F35 testing video
Discussion
TheHeretic said:
Makes the Harrier look so much more elegant.
Sadly we may never get truly beautiful military aircraft again, the 'stealth' focus dictates certain angles and areas which have a massive effect on the design aesthetics, a fairly ugly compromise between reduced radar profile and aerodynamics. All the little doors and features are another compromise for a low radar profile while in flight, frankly it can be as ugly as it wants as long as it works.Godalmighty83 said:
TheHeretic said:
Makes the Harrier look so much more elegant.
Sadly we may never get truly beautiful military aircraft again, the 'stealth' focus dictates certain angles and areas which have a massive effect on the design aesthetics, a fairly ugly compromise between reduced radar profile and aerodynamics. All the little doors and features are another compromise for a low radar profile while in flight, frankly it can be as ugly as it wants as long as it works.Not this collection of fans, clutches, gearboxes, driveshafts, doors and hydraulics instead of 4 spinny nozzles
thinfourth2 said:
Godalmighty83 said:
TheHeretic said:
Makes the Harrier look so much more elegant.
Sadly we may never get truly beautiful military aircraft again, the 'stealth' focus dictates certain angles and areas which have a massive effect on the design aesthetics, a fairly ugly compromise between reduced radar profile and aerodynamics. All the little doors and features are another compromise for a low radar profile while in flight, frankly it can be as ugly as it wants as long as it works.Not this collection of fans, clutches, gearboxes, driveshafts, doors and hydraulics instead of 4 spinny nozzles
What is obvious when compared to the Harrier is how far computer controlled flight dynamics have come on in the preceding 30 years! That F35 just does all the hard work for the Pilot (including things like the elevators moving the wrong way at low speed etc). Early Harriers by most reports were a bit of a handfull for even highly experience pilots!
Americans have always been very reluctant with the ramp idea even though it gave the harrier a nice take off weight boost.
The later 12.5 deg ramp is supposed* to have given the harrier an extra ~900kg of max load, a sizeable increase for a small carrier jet. Not to mention less runway being used and more usable in poor weather / high seas.
Also as an interesting aside reading about carrier operations recently and have seen several mentions of the fact (or notion) that conventionally launch carrier planes return to land with ~25% full tanks just in case of missing the wire or being forced to hold in pattern for much longer while the harriers in marine and navy service often returned with tanks down to 5/10% due to the higher rates of landing and much shorter times holding. If that holds true for the F35 as well the real world range difference between the B and C is suddenly much smaller then the base stats imply.
With a ski jump increasing launch weight capacity (how much, I have no idea, the harrier saw good gains but was a different beast) and SRVL seeming to show promising results in more efficient landings I wouldn't be surprised if the B model only ends up being slightly down on the C's range. Iam starting to think that going for the B might not be such of a big issue as first thought. A brief guess of the numbers would see the 25% range difference between the two drop to ~10%, if the same rates apply of course.
Also interesting on some of the American boards how utterly appalled some posters are about the idea of a ramp on a ship, full tirades and abuse regarding such a 'stupid' idea and disbelief that the RN employed such a measure, the sheer hate from some regarding a long term and well proven idea seems baffling.
The later 12.5 deg ramp is supposed* to have given the harrier an extra ~900kg of max load, a sizeable increase for a small carrier jet. Not to mention less runway being used and more usable in poor weather / high seas.
Also as an interesting aside reading about carrier operations recently and have seen several mentions of the fact (or notion) that conventionally launch carrier planes return to land with ~25% full tanks just in case of missing the wire or being forced to hold in pattern for much longer while the harriers in marine and navy service often returned with tanks down to 5/10% due to the higher rates of landing and much shorter times holding. If that holds true for the F35 as well the real world range difference between the B and C is suddenly much smaller then the base stats imply.
With a ski jump increasing launch weight capacity (how much, I have no idea, the harrier saw good gains but was a different beast) and SRVL seeming to show promising results in more efficient landings I wouldn't be surprised if the B model only ends up being slightly down on the C's range. Iam starting to think that going for the B might not be such of a big issue as first thought. A brief guess of the numbers would see the 25% range difference between the two drop to ~10%, if the same rates apply of course.
Also interesting on some of the American boards how utterly appalled some posters are about the idea of a ramp on a ship, full tirades and abuse regarding such a 'stupid' idea and disbelief that the RN employed such a measure, the sheer hate from some regarding a long term and well proven idea seems baffling.
- I have read a number of different figures from various sites and books from 500kg up to little over a tonne.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff