F35's cleared for flight!!
Discussion
jimbobsimmonds said:
Drones cannot think... 30 years down the line maybe but even then I would imagine it will be in a support role to manned assets.
Aren't the drones at the moment controlled from a ground station anyway? I wasn't meaning some sort of autonomous drone but more an extension of what we have now? Given the amount spent on the F35 how much could drones have been advanced the same
richtea78 said:
jimbobsimmonds said:
Drones cannot think... 30 years down the line maybe but even then I would imagine it will be in a support role to manned assets.
Aren't the drones at the moment controlled from a ground station anyway? I wasn't meaning some sort of autonomous drone but more an extension of what we have now? Given the amount spent on the F35 how much could drones have been advanced the same
FourWheelDrift said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Eurof...
The X-35 first flew in 2000, F-35A in 2006 and the first F-35B in 2008 and the B model is expected to be in service in December 2015 with the US Marine Corps, 1 year before the USAF get their A models.
Now I'm not saying the Eurofighter was a slow development (but I do think it was) but the F-35B has been positively rushed by comparison to it and others.
The F-35 project uses 'concurrent production' - as soon as the prototype was shown to be safe to fly they started building production examples, the idea being that electronics/software etc. can be added in when ready.The X-35 first flew in 2000, F-35A in 2006 and the first F-35B in 2008 and the B model is expected to be in service in December 2015 with the US Marine Corps, 1 year before the USAF get their A models.
Now I'm not saying the Eurofighter was a slow development (but I do think it was) but the F-35B has been positively rushed by comparison to it and others.
The trouble is any structural issues that take a while to show up can then lead to 100+ aircraft being grounded and retrofitted with new parts - a traditional development phase would normally identify and correct these issues without it being public, but would mean extra years before flight crews get access to the first aircraft.
Im not totally off though
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28294239
BAE and Dassault are working on them at least!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28294239
BAE and Dassault are working on them at least!
richtea78 said:
Couldn't they do it with a range of different drones? Wouldn't they be smaller as no pilot so not need to be as armoured therefore less expensive and less of an issue if shot down?
What am I missing?
The F35 isn't armoured, and if you did a trade of pilot and equipment vs instrumentation necessary to fly remotely, I don't think there'd be much difference in size and it may be more expensive...What am I missing?
We had our own in development the P.125 but it was cancelled in favour of the American fiasco.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_P.1...
Just imagine what the monumental overbudget fkup that would have been.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_P.1...
Just imagine what the monumental overbudget fkup that would have been.
Mave said:
richtea78 said:
Couldn't they do it with a range of different drones? Wouldn't they be smaller as no pilot so not need to be as armoured therefore less expensive and less of an issue if shot down?
What am I missing?
The F35 isn't armoured, and if you did a trade of pilot and equipment vs instrumentation necessary to fly remotely, I don't think there'd be much difference in size and it may be more expensive...What am I missing?
Now about the reduction in the airframe kinematics to gen 3 level....the sudden shift in US maintenance planning that may exclude us from those so lucrative maintenance opportunities??
So, whats NOT to like?
rhinochopig said:
Computers have been deciding what aeroplanes do for years. Pilots joined the ranks of self loading luggage some time ago.
That's not strictly true. Anyway, there's a pretty fundemental difference between 'Fly by Wire' and 'BANG by wire'!24G up the spine is bad enough when you have a good ejection posture, it's a nightmare when you don't.
Murphy's Law dictates that if you have a computer based decision to eject then at some stage the computer will decide to eject the pilot.
Eric Mc said:
Sadly not.For supersonic (or even high transonic) flight, as well as the heavy weight VTO, P1154 required 'plenum chamber burning', ie effectively a reheat system in the forward (hot air) nozzles.
This could never be got to work satisfactorily. Indeed, according to John Farley (the Harrier Test Pilot) it probably never would work.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
rhinochopig said:
Computers have been deciding what aeroplanes do for years. Pilots joined the ranks of self loading luggage some time ago.
That's not strictly true. Anyway, there's a pretty fundemental difference between 'Fly by Wire' and 'BANG by wire'!24G up the spine is bad enough when you have a good ejection posture, it's a nightmare when you don't.
Murphy's Law dictates that if you have a computer based decision to eject then at some stage the computer will decide to eject the pilot.
And you have a point re the computer systems. It's a very thorny topic. I'm doing some research on this very topic at work - well a little broader - and the advent of glass-cockpits has seen, depending on which data sets you look at, no difference in fatal air-crash rates when compared to 'steam gauges', to demonstrably worse.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Eric Mc said:
Sadly not.For supersonic (or even high transonic) flight, as well as the heavy weight VTO, P1154 required 'plenum chamber burning', ie effectively a reheat system in the forward (hot air) nozzles.
This could never be got to work satisfactorily. Indeed, according to John Farley (the Harrier Test Pilot) it probably never would work.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff