Credo
"Sign on, young man, and sail with me. The stature of our homeland is no more than the measure of ourselves. Our job is to keep her free. Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all. To this solemn purpose we call on the young, the brave, the strong, and the free. Heed my call, Come to the sea. Come Sail with me." -- John Paul Jones
"Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --George Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra"
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."--Friedrich Nietzsche
"A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancour, produces an indifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate."--Edmund Burke
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”--General Sir Charles Napier
"Μολὼν λαβέ" -- Leonidas
"Blogito Ergo Sum" -- Neptunus Lex
Excerpt taken from the F-35 web site, “As the most powerful single-engine fighter in history, the F-35 Lightning II produces more thrust than most twin-engine fighters.”
I’d love to read a critique like the Raptorous post. It looks heavy but with that much power..who cares!
Uh Huh, and from Boeing’s web site, specs for the Hornet:
Aircraft Characteristics
Dimensions: length 56 ft (17.1 m), wing span 40 ft (12.3 m), height 15.3 ft (4.7 m)
Propulsion: two F404-GE-402 engines, each with 18,000 pounds of thrust
Top speed: Mach 1.8
Combat radius: 500+ nm (900+ km)
Find me a Hornet Pilot who has done 1.8 or flown a carrier based 1000nm strike (with a realistic combat load) unrefueled and I’ll buy the first, second, and third rounds.
Not a hater, just a fan of truth in advertising
N
Wherefore all the Hornet bashing, my brother? Wasn’t even on topic, so what – Tourettes?
And although I’ve never to my certain knowledge flown a 1000nm strike, I’ve many the 1.8 hours – and more! – of unrefueled flight time. Can’t say as I particularly enjoyed any of it, but it’s all there in the logbook.
Lex,
See, I can’t write what I’m thinking! First, by 1.8, I meant Mach, not sortie length.
Maybe you’ve done that too, but not for long, I’d wager.
My point is that if Phil A is going to pull specs from a manufacturer’s web site, he needs the appropriate grain of salt to go with it.
In the sense of equal opportunity bashing, how about this nugget from the (Northrup) Grumman “E-2 Hawkeye Fact Sheet”:
With its distinctive 24-foot-diameter rotating radome and more than 12,000 pounds of sophisticated electronic equipment, the current E-2C can monitor six million cubic miles of airspace and more than 150,000 square miles of ocean surface for the presence of aircraft, missiles, ships and fixed targets. For example, an E-2C, the most automated AEWC & C system in operation today over New York City could track all the traffic in the congested Boston-to-Washington, D.C. air corridor.
Uh huh. But boy oh boy, it sure has trouble finding a non-squaking F-5 in the middle of the Fallon ranges!
How’s that?
I can also pick on Prowlers, Hoovers, H-60′s and even Tomcats (may they rest in peace.) Don’t even get me started on P-3′s!
N
OK, I give up! I’ve been retired for three years and have no idea what rating a “Mass Communications Specialist” would be. JO? PH? YN (with a digital camera)?
Next thing you know, they’ll be calling cooks, “Culinary Specialists” and Aviation Storkeepers won’t even be around!
Massa Chief, they ARE calling cooks “Culinary Specialists”…an oxymoron if there ever was one
Master Chief,
I believe “Mass Communications Specialist is JO+PH.
Of course maybe it also includes Catholic RPs.
Nose
Mr Nose – Since the Lightning II is in flight test and no data is available (to me) there is no “appropriate salt” in the shaker.My experience is all commercial airplane design where if the airplane is heavier than the design specification you sold, you put more pressure on the engine manufactuer and take a second look at the main spar in the wing.I’ll wait for the test pilot critique like the Raptorous post before I reach for the condiments.
Meanwhile…I dug around a bit and found some B-roll video of the first flight. It starts getting interesting (the machine starts moving) about 1/3 through.
Here
That looks like one enormous engine. At least, I don’t think they’re sponsored by Flowmaster.
When I got my CFI (1968) at one of the “big” schools, virtually none of the students admitted to thinking that “he” would one day, be flying a heavy. Almost all of us were male and many were vets. We had accepted the fact that pilots were so numerous and jobs were so scarce that even the ex-fighter pilots were not in line for an airline job. We flew because we liked flying.
What I see now at many schools is the students and CFIs are mostly people who see instruction, receipt of and giving of as a blip on their resume. Simulator time is an inconvenience for instructors and doesn’t count toward them getting a real flying job.
What I don’t see are very many students who just want to be good pilots.
Woody
As I scrolled back up, my impression was WTF. I thought that I was responding to the article on the aircraft collision.
I suppose that I need to see if the Doc wants to up my meds.
Woody
I admit it’s a little counter-intuitive at first, sorry Woody. You read to the bottom on my template, then go back to the top to comment. The downside is that it can be confusing, but on the upside it’s much easier to see when a good conversation has cropped up
I would bet that the Blue Angels Hornets would easily do 1.8 because of the slick paint scheme.
Lots of F-35 plane pr0n at Google videos
Check http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4742849525846050256&q=f-35+JSF&hl=en
and
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3329606404020958133&q=f-35+JSF&hl=en
Gotta love all three variants. How about the Bravo?
Nose,
I agree with Phil. Production representative testing has just started on the conventional F-35. Take it easy son.
As I remember it, the Navy bought the little Hornet with eyes wide open on it’s hoggish nature. Don’t forget it was acquired to replace the A-7. Nobody in the VF and Med Attack communities ever challenged the Hornet’s stats. Why, it was only light attack after all. Little did anyone know that like Mold it would take over our world!
Since then it’s all been spin and that’s really what set you off. More- I recently learned that Big Hornets pulling duty as overhead tankers routinely dump 4-6K lbs on EVERY flight regardless of the number of tanks. Do da math and be amazed!
BTW, I do believe Lex has taken a shine to the young Lightening for exactly the same reason I have- all that range and all that Raptor-like power Boudicca says is on the up/up. He was born too late for this sled but the Hornet was king once and Lex got in at the ground floor!
When I get a true pilots report (Navy testing ain’t that far off) like that F-22 email I’ll be sure to pass it on.
b2
the skinny landing gear look kinda cute.
as far as the Navy testing, wait till it gets behind the boat. i forsee the same problems as most other aircraft, that the aerodynamic properties will make the A/C too clean, much like the S-3, T-45 were in initial tests. and the same for the range. get a payload on the B/C variants and see how it fares with all the extra weight from real landing gear and V/STOL stuff and see how far it goes.
when was the last time a single engine trapped on a carrier? just a small curiosity…
djvc – if you mean besides the T-45:
I would guess early 90′s A-7s? (JFK/CVW-3 had them during Desert Storm)
Any foreigners flying single engine to their boats?
Nose
i should have clarified that, thanks!
stuff happens around the boat, super cool single engine dies or is FOD’d and then what!
Concur- In the old days, the single engine single seat jets were so cheap, they were darn near disposable as long as we got the warm pink body out of it safely. The reason the navy defines a class “A” mishap as “Damage in excess of 1 million dollars OR loss of airframe” is because there were some jets whose airframes costed out at less than 1 mil (think A-4).
I know that engines are much more reliable these days. It’s darn near scary how reliable they are and with in flight monitoring, you can detect a failing engine early on. But as you said, what about bad gas, fod, battle damage, etc.
Nose
oh, and bird’s down the intake too. can’t forget those.
things happen.