<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Brit Lightning</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/12/13/brit-lightning/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/12/13/brit-lightning/</link>
	<description>The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:43:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bou</title>
		<link>http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/12/13/brit-lightning/comment-page-1/#comment-33614</link>
		<dc:creator>Bou</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2006 03:49:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/12/13/brit-lightning/#comment-33614</guid>
		<description>b2-

The engines on the F22 are absolutely fantastic.  Tremendous, really.  That said... same technology is being used on the F35.  Do I believe the Performance/Reliability specs?  (I&#039;m wishing right now I still worked in Performance...)  I&#039;m not sure. I know anytime a new motor goes out on the market there are growing pains. That left side of the old bathtub curve.  Reliability will continue to improve and unless there is a serious design flaw in the motors, I think its going to be pretty damn reliable.  There is always a BIG SELL though... so, take that into consideration for the specs.

There are issues though, that I won&#039;t go into, and I&#039;m wondering how they&#039;re going to work them out.  There are some big issues.  But... that happens with every new generation a/c.

I think Rolls is doing the Vert Lift.  That&#039;s what I had been told... I&#039;m pretty sure the Brits have that part.  

the engines though... absolutely amazing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>b2-</p>
<p>The engines on the F22 are absolutely fantastic.  Tremendous, really.  That said&#8230; same technology is being used on the F35.  Do I believe the Performance/Reliability specs?  (I&#8217;m wishing right now I still worked in Performance&#8230;)  I&#8217;m not sure. I know anytime a new motor goes out on the market there are growing pains. That left side of the old bathtub curve.  Reliability will continue to improve and unless there is a serious design flaw in the motors, I think its going to be pretty damn reliable.  There is always a BIG SELL though&#8230; so, take that into consideration for the specs.</p>
<p>There are issues though, that I won&#8217;t go into, and I&#8217;m wondering how they&#8217;re going to work them out.  There are some big issues.  But&#8230; that happens with every new generation a/c.</p>
<p>I think Rolls is doing the Vert Lift.  That&#8217;s what I had been told&#8230; I&#8217;m pretty sure the Brits have that part.  </p>
<p>the engines though&#8230; absolutely amazing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: badbob</title>
		<link>http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/12/13/brit-lightning/comment-page-1/#comment-33548</link>
		<dc:creator>badbob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:00:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/12/13/brit-lightning/#comment-33548</guid>
		<description>Bou,

LM (F-35 winner) developed the vert lift capability and will build it, right? Very elegant design (that big fan), totally unlike the Boeing competitor for award that didn&#039;t win. That design was similar to Harrier. Both prototypes are in the PAX museum.

My understanding is that there are 3 versions, CTOL, (USAF), carrier (Navy) and VSTOL/STOL (USMC/RN). I think of &#039;em as little gear, big gear and gear on the wingtips!

Gotta ask. Is that big engine all it&#039;s cracked up to be? The company performance and reliability specs are, well, hard to believe.

This is gonna takes decades. Maybe we ought to jump a generation and go to a UAV/UCAV/BAMS/MMA/Helos for Naval Aviation&#039;s toolbox?

LOL. Sorry I said that. Wash my mouth out w/soap.

I&#039;m just kidding but THERE ARE Naval officers ready and poised to propose just that! Ain&#039;t that scary?

b2</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bou,</p>
<p>LM (F-35 winner) developed the vert lift capability and will build it, right? Very elegant design (that big fan), totally unlike the Boeing competitor for award that didn&#8217;t win. That design was similar to Harrier. Both prototypes are in the PAX museum.</p>
<p>My understanding is that there are 3 versions, CTOL, (USAF), carrier (Navy) and VSTOL/STOL (USMC/RN). I think of &#8216;em as little gear, big gear and gear on the wingtips!</p>
<p>Gotta ask. Is that big engine all it&#8217;s cracked up to be? The company performance and reliability specs are, well, hard to believe.</p>
<p>This is gonna takes decades. Maybe we ought to jump a generation and go to a UAV/UCAV/BAMS/MMA/Helos for Naval Aviation&#8217;s toolbox?</p>
<p>LOL. Sorry I said that. Wash my mouth out w/soap.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m just kidding but THERE ARE Naval officers ready and poised to propose just that! Ain&#8217;t that scary?</p>
<p>b2</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steeljaw Scribe</title>
		<link>http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/12/13/brit-lightning/comment-page-1/#comment-33362</link>
		<dc:creator>Steeljaw Scribe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:05:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/12/13/brit-lightning/#comment-33362</guid>
		<description>&quot;...but no aircraft designed for shore based ops has ever been successfully navalised for work aboard a carrier.&quot;

While some might question the &quot;successful&quot; aspect of the re-design, the fact is that the T-45 was redesigned from the BaE Hawk which was/is a land-based dsign.  Of course the gestation period was much longer and more fraught w/difficulty than originally envisioned too...
- SJS</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230;but no aircraft designed for shore based ops has ever been successfully navalised for work aboard a carrier.&#8221;</p>
<p>While some might question the &#8220;successful&#8221; aspect of the re-design, the fact is that the T-45 was redesigned from the BaE Hawk which was/is a land-based dsign.  Of course the gestation period was much longer and more fraught w/difficulty than originally envisioned too&#8230;<br />
- SJS</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justthisguy</title>
		<link>http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/12/13/brit-lightning/comment-page-1/#comment-33297</link>
		<dc:creator>Justthisguy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:34:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/12/13/brit-lightning/#comment-33297</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m &quot;anonymous&quot; again, when I wanted recognition for my pseudonym. What&#039;s going on here? Dang.  

I wish I could fix up my favorite pet B-57, sometimes, so it could fly again, with bombs, and everything, and drop said bombs on the houses of whomever wrote these stupid blog programs which don&#039;t work like I&#039;d like them to work. 

Just Kiddin! 

But very grumpy.   It&#039;s still not against the law to be grumpy. Right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m &#8220;anonymous&#8221; again, when I wanted recognition for my pseudonym. What&#8217;s going on here? Dang.  </p>
<p>I wish I could fix up my favorite pet B-57, sometimes, so it could fly again, with bombs, and everything, and drop said bombs on the houses of whomever wrote these stupid blog programs which don&#8217;t work like I&#8217;d like them to work. </p>
<p>Just Kiddin! </p>
<p>But very grumpy.   It&#8217;s still not against the law to be grumpy. Right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/12/13/brit-lightning/comment-page-1/#comment-33294</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:22:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/12/13/brit-lightning/#comment-33294</guid>
		<description>I saw a Brit Lightning, once. Actually, is was an *English Electric* Lightning. In Warner Robins, GA, at the museum there.  I think it was back in &#039;04, or thenabouts.  They didn&#039;t have it quite ready for display, but it was accessible, and autistic aerophile that I am, I crawled all over it. The places where it should have had its jet engines were empty, which was disappointing.

Any of y&#039;all who like to hang out with, and talk about, old military airplanes, can not go wrong by visiting the Warner Robins museum.

It is a petting zoo for old bombers. 

Speaking of which, I&#039;m worried about their B-57. When I&#039;ve been there, I rubbed it and said, &quot;It&#039;s OK,somebody will come along and look out for you!&quot; They still have left it out in the weather, last time I looked. 

That&#039;s just wrong!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I saw a Brit Lightning, once. Actually, is was an *English Electric* Lightning. In Warner Robins, GA, at the museum there.  I think it was back in &#8217;04, or thenabouts.  They didn&#8217;t have it quite ready for display, but it was accessible, and autistic aerophile that I am, I crawled all over it. The places where it should have had its jet engines were empty, which was disappointing.</p>
<p>Any of y&#8217;all who like to hang out with, and talk about, old military airplanes, can not go wrong by visiting the Warner Robins museum.</p>
<p>It is a petting zoo for old bombers. </p>
<p>Speaking of which, I&#8217;m worried about their B-57. When I&#8217;ve been there, I rubbed it and said, &#8220;It&#8217;s OK,somebody will come along and look out for you!&#8221; They still have left it out in the weather, last time I looked. </p>
<p>That&#8217;s just wrong!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bou</title>
		<link>http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/12/13/brit-lightning/comment-page-1/#comment-33288</link>
		<dc:creator>Bou</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:57:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/12/13/brit-lightning/#comment-33288</guid>
		<description>I work F-22.  Navalizing won&#039;t happen. Every time they take a USAF bird and try to make it go Navy, there are too many problems. From the get go, the F-35 (which I also work) was to go Navy and USAF. Two versions have always been in the prints.  The motor for the F-35 will be similar to the F-22, but not the same.  If I recall (I only work propulsion) the vertical lift capability is being provided by the Brits who have experience with that given the Harrier.  The lift fan sits right behind the pilot, which always makes me cock an eyebrow when I see it.  An uncontained blade failure in the lift fan would kind of suck. 

What I am waiting to see for the F-35 is... do they really single source the motor or are they going to go GE/Pratt with GE providing Navy propulsion and Pratt providing USAF.  It was supposed to be dual source, but now... hmm. I think it could go either way, single or dual.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I work F-22.  Navalizing won&#8217;t happen. Every time they take a USAF bird and try to make it go Navy, there are too many problems. From the get go, the F-35 (which I also work) was to go Navy and USAF. Two versions have always been in the prints.  The motor for the F-35 will be similar to the F-22, but not the same.  If I recall (I only work propulsion) the vertical lift capability is being provided by the Brits who have experience with that given the Harrier.  The lift fan sits right behind the pilot, which always makes me cock an eyebrow when I see it.  An uncontained blade failure in the lift fan would kind of suck. </p>
<p>What I am waiting to see for the F-35 is&#8230; do they really single source the motor or are they going to go GE/Pratt with GE providing Navy propulsion and Pratt providing USAF.  It was supposed to be dual source, but now&#8230; hmm. I think it could go either way, single or dual.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

