Quick guide to the F-35 JSF versions.
Henry J Cobb
What are the service requirements that are driving these three versions?
The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
F/A-22s to clear the way so the Air Force needs runways anyway. Because
the Air Force always needs permission slips to operate they can't assume
that their bases will be in the country next door so they need more
range than the F-35B offers.
The Navy needs a F-35C that won't break up during a high speed carrier
landing and they need greater range because they don't have these
"deals" with tanker builders like the AF does so they'll have to rely on
Super Hornet tankers.
The Marines are desperate to get their airpower on the ground as quickly
as possible in case the Navy pulls another Leyte Gulf on them and so
they're willing to accept a half-sized bombload on the S/VTOL F-35B.
-HJC
Ed Rasimus
>Why do we need three different versions of the F-35?
>
>What are the service requirements that are driving these three versions?
Gotta say you make some interesting assumptions.
>
>The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
>F/A-22s to clear the way so the Air Force needs runways anyway. Because
>the Air Force always needs permission slips to operate they can't assume
>that their bases will be in the country next door so they need more
>range than the F-35B offers.
While air superiority is always nice for bomb droppers, the F-35
itself is inherently stealthy and quite maneuverable. Don't make an
unnecessary dependency link between 22s and 35s. They probably will
function in concert, but not necessarily.
Range from operating bases is generally irrlevant today with in-flight
refueling capability. Witness the distances and endurance requirements
of the Afghanistan campaign.
>
>The Navy needs a F-35C that won't break up during a high speed carrier
>landing and they need greater range because they don't have these
>"deals" with tanker builders like the AF does so they'll have to rely on
>Super Hornet tankers.
Once again, notice Afghanistan. Tankers don't know the color of the
aircraft to whom they pass gas. The gratuitous reference to "deals"
has nothing to do with the aircraft selection. The AF doesn't get
kickbacks from aircraft suppliers. They simply establish requirements
and Congress then acts (or not.)
>
>The Marines are desperate to get their airpower on the ground as quickly
>as possible in case the Navy pulls another Leyte Gulf on them and so
>they're willing to accept a half-sized bombload on the S/VTOL F-35B.
GMAFB. A "Leyte Gulf"? Are we living in the pre-historic past?
>
>-HJC
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8
Tarver Engineering
"Henry J Cobb" <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
news:75WdndaMT4t...@io.com...
> Why do we need three different versions of the F-35?
>
> What are the service requirements that are driving these three versions?
>
> The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
> F/A-22s to clear the way so the Air Force needs runways anyway. Because
> the Air Force always needs permission slips to operate they can't assume
> that their bases will be in the country next door so they need more
> range than the F-35B offers.
No F-22 is required.
t_mark
> F/A-22s to clear the way
Um ... say what?
<snip the rest about how we're building a worthless plane>
Harry Andreas
Amusing, tongue-in-cheek descriptions.
BTW, it's STOVL, not S/VTOL.
--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
Kevin Brooks
"Henry J Cobb" <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
news:75WdndaMT4t...@io.com...
> Why do we need three different versions of the F-35?
Because of differing operational requirments.
>
> What are the service requirements that are driving these three versions?
From a quick perusal of the fecal material you spouted below, you are the
wrong person to be answering that question. So you have now gone from
lambasting the USN over LCS and DDX in the SMN group, and are now bringing
your "Henry Knows Best" schtick over here to RAM? And now you apparently
want to broaden your claims of intellectual and tactical superiority over
the professional service personnel responsible for these programs from the
USN to three of the four major services?
>
> The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
> F/A-22s to clear the way
Where did you get that strange idea?
so the Air Force needs runways anyway. Because
> the Air Force always needs permission slips to operate they can't assume
> that their bases will be in the country next door so they need more
> range than the F-35B offers.
Well, range is a key concern for most USAF platforms, but if it was
paramount then why is the USAF not buying the C model with its even longer
range?
>
> The Navy needs a F-35C that won't break up during a high speed carrier
> landing and they need greater range because they don't have these
> "deals" with tanker builders like the AF does so they'll have to rely on
> Super Hornet tankers.
Never heard of "joint operations", huh Henry? Heck, a lot of USN tanking
requirements during OEF were provided by *RAF* tankers, in addition to
(gasp!) USAF KC's.
>
> The Marines are desperate to get their airpower on the ground as quickly
> as possible in case the Navy pulls another Leyte Gulf on them and so
> they're willing to accept a half-sized bombload on the S/VTOL F-35B.
Your blood sugar must be spiking again. The USMC wants the *STOVL*
capability (what the heck is "S/VTOL"?) to allow them to both provide air
support from vessels other than CVN's (thus improving their versatility as a
force) and to allow them to establish air operations from ashore without
having to seize intact or build a complete airstrip--kind of understandable
given their expeditionary nature.
Brooks
>
> -HJC
>
Ian
"Kevin Brooks" <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Dc-dnZ5GlrL...@adelphia.com...
probe and drogue (like our RAF/RN) arrangement, with the USAF primarily
using a boom? If so, how easy is it to convert USAF tankers to allow
USN/USMC/RAF/RN operations? I know its been done, but wonder if there are
any significant penalties?
John S. Shinal
>"Henry J Cobb" babbled
>> The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
>> F/A-22s to clear the way
No more than the F-16s need F-15s to clear the way. When using
AWACS the IDM and AIM-120s, it's a whole new BVR engagement these
days. It's safe to say the F-35A won't need much of anything except to
divide tasks among the various members of the strike force.
>> The Navy needs a F-35C that won't break up during a high speed carrier
>> landing and they need greater range because they don't have these
>> "deals" with tanker builders like the AF does so they'll have to rely on
>> Super Hornet tankers.
>
>Never heard of "joint operations", huh Henry? Heck, a lot of USN tanking
>requirements during OEF were provided by *RAF* tankers, in addition to
>(gasp!) USAF KC's.
I think these "deals" are either the proposal to lease tankers
(horrors - adopt commercial practices !) or they consider the original
purchase of KC-135s thirty (?) years ago as some sort of sweetheart
deal. Conspiracy people see them everywhere, it seems.
>The USMC wants the *STOVL*
>capability (what the heck is "S/VTOL"?) to allow them to both provide air
>support from vessels other than CVN's (thus improving their versatility as a
>force) and to allow them to establish air operations from ashore without
>having to seize intact or build a complete airstrip--kind of understandable
>given their expeditionary nature.
If the Marines' version is operated CTOL from a carrier deck,
is the useful load more in line with the Navy version, and/or is the
aircraft intended for CTOL carrier work ?
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Guy Alcala
Depends. The KC-135 was for years limited to a bastardized afterthought of a
drogue that was attached to the end of the boom. Pilots of all services are
united in their detestation of the thing, and it can only be changed on the
ground. More recently, the USAF has bought some number of FR Mk.32B wing-mounted
pods, and modified an appropriate number of KC-135Rs, so that a/c using either
system can be refueled on the same sortie.
In the case of the KC-10, it's alaways had a single drogue on the centerline, in
addition to the boom, so it can refuel either type on the same mission.
However, to improve the number of a/c it can refuel simultaneously, like the
KC-135Rs mentioned above some a/c have been modified to carry Mk. 32B pods on
the wings.
The Feb. 23rd AvLeak has an article on Boeing's proposed Blended-Wing-Body
designs, one of which is a tanker with two(!) booms and what appeared to be
drogue pods outboard of the booms, possibly with another on the centerline.
Guy
Ed Rasimus
>In article <ohjp301p08o4qrpia...@4ax.com>,
> Ed Rasimus <rasimu...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> While air superiority is always nice for bomb droppers, the F-35
>> itself is inherently stealthy and quite maneuverable.
>
>I thought the F-35 had poorer wing loading than modern Russian jets and
>was not considered very maneaverable.
Wing loading isn't a very good index of agility. There are a lot of
factors in the mix including the shape, the airfoil, the lift/drag
coefficients, the excess thrust available and the design stability.
Stealthy forms typically are less agile than non-stealthy, but the
state-of-the-art has advanced considerably.
Once you've got sustainable g-available over 7, the terms "not very
maneuverable" become quite relative.
Chad Irby
Hobo <noe...@noemail.com> wrote:
> In article <ohjp301p08o4qrpia...@4ax.com>,
> Ed Rasimus <rasimu...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> > While air superiority is always nice for bomb droppers, the F-35
> > itself is inherently stealthy and quite maneuverable.
>
> I thought the F-35 had poorer wing loading than modern Russian jets and
> was not considered very maneaverable.
About the same as the Su-33, apparently.
446 kg/m^2 versus 442.5 kg/m^2
--
cirby at cfl.rr.com
Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
Frijoles
Leyte Gulf. Then you are cleared hot on bringing him into the 21st century
;).
"Ed Rasimus" <rasimu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:ohjp301p08o4qrpia...@4ax.com...
Kevin Brooks
"John S. Shinal" <jshinal_REMO...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:403e0f6a...@text-west.newsfeeds.com...
> "Kevin Brooks" wrote:
>
>
> >"Henry J Cobb" babbled
> >> The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
> >> F/A-22s to clear the way
>
> No more than the F-16s need F-15s to clear the way. When using
> AWACS the IDM and AIM-120s, it's a whole new BVR engagement these
> days. It's safe to say the F-35A won't need much of anything except to
> divide tasks among the various members of the strike force.
>
> >> The Navy needs a F-35C that won't break up during a high speed carrier
> >> landing and they need greater range because they don't have these
> >> "deals" with tanker builders like the AF does so they'll have to rely
on
> >> Super Hornet tankers.
> >
> >Never heard of "joint operations", huh Henry? Heck, a lot of USN tanking
> >requirements during OEF were provided by *RAF* tankers, in addition to
> >(gasp!) USAF KC's.
>
> I think these "deals" are either the proposal to lease tankers
> (horrors - adopt commercial practices !) or they consider the original
> purchase of KC-135s thirty (?) years ago as some sort of sweetheart
> deal. Conspiracy people see them everywhere, it seems.
More like forty (plus) years ago; the last A models (which have since been
modified to E and R models) were produced in 1964; first flight had been in
1954 and the first airacraft were ordered in 1955.
>
>
> >The USMC wants the *STOVL*
> >capability (what the heck is "S/VTOL"?) to allow them to both provide air
> >support from vessels other than CVN's (thus improving their versatility
as a
> >force) and to allow them to establish air operations from ashore without
> >having to seize intact or build a complete airstrip--kind of
understandable
> >given their expeditionary nature.
>
> If the Marines' version is operated CTOL from a carrier deck,
> is the useful load more in line with the Navy version, and/or is the
> aircraft intended for CTOL carrier work ?
I seriously doubt they will be capable of CTOL carrier operations except in
their normal STOVL configuration. The latest reports indicate that the B
model is the most overweight of the versions (the A model already being
under the required weight) at this point in development and is undergoing a
"diet" as is. They will most definitely not want to add pounds by
strengthening the landing gear and structure to allow catapult assisted
takeoffs and arrested landings. And it would beg the question of "why"? One
advantage of the B model is that they can get it into action from smaller
vessels (i.e., LHA's) and can leave the deck space on the CVN's for the CTOL
birds.
Brooks
George
> news:75WdndaMT4t...@io.com...
>
> > Why do we need three different versions of the F-35?
>
> Because of differing operational requirments.
>
>
> >
> > The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
> > F/A-22s to clear the way
>
> Where did you get that strange idea?
>
> so the Air Force needs runways anyway. Because
> > the Air Force always needs permission slips to operate they can't assume
> > that their bases will be in the country next door so they need more
> > range than the F-35B offers.
> Your blood sugar must be spiking again. The USMC wants the *STOVL*
> capability (what the heck is "S/VTOL"?) to allow them to both provide air
> support from vessels other than CVN's (thus improving their versatility as a
> force) and to allow them to establish air operations from ashore without
> having to seize intact or build a complete airstrip--kind of understandable
> given their expeditionary nature.
Actually the AF is talking about putting some of their buy into the
-B model because they want the short take-off capability for places
like Afghanistan. Jumper announced this in the latest AF Times.
Ed Rasimus
wrote:
>Whoa, easy there Ed. First gig him on the fact that it was Guadalcanal not
>Leyte Gulf. Then you are cleared hot on bringing him into the 21st century
>;).
>
Gimme a bit of slack please. It's before my time (even mine!) and I've
always been a bit weak in Marine Corps history.
The point, of course, is that there's nothing wrong with the
technology development of the STOVL version. I'm skeptical but have
been proven wrong before. I'm not a great believer in vertical
aircraft--AV-8 has been troublesome and we probably don't want to get
into Osprey discussions.
I've got the feeling that a useful CAS platform might be easier to
develop, less costly and more maintainable with soft field capability.
The effort to get extreme short T/O and vertical recovery seems to be
so much whiz-bang. I'd like more payload and less pilot workload.
Mike Marron
>The point, of course, is that there's nothing wrong with the
>technology development of the STOVL version. I'm skeptical but have
>been proven wrong before. I'm not a great believer in vertical
>aircraft--AV-8 has been troublesome and we probably don't want to get
>into Osprey discussions.
You're not alone. Very few aviators (military or civilian) have shown
much interest in obtaining the FAA's new "Powered Lift" rating since
the V-22 seems to crash with distressing regularity.
>I've got the feeling that a useful CAS platform might be easier to
>develop, less costly and more maintainable with soft field capability.
>The effort to get extreme short T/O and vertical recovery seems to be
>so much whiz-bang. I'd like more payload and less pilot workload.
Sepecat Jaguar? Soft-field and STOL capabilities, geared for ground
attack (10,000 lbs. of ordinance) supersonic....
Kevin Brooks
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:14:35 GMT, "Frijoles" <ice...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Whoa, easy there Ed. First gig him on the fact that it was Guadalcanal
not
> >Leyte Gulf. Then you are cleared hot on bringing him into the 21st
century
> >;).
> >
>
> Gimme a bit of slack please. It's before my time (even mine!) and I've
> always been a bit weak in Marine Corps history.
>
> The point, of course, is that there's nothing wrong with the
> technology development of the STOVL version. I'm skeptical but have
> been proven wrong before. I'm not a great believer in vertical
> aircraft--AV-8 has been troublesome and we probably don't want to get
> into Osprey discussions.
You may be surprised to know that the USAF has resurrected the concept of
buying the STOVL version as part of its F-35 force. Announced this week, and
the marines are tickled pink because it may mean their unit cost could go
down.
Brooks
Kevin Brooks
"George" <Geod...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c28d4ba.04022...@posting.google.com...
Yep. I read the release after I wrote the above.
Brooks
Lyle
<rasimu...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 08:09:40 -0800, Henry J Cobb <hc...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>Why do we need three different versions of the F-35?
>>
>>What are the service requirements that are driving these three versions?
>
>Gotta say you make some interesting assumptions.
>>
>>The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
>>F/A-22s to clear the way so the Air Force needs runways anyway. Because
>>the Air Force always needs permission slips to operate they can't assume
>>that their bases will be in the country next door so they need more
>>range than the F-35B offers.
>
>While air superiority is always nice for bomb droppers, the F-35
>itself is inherently stealthy and quite maneuverable. Don't make an
>unnecessary dependency link between 22s and 35s. They probably will
>function in concert, but not necessarily.
wasnt one of the requirement of the JSF to be just as manuverable as
F-16 if not more?
Lyle
sounds like they want to use the B version to replace the A-10
Henry J Cobb
> How much payload do you lose in the STOVL version?
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf35.html
The F-35A and F-35C can carry two 900 kilogram (2,000 pound) JDAMS
internally, while the STOVL F-35B is limited to internal carriage of two
450 kilogram (1,000 pound) JDAMs.
...
Only the USAF F-35A has a built-in gun, with an "Advanced 27 Millimeter
Cannon", an improved version of the Mauser BK-27 revolver-type cannon,
in the left wingroot. The other variants do not have a built-in gun, but
can accommodate a cannon pack plugged into one of the weapons bays.
So the answer seems to be half the internal bombs and the gun.
Is a F-35B with a gun pod non-stealthy?
-HJC
Chad Irby
Mike Marron <pegas...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> You're not alone. Very few aviators (military or civilian) have shown
> much interest in obtaining the FAA's new "Powered Lift" rating since
> the V-22 seems to crash with distressing regularity.
For extremely loose definitions of "regular." Less often than the big
helicopters we're currently using, during their development, and none at
all in what, three years? Four crashes of an experimental aircraft type
in over a decade of development is actually pretty darned impressive.
The one famous accident they had, due to vortex ring state, happened in
conditions that normal helos wouldn't normally even *attempt* (very high
descent rate, about 2.5 times the normal max).
The Chinook and F-14 had very high accident rates when they were in
development, too.
Thomas Schoene
> R. David Steele wrote:
>> How much payload do you lose in the STOVL version?
>
> http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf35.html
> The F-35A and F-35C can carry two 900 kilogram (2,000 pound) JDAMS
> internally, while the STOVL F-35B is limited to internal carriage of
> two 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) JDAMs.
> ...
> Only the USAF F-35A has a built-in gun, with an "Advanced 27
> Millimeter Cannon", an improved version of the Mauser BK-27
> revolver-type cannon, in the left wingroot. The other variants do not
> have a built-in gun, but can accommodate a cannon pack plugged into
> one of the weapons bays.
Out of date information, again.
The 27mm has been replaced by a 25mm Gatling. And the gun pack goes on a
conformal stealthy belly pod, not in the weapon bay.
Here's more up to date info.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/spr03/phispr03.ht
ml
> So the answer seems to be half the internal bombs and the gun.
OTOH, for Marine Corps targets, a 1000-lb bomb is usually as good as a
2000-lb bomb. In fact, the Marines often want 500-lb bombs instead, due to
their smaller danger space.
The real loss is not weapon load but range. The STOVL version has a combat
radius of roughly 450 nm, compared to more than 600nm for the CTOL model and
750nm for the carrier version.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
Thomas Schoene
> BTW, we need to be thinking of merging the 20mm, 25mm and 30mm
> weapon systems into one (pick one). I had thought that the 25mm
> as used by the Army on the Bradley would be a good choice, if it
> is not too long. But we have a logistics problem. And the less
> things that we have to carry, the better. It also lowers the
> unit cost if munitions are used across a variety of platforms.
As noted, they dropped the 27mm in favor of a 25mm gatling. This is
basically the same gun as in the current AV-8B and fires the same ammo as
the LAV, Bradley, and some shipboard mounts.
> BTW, you sound like an engineer.
God, I hope not. Henry has a sketchy history of understanding technical
subjects.
Kevin Brooks
"Thomas Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:Qxe%b.8471$yZ1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> R. David Steele wrote:
>
> > BTW, we need to be thinking of merging the 20mm, 25mm and 30mm
> > weapon systems into one (pick one). I had thought that the 25mm
> > as used by the Army on the Bradley would be a good choice, if it
> > is not too long. But we have a logistics problem. And the less
> > things that we have to carry, the better. It also lowers the
> > unit cost if munitions are used across a variety of platforms.
>
> As noted, they dropped the 27mm in favor of a 25mm gatling. This is
> basically the same gun as in the current AV-8B and fires the same ammo as
> the LAV, Bradley, and some shipboard mounts.
>
> > BTW, you sound like an engineer.
>
> God, I hope not. Henry has a sketchy history of understanding technical
> subjects.
And he's none to swift with the non-technical ones, either.
Brooks
>
> --
> Tom Schoene
John Keeney
An olden days description of a plane that could do
Short take-offs or landings
or
Vertical take-offs or landings.
It does seem to have fallen out of use some time in the last
thirty years.
Damn, I'm old enough now that new fangled terms have
reached the forgotten obsolescent state...
John Cook
<rasimu...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:57:33 -0800, Hobo <noe...@noemail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <ohjp301p08o4qrpia...@4ax.com>,
>> Ed Rasimus <rasimu...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> While air superiority is always nice for bomb droppers, the F-35
>>> itself is inherently stealthy and quite maneuverable.
BVR the JSF should be good,but WVR it would suffer if it didn't have
an high off boresite missle and an helmet to cue the missile.
It may lack in areas of the flight envelope that is useful for post
missile launch maneauvre to deny the opposition a shot, but its
stealth should make up for it.
Thats my take on it, it all depends on how good the avionics are!
consider the price, lots of stuff may get left off due to weight and
costs...
Cheers
John Cook
<broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Ed Rasimus" <rasimu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:38gq30ds36fhrt1bi...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:14:35 GMT, "Frijoles" <ice...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Whoa, easy there Ed. First gig him on the fact that it was Guadalcanal
>not
>> >Leyte Gulf. Then you are cleared hot on bringing him into the 21st
>century
>> >;).
>> >
>>
>> Gimme a bit of slack please. It's before my time (even mine!) and I've
>> always been a bit weak in Marine Corps history.
>>
>> The point, of course, is that there's nothing wrong with the
>> technology development of the STOVL version. I'm skeptical but have
>> been proven wrong before. I'm not a great believer in vertical
>> aircraft--AV-8 has been troublesome and we probably don't want to get
>> into Osprey discussions.
>
>You may be surprised to know that the USAF has resurrected the concept of
>buying the STOVL version as part of its F-35 force. Announced this week, and
>the marines are tickled pink because it may mean their unit cost could go
>down.
You shouldn't be surprised the idea of a two version JSF will gain
ground, the carrier version and STOVL, with a possible hack for the
CTOL simply ("yeah right!" I hear you shout) by removing the lift fan
and putting in a fuel tank,
This seems the best way to cut costs, the CTOL version could benifit
from the increase fuel.
cheers
Mike Marron
>>You're not alone. Very few aviators (military or civilian) have shown
>>much interest in obtaining the FAA's new "Powered Lift" rating since
>>the V-22 seems to crash with distressing regularity.
>For extremely loose definitions of "regular." Less often than the big
>helicopters we're currently using, during their development, and none at
>all in what, three years? Four crashes of an experimental aircraft type
>in over a decade of development is actually pretty darned impressive.
Extremely loose definition of "development," too. The V-22 is hardly
a new concept as tilt-rotors have been under "development" since
what...1951?!
Thomas Schoene
> "Kevin Brooks" <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Dc-dnZ5GlrL...@adelphia.com...
>>
>> capability (what the heck is "S/VTOL"?) to allow them to both
>> provide air
>
> An olden days description of a plane that could do
> Short take-offs or landings
> or
> Vertical take-offs or landings.
The usual abbreviation for this was the other way around--V/STOL.
Frijoles
hurdled prior to downselect. This issue with the B and the C is weight.
Though they are both predicted to make the KPPs at current weight, given
historical weight growth of most TACAIR programs (3-4% a year IIRC), they
decided to deal with it now. Also, the B is the 'canary in the coal mine"
wrt weight because of the way it is more sensitive to weight than the other
two. (The C is a close second due to Vpa issues.) Because the A is
essentially the baseline, it gets some attention too. The B has the same
payload capability as the A (it was announced by Gen Hough with little
fanfare sometime in the last year).
The PVI is very simple -- even fighter guys can do it on the first try.
"Ed Rasimus" <rasimu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:38gq30ds36fhrt1bi...@4ax.com...
Frijoles
it is no longer a Marine-unique asset in the US inventory. "Marine-only"
would make it a target for perpetual $$ starvation by the USN.
"Kevin Brooks" <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XPWdnYOREOO...@adelphia.com...
Frijoles
2000# bay for the B.
"Henry J Cobb" <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
news:UrydndzSm5e...@io.com...
Frijoles
that a 35B with two drop tanks and similar weapons load is predicted to have
nearly 200nm more combat radius than an E/F Hornet. Also, what makes the
35C numbers even more impressive is that the radius profile includes 2 Case
III looks at the ball followed by a bingo of considerable distance.
"Thomas Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:bZd%b.8424$yZ1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Kevin Brooks
"John Keeney" <jdke...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:403da...@news.iglou.com...
Uhmmm..that would have been "V/STOL", wouldn't it? Not to be picky, but ol'
Henry can be a royal pain in the ass and correcting his mistakes helps in
keeping his rants in perspective.
Brooks
>
>
Harry Andreas
Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
> Henry J Cobb wrote:
> > R. David Steele wrote:
> >> How much payload do you lose in the STOVL version?
> >
> > http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf35.html
> > The F-35A and F-35C can carry two 900 kilogram (2,000 pound) JDAMS
> > internally, while the STOVL F-35B is limited to internal carriage of
> > two 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) JDAMs.
> > ...
> > Only the USAF F-35A has a built-in gun, with an "Advanced 27
> > Millimeter Cannon", an improved version of the Mauser BK-27
> > revolver-type cannon, in the left wingroot. The other variants do not
> > have a built-in gun, but can accommodate a cannon pack plugged into
> > one of the weapons bays.
>
> Out of date information, again.
>
> The 27mm has been replaced by a 25mm Gatling. And the gun pack goes on a
> conformal stealthy belly pod, not in the weapon bay.
The gun stays in the right wing root for the A model.
--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
Chad Irby
Mike Marron <pegas...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >>Mike Marron <pegas...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> >>You're not alone. Very few aviators (military or civilian) have shown
> >>much interest in obtaining the FAA's new "Powered Lift" rating since
> >>the V-22 seems to crash with distressing regularity.
>
> >For extremely loose definitions of "regular." Less often than the big
> >helicopters we're currently using, during their development, and none at
> >all in what, three years? Four crashes of an experimental aircraft type
> >in over a decade of development is actually pretty darned impressive.
>
> Extremely loose definition of "development," too.
Then you're going to have to start screaming about that horrible "F-14
deathtrap," which had about the same number of crashes per flight hour
in development, and was, by no means, anything like the first swing-wing
plane.
> The V-22 is hardly a new concept as tilt-rotors have been under
> "development" since what...1951?!
Oddly enough, none of the crashes in the F-22 program have been caused
by design problems with the tilt-rotor system. One gyro wired
backwards, some hydraulics issues, and the discovery that you could get
it into vortex ring state if you flew it downwards faster than any big
helos are allowed to fly...
Harry Andreas
<steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote:
> |The 27mm has been replaced by a 25mm Gatling. And the gun pack goes on a
> |conformal stealthy belly pod, not in the weapon bay.
>
> The 25mm makes sense. What we need to do is covert other 20mm
> Gatling guns, such as those on the F/A-18 or the MK 15 20mm
> Phalanx CIWS Close-In Weapons Systems, over to the 25mm. It is
> just a matter of long term logistics and costs. I believe that
> some ships are using the 25mm Bushmaster as surface defense
> weapons (against small attack boats).
"just a matter of logistics and cost"? I guess whether the larger gun fits
or not doesn't count. And of course, the higher muzzle blast, acoustic
noise levels, random vibration, greater volume of gun gasses, higher weight,
aircraft CG issues, etc. all don't matter much either.
Not to mention the larger ammo in a fixed space will mean fewer rounds.
> It is the same as converting the 5-Inch 54 Cal. MK 45 Guns over
> to the 155mm (~6 inch) shell. That would save money plus mean
> that ships could offload shells to the Marines.
It's not at all like that. Not even similar.
Harry Andreas
<Jwc...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:35:19 -0700, Ed Rasimus
> <rasimu...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:57:33 -0800, Hobo <noe...@noemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <ohjp301p08o4qrpia...@4ax.com>,
> >> Ed Rasimus <rasimu...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> While air superiority is always nice for bomb droppers, the F-35
> >>> itself is inherently stealthy and quite maneuverable.
>
> BVR the JSF should be good,but WVR it would suffer if it didn't have
> an high off boresite missle and an helmet to cue the missile.
>
> It may lack in areas of the flight envelope that is useful for post
> missile launch maneauvre to deny the opposition a shot, but its
> stealth should make up for it.
Comanche found out that when you're WVR stealth is problematic.
> Thats my take on it, it all depends on how good the avionics are!
> consider the price, lots of stuff may get left off due to weight and
> costs...
The avionics suite is currently common across all three platforms.
Tarver Engineering
"Chad Irby" <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qvp%b.140178$jH.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> Oddly enough, none of the crashes in the F-22 program have been caused
> by design problems with the tilt-rotor system.
Fascinating, tell us more. :)
Chad Irby
and...@computer.org (Harry Andreas) wrote:
> "just a matter of logistics and cost"? I guess whether the larger gun fits
> or not doesn't count.
The major size difference between the 25mm and 20mm guns is that the
25mm is about a foot longer and about 40 pounds heavier (when compared
to the "heavy barrel" version of the M61).
The bigger issue is the greatly increased recoil from the heavy gun -
5,000 pounds or so versus 3200 pounds from the 20mm. So you'd have to
reinforce the airframe somewhat to use the bigger gun in most planes.
Chad Irby
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote:
There's been one crash from an engine fire, one from a gyro problem, one
from vortex ring state, and one from hydraulics. None directly tied to
tiltrotor tech.
The vortex ring state crash was really interesting, because it happened
when they took it in a descent that was *way* faster than any normal
cargo helo would even attempt. They've also found out since then that
the V-22 can get *out* of VRS by tilting the rotors forward, which
normal helos can't do.
On the other hand, when the Blackhawk was in development and early
deployment, the pilots called the the "Black Rock." Tail issues.
The Huey, when it first came out, had the depressing tendency to lose
its rotor when you took it into negative Gs the wrong way.
The Chinook liked catching on fire...
Overall, the V-22 is doing pretty darned good.
Tarver Engineering
> In article <bdmdnUonVfk...@sti.net>,
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:qvp%b.140178$jH.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > > Oddly enough, none of the crashes in the F-22 program have been caused
> > > by design problems with the tilt-rotor system.
> >
> > Fascinating, tell us more. :)
>
> There's been one crash from an engine fire, one from a gyro problem, one
> from vortex ring state, and one from hydraulics. None directly tied to
> tiltrotor tech.
I was thinking there was only the one YF-22 crash.
Mike Marron
>>You're not alone. Very few aviators (military or civilian) have shown
>>much interest in obtaining the FAA's new "Powered Lift" rating since
>>the V-22 seems to crash with distressing regularity.
>For extremely loose definitions of "regular." Less often than the big
>helicopters we're currently using, during their development, and none at
>all in what, three years? Four crashes of an experimental aircraft type
>in over a decade of development is actually pretty darned impressive.
>>Extremely loose definition of "development," too.
>Then you're going to have to start screaming
Ay? Whose "screaming?"
>about that horrible "F-14 deathtrap," which had about the same number
>of crashes per flight hour in development, and was, by no means, anything
>like the first swing-wing plane.
Why you keep trotting out the F-14 is beyond me. Squadrons of
fighters and fighter bombers with variable geometry wings have
been around for decades (since the 60's) long before the F-14
was even on the drawing boards. In fact, unlike tilt-rotor aircraft,
some swing-wing aircraft such as the F-111, Su-22 and Su-24 have
been operational for so long now that they've even become obsolete!
And there's also the B-1, Mig-27 and Tornado swing wings which,
unlike the Osprey tilt-rotor, have also been operational for decades.
Don't misunderstand, I wouldn't be building and flying flexwing trikes
if I were a luddite, but I haven't met too many pilots whom are all
that impressed by either the Osprey or the Harrier especially
when compared to their more conventional fixed and rotary wing
counterparts.
Chad Irby
Mike Marron <pegas...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> Why you keep trotting out the F-14 is beyond me.
Because, during its development, it crashed *more* often than the
"dangerous" Osprey has, per hour of flight.
And *way* more often than the "troubled" F-22.
Thomas Schoene
>>>> How much payload do you lose in the STOVL version?
>>>
>>> http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf35.html
>>> The F-35A and F-35C can carry two 900 kilogram (2,000 pound) JDAMS
>>> internally, while the STOVL F-35B is limited to internal carriage of
>>> two 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) JDAMs.
>>> ...
>>> Only the USAF F-35A has a built-in gun, with an "Advanced 27
>>> Millimeter Cannon", an improved version of the Mauser BK-27
>>> revolver-type cannon, in the left wingroot. The other variants do
>>> not have a built-in gun, but can accommodate a cannon pack plugged
>>> into
>>> one of the weapons bays.
>>
>> Out of date information, again.
>>
>> The 27mm has been replaced by a 25mm Gatling. And the gun pack goes
>> on a conformal stealthy belly pod, not in the weapon bay.
>
> Gatling guns, such as those on the F/A-18 or the MK 15 20mm
> Phalanx CIWS Close-In Weapons Systems, over to the 25mm. It is
> just a matter of long term logistics and costs. I believe that
> some ships are using the 25mm Bushmaster as surface defense
> weapons (against small attack boats).
I think you're really overestimating the potential savings here. There are
already massive stockpiles fo 20mm ammo and it doesn't cost much to buy
more. But it woudl eb exceedingly exopensive to swap gun mounts, if it's
possible at all. Many aircraft installations would find it very hard to
exchange the M-61 for a GAU-12.
The Navy decided against this sort of refit for the Phalanx several years
ago. The Block 1B has improved (longer) barrels and enhanced 20mm
ammunition, but it keeps the same caliber so that existing ammo stocks can
be used. The Navy's real preference is to move up to Rolling Airframe
Missile for anti-missile defense and use the 30mm Mk 46 turret (from the
Marine AAAV) for small-boat defense
>
> It is the same as converting the 5-Inch 54 Cal. MK 45 Guns over
> to the 155mm (~6 inch) shell. That would save money plus mean
> that ships could offload shells to the Marines.
There is no intention to convert existing 127mm mounts or ships to 155mm.
It's just not a practical possibility. Future ships will have 155mm in the
form of the Advanced Gun System, which is much larger than the Mk 45.
David Lednicer
> On the other hand, when the Blackhawk was in development and early
> deployment, the pilots called the the "Black Rock." Tail issues.
Not certain what you are talking about. There was one crash and one
heavy landing during Black Hawk development. The crash was a result of
the airspeed input into the horizontal tail scheduling not being hooked
up after maintenance. On take off, the horizontal tail stayed in the
high incidence position, causing the aircraft to pitch over and crash,
killing the crew. The heavy landing resulted from an excessive rate of
descent, due to pilot error. The result was a shaken up crew and a
broken tail wheel.
> The Huey, when it first came out, had the depressing tendency to lose
> its rotor when you took it into negative Gs the wrong way.
This hasn't changed - the Huey has a teetering rotor, which looses its
head moment at low and negative G conditions. Once the head moment is
gone, control of the rotor is lost and it starts thrashing and
eventually mast bumps. If the mast bump is severe enough, the mast
breaks and rotor departs.
Tarver Engineering
"David Lednicer" <da...@amiwest.com> wrote in message
news:403F7DAA...@amiwest.com...
> Chad Irby wrote:
> > On the other hand, when the Blackhawk was in development and early
> > deployment, the pilots called the the "Black Rock." Tail issues.
>
> Not certain what you are talking about.
That is a common thread in Irby's posts.
> There was one crash and one
> heavy landing during Black Hawk development. The crash was a result of
> the airspeed input into the horizontal tail scheduling not being hooked
> up after maintenance. On take off, the horizontal tail stayed in the
> high incidence position, causing the aircraft to pitch over and crash,
> killing the crew. The heavy landing resulted from an excessive rate of
> descent, due to pilot error. The result was a shaken up crew and a
> broken tail wheel.
The Blackhawk has served America well.
Chad Irby
David Lednicer <da...@amiwest.com> wrote:
> Chad Irby wrote:
> > On the other hand, when the Blackhawk was in development and early
> > deployment, the pilots called the the "Black Rock." Tail issues.
>
> Not certain what you are talking about. There was one crash and one
> heavy landing during Black Hawk development. The crash was a result of
> the airspeed input into the horizontal tail scheduling not being hooked
> up after maintenance. On take off, the horizontal tail stayed in the
> high incidence position, causing the aircraft to pitch over and crash,
> killing the crew. The heavy landing resulted from an excessive rate of
> descent, due to pilot error. The result was a shaken up crew and a
> broken tail wheel.
There were later problems with the Blackhawk with RF interferencecausing
unwanted stabilator inputs, which caused more crashes after deployment.
They fixed it pretty soon, but it *was* a real problem with early
versions. Of course, after a couple of decades of deployment, they're
great copters.
The point is that we've seldom built *any* new combat aircraft that
didn't have one or more major issues along the way, and damned few major
new systems that didn't have one or more crashes or *severe* safety
problems.
Chad Irby
> That is a common thread in Irby's posts.
It's definitely a badge of honor that "Tarver Engineering" thinks I'm so
eeeevil.
Tarver Engineering
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> > That is a common thread in Irby's posts.
>
> It's definitely a badge of honor that "Tarver Engineering" thinks I'm so
> eeeevil.
The poster was claiming you are stupid, Irby.
Mike Marron
>> Why you keep trotting out the F-14 is beyond me.
>Because, during its development, it crashed *more* often than the
>"dangerous" Osprey has, per hour of flight.
>And *way* more often than the "troubled" F-22.
This is a non-response. Snipping away the crux of the message
won't make it go away....
Chad Irby
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote:
> The poster was claiming you are stupid, Irby.
Actually, he was saying:
> "David Lednicer" <da...@amiwest.com> wrote in message
> news:403F7DAA...@amiwest.com...
> > Chad Irby wrote:
> > > On the other hand, when the Blackhawk was in development and early
> > > deployment, the pilots called the the "Black Rock." Tail issues.
> >
> > Not certain what you are talking about.
You see, to *normal* people, that means he didn't understand what I was
saying, or didn't get my point. This is a normal part of discussion for
most folks.
In my answer to his post, I gave the information he didn't know about.
This is also normal.
I know that these are two things you're not able to do with any
regularity, but you should understand that other people *do*.
Tarver Engineering
> I know that these are two things you're not able to do with any
> regularity, but you should understand that other people *do*.
I am well aware of what you do, Irby.
Have you any idea how much money Lockmart has robbed the American People of
on the usenet with WAAS and the F-22?
Chad Irby
Mike Marron <pegas...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >> Mike Marron <pegas...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> >> Why you keep trotting out the F-14 is beyond me.
>
> >Because, during its development, it crashed *more* often than the
> >"dangerous" Osprey has, per hour of flight.
>
> >And *way* more often than the "troubled" F-22.
>
> This is a non-response.
No, it's a bloody direct and obvious one.
You're complaining about a *current* machine that's having some
problems, and can't keep it in your mind that almost all *previous*
planes and copters have had similar or worse problems.
The complaint isn't about the F-14, it's that the various current
machines really aren't bad at all.
Complaining about the (actually low) accident rate of the V-22 or the
F-22 as being "bad" is just silly.
Tarver Engineering
> In article <7fdv30l8akm6jc47i...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Marron <pegas...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> > >Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > >> Mike Marron <pegas...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Why you keep trotting out the F-14 is beyond me.
> >
> > >Because, during its development, it crashed *more* often than the
> > >"dangerous" Osprey has, per hour of flight.
> >
> > >And *way* more often than the "troubled" F-22.
> >
> > This is a non-response.
>
> No, it's a bloody direct and obvious one.
>
> You're complaining about a *current* machine that's having some
> problems, and can't keep it in your mind that almost all *previous*
> planes and copters have had similar or worse problems.
>
> The complaint isn't about the F-14, it's that the various current
> machines really aren't bad at all.
>
> Complaining about the (actually low) accident rate of the V-22 or the
> F-22 as being "bad" is just silly.
Tell that to the Marine's mothers.
It is not the accident rate that is problematic for the V-22, it is the kill
rate.
Mike Marron
>>This is a non-response.
>No, it's a bloody direct and obvious one.
Bloody schmuddy. A bit long on melodramtics and short on
substance ain't cha?
>You're complaining about a *current* machine that's having some
>problems, and can't keep it in your mind that almost all *previous*
>planes and copters have had similar or worse problems.
You keep conveniently snipping away all the planes such as the F-111,
Su-22, Su-24, B-1, Mig-27, Tornado. Why is that?
>The complaint isn't about the F-14, it's that the various current
>machines really aren't bad at all.
Right. The compaint is about the V-22 and its tilt-wing predecessors.
>Complaining about the (actually low) accident rate of the V-22 or the
>F-22 as being "bad" is just silly.
Er um, there ya' go again changing the subject. We're talking about
the V (as in "Vee") Twenty Two Osprey NOT the F-22 Raptor (not
to be confused with the Osprey which, as a bird of prey, has been
woefully misnamed ). Not that you'd know anything about actually
flying an airplane Irby being the maintainer and prolific usenet
poster that ya' are...but like it or not there just aren't a whole
helluva lotta' pilots (civilian -OR- military) whom are all that
impressed by the Osprey. Sorry.
Chad Irby
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote:
> Have you any idea how much money Lockmart has robbed the American People of
> on the usenet with WAAS and the F-22?
Maybe if you beat that dead horse some more, you might get it to do some
work...
Chad Irby
Mike Marron <pegas...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> You keep conveniently snipping away all the planes such as the F-111,
> Su-22, Su-24, B-1, Mig-27, Tornado. Why is that?
Because they all had their own problems, and the point was that
experimental and/or new aircraft *crash*. The F-111 was near-legendary
for development problems, for example. The B-1 had problems for
*years*.
Thanks for mentioning them, though. It builds my case.
New aircraft tend to have problems. That's how it goes.
Mike Marron
>>You keep conveniently snipping away all the planes such as the F-111,
>>Su-22, Su-24, B-1, Mig-27, Tornado. Why is that?
>Because they all had their own problems, and the point was that
>experimental and/or new aircraft *crash*. The F-111 was near-legendary
>for development problems, for example. The B-1 had problems for
>*years*.
One_BIG_difference between all those swing-wing aircraft
I mentioned above vis a vis your beloved tilt-rotor Osprey -- the
swing wing aircraft have been OPERATIONAL for *decades*
(you do understand how long a decade" is, no?) whereas
tilt-rotor designs such as your beloved Osprey have NOT been
operational and are still NOT operational to this day. Results
speak for themselves, Irby. But you'll only come to realize that
if you can manage to pry yourself away from your beloved
'puter and try something a bit more constructive such as learning
how to fly your own self.
>Thanks for mentioning them, though. It builds my case.
Riiiight...like Jonah said when his "case" got swallowed by the
Great White One? Whether you realize it or not, Irby, you've
done LOST your "case" since, despite the fact that tilt-rotors
have been around since the early fifties...you have yet to
provide a single example of an OPERATIONAL tilt-rotor
military -OR- cvilian aircraft (V-22 or otherwise) in use
*anywhere.*
Chad Irby
Mike Marron <pegas...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >> Mike Marron <pegas...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> >>You keep conveniently snipping away all the planes such as the F-111,
> >>Su-22, Su-24, B-1, Mig-27, Tornado. Why is that?
>
> >Because they all had their own problems, and the point was that
> >experimental and/or new aircraft *crash*. The F-111 was near-legendary
> >for development problems, for example. The B-1 had problems for
> >*years*.
>
> One_BIG_difference between all those swing-wing aircraft
> I mentioned above vis a vis your beloved tilt-rotor Osprey -- the
> swing wing aircraft have been OPERATIONAL for *decades*
> (you do understand how long a decade" is, no?) whereas
> tilt-rotor designs such as your beloved Osprey have NOT been
> operational and are still NOT operational to this day.
So what?
The *point*, that you keep missing, was that at similar points in their
development, they had problems, some as bad (or worse) then the Osprey.
> Whether you realize it or not, Irby, you've
> done LOST your "case" since, despite the fact that tilt-rotors
> have been around since the early fifties...you have yet to
> provide a single example of an OPERATIONAL tilt-rotor
> military -OR- cvilian aircraft (V-22 or otherwise) in use
> *anywhere.*
So your whole argument against tiltrotors is that nobody has ever
managed to build a good enough one before?
All-wing aircraft had been tested for years and years before the B-2,
but that was the first operational one. So by your argument, it never
worked, right?
Mike Marron
>>You keep conveniently snipping away all the planes such as the F-111,
>>Su-22, Su-24, B-1, Mig-27, Tornado. Why is that?
>Because they all had their own problems, and the point was that
>experimental and/or new aircraft *crash*. The F-111 was near-legendary
>for development problems, for example. The B-1 had problems for
>*years*.
>>One_BIG_difference between all those swing-wing aircraft
>>I mentioned above vis a vis your beloved tilt-rotor Osprey -- the
>>swing wing aircraft have been OPERATIONAL for *decades*
>>(you do understand how long a decade" is, no?) whereas
>>tilt-rotor designs such as your beloved Osprey have NOT been
>>operational and are still NOT operational to this day.
>So what?
So what?
So WHAT???!!#$%!!
DOH!
>The *point*, that you keep missing, was that at similar points in their
>development, they had problems, some as bad (or worse) then the Osprey.
Once again, the point that YOU keep missing is that variable-geometry
aircraft have long ago managed to overcome their "development
problems" whereas tilt-rotor aircraft have NOT managed to overcome
their "development problems" in_spite_of the fact that tilt-rotor
aircraft designs have been around since the EARLY 1950'S!!!!
Beam me up Scotty!!!
