with gear down in that video by the way?

 

A proper Harrier sim is pretty tricky to do in any detail - these guys are hard at work on a Falklands sim featuring the Sea Harrier and Harrier GR1, though:

 

http://www.thunder-works.com/

 

There've been some simple attempts over the years, including addons for just about every moddable flight sim. I hear Strike Fighters now have a half-decent Harrier model :)

[Jester_159th]

Off topic but wonder why there hasn't been any Harrier sim.

 

 

 

Keep your fingers crossed...... But don't hold your breath. This one's been in development for a long long time now, but work is ongoing:

 

http://www.thunder-works.com/index.html

[thesystem]

Off topic but wonder why there hasn't been any Harrier sim.

 

There is coming one and in Wings over Europe you can also pilot it

[Cosmonaut]

I recently found out that I have a twin engine fetish ;) so I'm not a big fan of the F35 but as long as it doesn't completely kill off the F18 and A10, then I wont mind too much although the F35 Star-Trek cockpit is pretty cool.

[GGTharos]

The F-35 can't really replace the A-10, but it sure can replace the F-18, if I understand things correctly. It won't happen too abruptly though, methinks.

[jonnyB3]

Im going to an airshow tomorrow and the F-35 is flying there:)

[Viper101]

nothing right now can replace the A-10....thats why its life has been extended to 2015+. :D

 

The reason why i brought up the AV-8 Harrier and how the F-35 burns more than 40% is because its "A WASTE". I dont care what you guys say but the F-22 and F-35 are the same thing...one just has STVOL and the other doesnt. The Harrier burns more fuel on a vertical takeoff than an F-16 at full burner on takeoff. What do you think the F-35 will be like? Sorry but I dont feel like having to refuel 15 minutes after I takeoff....

 

@britgliderpilot- Yeah, I prolly would have a tomcat for every job they needed an aircraft for cause it will get the job done. :)

[GGTharos]

The reason why i brought up the AV-8 Harrier and how the F-35 burns more than 40% is because its "A WASTE". I dont care what you guys say but the F-22 and F-35 are the same thing...

 

We don't care what you say either, since you're obviously not clued in. I suppose you don't really understand that the 'people up top' and pilots who'll be flying these things know more than you, know better than you, and ... did I mention they know more than you? The USAF isn't keen on wasteful or unproven things ... which is why the YF-23 lost, for one.

 

 

@britgliderpilot- Yeah, I prolly would have a tomcat for every job they needed an aircraft for cause it will get the job done. :)

... Except the F-15E's, the F-16's, the B-1's, the A-10's, F-22's F-35's ...

[Force_Feedback]

I think we all can agree on the fact that the Harrier has more day to day value, and not some doomsday thinking paranoid approach ala F-22. The F-35B will be better in terms of flight control safety, possibly reduce the amount of 'pilot error' incidents. The engine is nearly twice as powerful as the one of the Harrier, so a 40% increased burn rate is not that bad, even without afterburner use.

Something tells me, with all the weight commotion, that the F-35B will always fly with 2 fuel tanks, or some jettisonable CFTs when it's in service. I do know almost certain that some pilots will perish due to some FBW fluke in the STOVL version, or a lift fan failure of some sort :/. Unless they install an auto ejection system, but I doubt on that, since they like the conservative approach for such things.

[GGTharos]

^^^^

You're pretty right about the fuel issues ... you pay for the capability of vertical lift off, and that is the price for it ... the whole idea being that you can land this thing and rearm it 50nm behind enemy lines, then come back and put the hurt on your enemies again quickly - though for now, the STOVL version appears to be more important to the marines and anyone with a small carrier, which makes sense - in this case a STOL, rather than VT, is much more efficient and allows you to haul up a lot more payload.

[Ven]

nothing right now can replace the A-10....thats why its life has been extended to 2015+. :D

 

The reason why i brought up the AV-8 Harrier and how the F-35 burns more than 40% is because its "A WASTE". I dont care what you guys say but the F-22 and F-35 are the same thing...one just has STVOL and the other doesnt. The Harrier burns more fuel on a vertical takeoff than an F-16 at full burner on takeoff. What do you think the F-35 will be like? Sorry but I dont feel like having to refuel 15 minutes after I takeoff....

 

@britgliderpilot- Yeah, I prolly would have a tomcat for every job they needed an aircraft for cause it will get the job done. :)

I say that's a big difference.

 

F-22 is $200 million. F-35 is $35 million.

F-22 is not for sale. F-35 is.

F-22 can supercruise. F-35 can't.

 

Other than the stealthy appearance and the fact that both can fly, there's nothing else similar.

[Maverick-90]

Other than the stealthy appearance and the fact that both can fly, there's nothing else similar.

you forgot that both are build in the USA ;)

[GGTharos]

I'm pretty sure it can ... it definitely has the high thrust required for it, but it doesn't have vectored thrust which may make it less efficient as supercruising than an F-22.

 

F-22 can supercruise. F-35 can't.

[Ven]

According to this FAQ, it can't

 

http://www.jsf.mil/contact/con_faqs.htm

 

And I'm pretty sure F-35 does have thrust vectoring.

 

By the way, Air Force did say that F-35 will replace A-10. I don't agree with that but they did say it.

[GGTharos]

Yeah, they did say it - that's what they want, but it should be pretty obvious that the F-35 can't really do the A-10's job the way the A-10 does it, IMHO ... but perhaps it will prove otherwise, no?

 

I'm pretty sure it doesn't have vectored thrust though :)

And I guess you're right, it might not be able to supercruise. Odd, but interesting nonetheless.

[tflash]

^^^^

You're pretty right about the fuel issues ... you pay for the capability of vertical lift off, and that is the price for it ... the whole idea being that you can land this thing and rearm it 50nm behind enemy lines, then come back and put the hurt on your enemies again quickly - though for now, the STOVL version appears to be more important to the marines and anyone with a small carrier, which makes sense - in this case a STOL, rather than VT, is much more efficient and allows you to haul up a lot more payload.

 

I have many doubts about the whole VTOL/STOVL thing. Seems to me the Marines were never able to really make the case that there are situations where the Harrier was a solution and the Hornet was not. Instead, the Hornet was in every conflict in every role, the Harrier had to skip some.

 

While the Harrier is flying back 50nm with bingo fuel to rearm, the A-10A just continues the fight where it counts.

 

The British were with the Harrier in The Falklands for the very wrong reason: they decommissioned their real aircraft carrier with Phantoms just a year before. The very good performance against all odds of the Harrier must have given the false impression it is a valid asset, meaning they are now stuck with this by many accounts very limited aircraft in Afghanistan. The Harrier GR.7 is useless in A2A, has limited payload for strike and has a disputed reputation for CAS: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-majors-email-british-harrier-support-in-afghanistan-revisited-02661/

 

I truly like the F-35A with the incredible F135 engine, but the whole F-35B thingy, let's say I'm sceptic. But you are right: those who built/bought the wrong size of aircraft carrier will have no choice.

[GGTharos]

Well, that's a little bit like saying that the MiG-21 with its poor range and small payload was a poor fighter. Look at what it eventually evolved to - the F-35B is really just an evolution of of the Harrier in terms of STOVL, allowing higher payload, better range, stealth, extensive and complex sensor integration, off-and-on-board, ability to self-escort and prosecute one mean air to air duel ... all the things the Harrier could -not- do.