F35's cleared for flight!!

[onyx39]

aeropilot said:

onyx39 said:

mcdjl said:

aeropilot said:

You guessed wrong

The same bunch of current and ex-light blue and dark blue that christened the thing Dave some years back also christened it the wheelie-bin door - again some years back.

How/why did they come up with Dave?

Anything to do with this guy?

http://fightercountry.org/news/f-35-news/new-f-35-...

No, it's goes back waaaaay longer than that.

Took a while to find again as didn't realise it was so long ago.....just goes to show how long we've been waiting for this white elephant to materialise.

Here's the light hearted naming thread from 8 (yes that's eight!) years ago.....

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/226765-nam...

I did wonder as I started reading if it was going to be a HAL reference !

Latest update from the base.

[Lurking Lawyer]

onyx39 said:

I did wonder as I started reading if it was going to be a HAL reference !

"Open the upper lift fan door, HAL"

"I'm sorry, Dave - I'm afraid I can't do that"

CRASH

Edited by Lurking Lawyer on Monday 14th July 21:10

[aeropilot]

onyx39 said:

Latest update from the base.

Hmmmmmm..........interesting.

So.....the original plan was for 3 x USMC and one of the UK F-35B's to make the trip over.....

Looks like the UK a/c won't be coming even if a lastminute.com decision to fly the pond is made.

Perhaps the stories of a unilateral decision by the USMC to fly across may have some truth?

[Mojocvh]

onyx39 said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

mcdjl said:

If it goes wrong the computer than also selects eject.

I wouldn't want some computer(s) deciding to eject me from my a/c!

Computers flying planes is perfectly safe... what could possibly go wrong?

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+aircra...

Or more appropriately, as it was a human problem with the Airbus..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faB5bIdksi8

[onyx39]

Mojocvh said:

onyx39 said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

mcdjl said:

If it goes wrong the computer than also selects eject.

I wouldn't want some computer(s) deciding to eject me from my a/c!

Computers flying planes is perfectly safe... what could possibly go wrong?

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+aircra...

Or more appropriately, as it was a human problem with the Airbus..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faB5bIdksi8

I always thought that was a story put out by Airbus because they were worried about customers losing faith in FBW.

[saaby93]

Mojocvh said:

Or more appropriately, as it was a human problem with the Airbus..

Humans design the computers and humans use them?

[NDT]

onyx39 said:

I always thought that was a story put out by Airbus because they were worried about customers losing faith in FBW.

Long and convoluted explanations / conspiracy theories are available.
I seem to remember it as a software issue (or at least a software 'mode' issue, ie I think we're in landing mode, so that's what we're going to do) which was conveniently blamed on the pilot.
One of his colleagues became a bit of a thorn in the side of the French authorities who mounted a bit of a dirty tricks campaign against him. Allegedly. Think he was sectioned in the end...

[onyx39]

another story which has just been tweeted by a journo who is at the show today.
He reckons that this is absolute confirmation that she will attend.
I remain unconvinced.

http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/07/breaking...

Latest I have heard:

F35 now definitely cleared for flight.
A flight plan that was for tonight has been postponed for 24 hours.
Lots of noise on Twitter about it happening.

Edited by onyx39 on Tuesday 15th July 12:08

[Civpilot]

Now reporting on Sky news that she is cleared.

They just need to turn it around and get the 3 planes in the air pronto... they have some face saving to do with buyers I think.

[Mave]

saaby93 said:

Whats wrong with a slidey cover design like on a cockpit

As well as covering the fan during flight, it helps direct and smooth the air going into the fan in the hover.

[aeropilot]

I remain unconvinced until I've heard that they've actually departed PAX.

Given this is a flight regime that hasn't been undertaken by any F-35 version yet, with a clean bill of health, I'm not sure how such an undertaken could be contemplated within a restricted flight envelope criteria (which even if accomplished would likely mean a few flyby's only at Farnborough at the best best)......so, really is it worth it?

But, this is politics more than anything else.

I like the way they keep saying the engine blade issue isn't a systemic one, and a one-off.....who are they trying to kid given the previous 'fan blade' issues in the past with the F135 engine

[ecsrobin]

Sky news are saying a limited flight clearance.

[FourWheelDrift]

ecsrobin said:

Sky news are saying a limited flight clearance.

Tethered hover

[IanMorewood]

Blade tolerance issues that cause fires at this stage in an engines development would point you to look elsewhere especially as the 135 is an evolutionary design, shame they canned the Roll Royce/GE option.

[mrloudly]

And it's due to go into service when?...

[aeropilot]

No-go decision now seems definate from the Pentagon - not surprised really given the engine situation as I said earlier.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/24469136/us-f-35-fight...

[Bisonhead]

What an absolute shambles. Why cant they just design it properly, on time and on budget. Surely they must have carried out projects on time and on budget in the past?

Mental

[aeropilot]

Bisonhead said:

What an absolute shambles. Why cant they just design it properly, on time and on budget. Surely they must have carried out projects on time and on budget in the past?

Mental

It is indeed mental but don't blame the poor sods doing the design, blame the buggers that keeping changing their minds about want they want designed and what they want it for.

Remember that the JSF started out as being the new affordable, lightweight fighter replacement for the F-16.

Err, nearly 20 years on from that, after countless fingers being put into an infinate number of pies, the F-35 is neither light, affordable or even working properly. I pity the poor buggers on the design team.

Edited by aeropilot on Tuesday 15th July 22:37

[Bisonhead]

aeropilot said:

Bisonhead said:

What an absolute shambles. Why cant they just design it properly, on time and on budget. Surely they must have carried out projects on time and on budget in the past?

Mental

It is indeed mental but don't blame the poor sods doing the design, blame the buggers that keeping changing their minds about want they want designed and what they want it for.

Remember that the JSF started out as being the new affordable, lightweight fighter replacement for the F-16.

Err, nearly 20 years on from that, after countless fingers being put into an infinate number of pies, the F-35 is neither light, affordable or even working properly. I pity the poor buggers on the design team.

Edited by aeropilot on Tuesday 15th July 22:37

Fair one, I have been overlooking the political intervention thing. The frustrating thing is, the blatant politicising of the whole clusterfk is costing us so much more and leaving us without capability we need.

...and I didnt get a chance to see it fly at RIAT...bds!

[Eric Mc]

Bisonhead said:

What an absolute shambles. Why cant they just design it properly, on time and on budget. Surely they must have carried out projects on time and on budget in the past?

Mental

Not that often.

If you look at the history of major defence projects, especially in the West (it doesn't matter what country, to be honest), especially cutting edge projects, you will see many, many examples of serious cost overruns , time overruns, dithering on behalf of the government and/or end user - and sometimes cancellation.

It's not an unusual scenario at all.