Chad Irby
Mike Marron <pegas...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> Once again, the point that YOU keep missing is that variable-geometry
> aircraft have long ago managed to overcome their "development
> problems" whereas tilt-rotor aircraft have NOT managed to overcome
> their "development problems" in_spite_of the fact that tilt-rotor
> aircraft designs have been around since the EARLY 1950'S!!!!
You're really focused on the "we've never built one before, so it's
impssible" argument, aren't you?
Mike Marron
>>Once again, the point that YOU keep missing is that variable-geometry
>>aircraft have long ago managed to overcome their "development
>>problems" whereas tilt-rotor aircraft have NOT managed to overcome
>>their "development problems" in_spite_of the fact that tilt-rotor
>>aircraft designs have been around since the EARLY 1950'S!!!!
>You're really focused on the "we've never built one before, so it's
>impssible" argument, aren't you?
Interesting you should mention that. These days I'm mostly focused on
flying (just added "glider" to my commercial/multi-engine/instrument
certificate today).
You can continue to focus on your keyboard/monitor, if you wish....
Chad Irby
Mike Marron <pegas...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >You're really focused on the "we've never built one before, so it's
> >impssible" argument, aren't you?
>
> Interesting you should mention that. These days I'm mostly focused on
> flying (just added "glider" to my commercial/multi-engine/instrument
> certificate today).
That's nice. Has nothing to do with the point, but I'm (honestly!)
happy for you.
> You can continue to focus on your keyboard/monitor, if you wish....
Well, aside from the photography. And the bicycling. And the other
hobbies.
And especially not after I get that motorcycle I'm looking for (a friend
of a friend has a very nice old Moto Guzzi that I can pick up for a
song).
Mike Marron
>>Interesting you should mention that. These days I'm mostly focused on
>>flying (just added "glider" to my commercial/multi-engine/instrument
>>certificate today).
>That's nice. Has nothing to do with the point, but I'm (honestly!)
>happy for you.
Well you keep going off on your "bloody" tangential tirades so I
just figured "if ya' can't beat 'em..."
>>You can continue to focus on your keyboard/monitor, if you wish....
>Well, aside from the photography. And the bicycling. And the other
>hobbies.
>And especially not after I get that motorcycle I'm looking for (a friend
>of a friend has a very nice old Moto Guzzi that I can pick up for a
>song).
Sounds like we have similiar interests (except at best, I'm just a
mediocre photographer). IIRC, you're in the Orlando area, no?
Tell ya what, if you're interested I'll fly my pterodactyl "bird of
prey" over to Orlando from Clearwater someday (or you can drive
over to Clearwater) and we can fly and shoot some pictures/video
in my trike if ya want. It would sure beat the hell outta' arguing on
Usenet as it's such a "bloody" waste of time, agree? ;)
Feel free to call or email any time: 727-443-6951, pegasus912 at
tampabay dot rr dot com.
Chad Irby
Mike Marron <pegas...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> Sounds like we have similiar interests (except at best, I'm just a
> mediocre photographer). IIRC, you're in the Orlando area, no?
> Tell ya what, if you're interested I'll fly my pterodactyl "bird of
> prey" over to Orlando from Clearwater someday (or you can drive
> over to Clearwater) and we can fly and shoot some pictures/video
> in my trike if ya want. It would sure beat the hell outta' arguing on
> Usenet as it's such a "bloody" waste of time, agree? ;)
I live about a half mile from Orlando Executive.
If I still have my medium format by then, you might get some *good* pics
out of it.
> Feel free to call or email any time: 727-443-6951, pegasus912 at
> tampabay dot rr dot com.
We'll see how timing works out the spring sometime...
Mike Marron
>>Sounds like we have similiar interests (except at best, I'm just a
>>mediocre photographer). IIRC, you're in the Orlando area, no?
>>Tell ya what, if you're interested I'll fly my pterodactyl "bird of
>>prey" over to Orlando from Clearwater someday (or you can drive
>>over to Clearwater) and we can fly and shoot some pictures/video
>>in my trike if ya want. It would sure beat the hell outta' arguing on
>>Usenet as it's such a "bloody" waste of time, agree? ;)
>I live about a half mile from Orlando Executive.
Orlando Exec huh? Shot many an ILS into ORL's Rwy 7 as a charter
jockey in Cessna 210's. Interesting approach because at the outer
marker you're within spitting distance of the tall buildings downtown
as you soar directly over the tops of the thousands of poor slobs
trapped in gridlock on the East-West expressway and I-4. ;)
>If I still have my medium format by then, you might get some *good*
>pics out of it.
OK. I've got tons of halfway decent pics already but could always
use some *good* pics. What I'd really like is to have someone like
yourself make some cool videos that I could convert to mpegs and
share with family and friends.
>>Feel free to call or email any time: 727-443-6951, pegasus912 at
>> tampabay dot rr dot com.
>We'll see how timing works out the spring sometime...
44 days and counting to Sun 'n Fun 2004....
Thomas Schoene
> In article <bZd%b.8424$yZ1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Thomas Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>> The 27mm has been replaced by a 25mm Gatling. And the gun pack goes
>> on a conformal stealthy belly pod, not in the weapon bay.
>
> The gun stays in the right wing root for the A model.
For planes that have to use an add-on gun, it goes under the belly, not in
the weapon bay. Happy now?
John Keeney
"Thomas Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:Opl%b.8848$yZ1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> John Keeney wrote:
> > "Kevin Brooks" <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Dc-dnZ5GlrL...@adelphia.com...
> >>
> >> capability (what the heck is "S/VTOL"?) to allow them to both
> >> provide air
> >
> > An olden days description of a plane that could do
> > Short take-offs or landings
> > or
> > Vertical take-offs or landings.
>
> The usual abbreviation for this was the other way around--V/STOL.
Yep, usual was V/STOL or VSTOL as you say.
There was some use of S/VTOL (or SVTOL,
it *was* a long time ago) though. I have a feeling
they represented some difference but I'm at a
loss to say what it would have been unless it
was a preferred mode bias.
Harry Andreas
"Thomas Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
> Harry Andreas wrote:
> > In article <bZd%b.8424$yZ1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "Thomas Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> The 27mm has been replaced by a 25mm Gatling. And the gun pack goes
> >> on a conformal stealthy belly pod, not in the weapon bay.
> >
> > The gun stays in the right wing root for the A model.
>
> For planes that have to use an add-on gun, it goes under the belly, not in
> the weapon bay. Happy now?
Yes.
The way people argue in this newsgroup, it's important to be precisely
accurate.
Since I'm currently developing equipment for the JSF, the gun in the
fuselage on the A creates certain requirements that are not present
for the belly mounted gun pod on the B and C.
--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur