Simviation Forum - JSF latest!

Dec 6^th, 2006 at 10:15am

ozzy72 Offline
Global Moderator
Pretty scary huh?
Madsville

Gender:
Posts: 37122

Looks like we'll soon find out how she flies....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6212974.stm

There are two types of aeroplane, Spitfires and everything else that wishes it was a Spitfire!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Dec 6^th, 2006 at 11:31am

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

Which varient? The VTOL or the conventional fixed wing one?

And how late is it? Cheesy

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Dec 6^th, 2006 at 11:55am

expat Offline
Colonel
Deep behind enemy lines!

Gender:
Posts: 8499

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 11:31am:

Which varient? The VTOL or the conventional fixed wing one?

And how late is it? Cheesy

The VTOL will be years late and over budget.
Harrier = KISS. Keep it simple stupid. One butterfly valve for puffer duct bleed, 4 nozzles connected by bike chains and drive shafts and a air motor to drive it. All mechanical.
JSF, more doors to open for VTOL than an advent calender.

Matt

PETA People Eating Tasty Animals.

B1 Boeing 737-800 and Dash8 Q-400

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Dec 6^th, 2006 at 12:40pm

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Should be interesting...

...not...

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Dec 6^th, 2006 at 3:28pm

Isak922 Offline
Colonel
Consider yourself badgered!!!
Connecticut

Gender:
Posts: 1528

Awesome news! Can't wait till the JSF takes to operational status. Get rid of the damned Bugs already Grin

4GB DDR2 PC5300; 3.2GHz Pentium D 940, Nvidia 9800GT 1024MB DDR3, Windows XP Pro SP3

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Dec 6^th, 2006 at 3:41pm

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Isak922 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 3:28pm:

Awesome news! Can't wait till the JSF takes to operational status. Get rid of the damned Bugs already Grin

Get ready to carry on waiting...

2014 if we're optimistic?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Dec 6^th, 2006 at 3:44pm

dcunning30 Offline
Colonel
This is me......really!!!!
The Land of Nod

Gender:
Posts: 1612

expat wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 11:55am:

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 11:31am:

Which varient? The VTOL or the conventional fixed wing one?

And how late is it? Cheesy

The VTOL will be years late and over budget.
Harrier = KISS. Keep it simple stupid. One butterfly valve for puffer duct bleed, 4 nozzles connected by bike chains and drive shafts and a air motor to drive it. All mechanical.
JSF, more doors to open for VTOL than an advent calender.

Matt

Based on that logic, digital fly-by-wire and redundant systems should be an abject failure. All we need is a set of cables and brute strength to operate those flying surfaces on high performance aircraft.

TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE 34 RR THE WORLD WONDERS

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Dec 6^th, 2006 at 4:49pm

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

dcunning30 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 3:44pm:

expat wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 11:55am:

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 11:31am:

Which varient? The VTOL or the conventional fixed wing one?

And how late is it? Cheesy

The VTOL will be years late and over budget.
Harrier = KISS. Keep it simple stupid. One butterfly valve for puffer duct bleed, 4 nozzles connected by bike chains and drive shafts and a air motor to drive it. All mechanical.
JSF, more doors to open for VTOL than an advent calender.

Matt

Based on that logic, digital fly-by-wire and redundant systems should be an abject failure. All we need is a set of cables and brute strength to operate those flying surfaces on high performance aircraft.

You can use hydraulics instead of cables if your not strong enough. Having said, just put some pulleys on the cable.

I think the point was that the JSF is over complicating the whole hovering thing.

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Dec 6^th, 2006 at 5:00pm

dcunning30 Offline
Colonel
This is me......really!!!!
The Land of Nod

Gender:
Posts: 1612

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 4:49pm:

dcunning30 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 3:44pm:

expat wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 11:55am:

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 11:31am:

Which varient? The VTOL or the conventional fixed wing one?

And how late is it? Cheesy

The VTOL will be years late and over budget.
Harrier = KISS. Keep it simple stupid. One butterfly valve for puffer duct bleed, 4 nozzles connected by bike chains and drive shafts and a air motor to drive it. All mechanical.
JSF, more doors to open for VTOL than an advent calender.

Matt

Based on that logic, digital fly-by-wire and redundant systems should be an abject failure. All we need is a set of cables and brute strength to operate those flying surfaces on high performance aircraft.

You can use hydraulics instead of cables if your not strong enough. Having said, just put some pulleys on the cable.

I think the point was that the JSF is over complicating the whole hovering thing.

If they were seeking to achieve the same level of performance and/or combat efficiency/survivability as Harrier, I would agree with that. But I suspect assumptions are being made to conclude that JSF is overcomplicating things.

And on that same notion, digital fly-by-wire offers tremendous advantages over a hydraulics/cable solution. There's no comparison.

TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE 34 RR THE WORLD WONDERS

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Dec 6^th, 2006 at 5:18pm

vavavoom Ex Member
EGPH

there is a lot of work being carried out for JSF lasers and such like where i work. i think we are running a bit behind schedule at the moment though...there have been a few problems with certain parts. i dont really know to much about it, im currently working on the tiald project.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Dec 6^th, 2006 at 6:56pm

expat Offline
Colonel
Deep behind enemy lines!

Gender:
Posts: 8499

dcunning30 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 5:00pm:

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 4:49pm:

dcunning30 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 3:44pm:

expat wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 11:55am:

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 11:31am:

Which varient? The VTOL or the conventional fixed wing one?

And how late is it? Cheesy

The VTOL will be years late and over budget.
Harrier = KISS. Keep it simple stupid. One butterfly valve for puffer duct bleed, 4 nozzles connected by bike chains and drive shafts and a air motor to drive it. All mechanical.
JSF, more doors to open for VTOL than an advent calender.

Matt

Based on that logic, digital fly-by-wire and redundant systems should be an abject failure. All we need is a set of cables and brute strength to operate those flying surfaces on high performance aircraft.

You can use hydraulics instead of cables if your not strong enough. Having said, just put some pulleys on the cable.

I think the point was that the JSF is over complicating the whole hovering thing.

If they were seeking to achieve the same level of performance and/or combat efficiency/survivability as Harrier, I would agree with that. But I suspect assumptions are being made to conclude that JSF is overcomplicating things.

And on that same notion, digital fly-by-wire offers tremendous advantages over a hydraulics/cable solution. There's no comparison.

You are right there is no comparison, but the problem with fly by wire is that designers start to get clever when designing these things. My point was when you look at the JSF VTOL, how complicated it is and how simple the Harrier is, that is what counts in combat. If our aircraft went to a war where the other side actually put a good defence, then the buzz word is going to be battle damage repair. In the civil sector I have spend days troubleshooting fly by wire snags. That is a luxury you will not have in war. It seems that every time a new aircraft is produced we are extolling its attack virtues and how stealthy it is, but at the end of the day it is not bullet proof and never will be. It just seems that fly by wire is only going to make BDR just that much more difficult.

Matt

Matt

PETA People Eating Tasty Animals.

B1 Boeing 737-800 and Dash8 Q-400

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #11 - Dec 7^th, 2006 at 1:08am

DaveSims Offline
Colonel
Clear Lake, Iowa

Gender:
Posts: 2453

The A-10 is the measure of simplicity, and is very very hard to kill. Thats why they never even had to make a two seat trainer, just throw the pilot in and toss him the keys. Grin

Dave

www.flymcw.com

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #12 - Dec 7^th, 2006 at 1:14am

SkyNoz Offline
Colonel
Project Kfir!

Gender:
Posts: 1720

expat wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 6:56pm:

dcunning30 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 5:00pm:

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 4:49pm:

dcunning30 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 3:44pm:

expat wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 11:55am:

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 11:31am:

Which varient? The VTOL or the conventional fixed wing one?

And how late is it? Cheesy

The VTOL will be years late and over budget.
Harrier = KISS. Keep it simple stupid. One butterfly valve for puffer duct bleed, 4 nozzles connected by bike chains and drive shafts and a air motor to drive it. All mechanical.
JSF, more doors to open for VTOL than an advent calender.

Matt

Based on that logic, digital fly-by-wire and redundant systems should be an abject failure. All we need is a set of cables and brute strength to operate those flying surfaces on high performance aircraft.

You can use hydraulics instead of cables if your not strong enough. Having said, just put some pulleys on the cable.

I think the point was that the JSF is over complicating the whole hovering thing.

If they were seeking to achieve the same level of performance and/or combat efficiency/survivability as Harrier, I would agree with that. But I suspect assumptions are being made to conclude that JSF is overcomplicating things.

And on that same notion, digital fly-by-wire offers tremendous advantages over a hydraulics/cable solution. There's no comparison.

You are right there is no comparison, but the problem with fly by wire is that designers start to get clever when designing these things. My point was when you look at the JSF VTOL, how complicated it is and how simple the Harrier is, that is what counts in combat. If our aircraft went to a war where the other side actually put a good defence, then the buzz word is going to be battle damage repair. In the civil sector I have spend days troubleshooting fly by wire snags. That is a luxury you will not have in war. It seems that every time a new aircraft is produced we are extolling its attack virtues and how stealthy it is, but at the end of the day it is not bullet proof and never will be. It just seems that fly by wire is only going to make BDR just that much more difficult.

Matt

Matt

I would agree with that, although their hasn't been a aircraft with that record. The worst thing that the US may do, (the aircraft engineer's) is move the CG location forward giving the aircraft less maneuverability, which seems to be one of the best way's of doing things. Well, I believe that the JSF will be the most sophisticated VTOL aircraft present when it reaches service release. And I would love to hear all the ridiculous comments disagreeing with me. Whatch me wip this topic around to, aircraft VS. aircraft, hehe...

Project Kfir!&&&&My Gmax page&&Aircraft modeler/Aircarft painter&&&&Aye the key!&&[GeneralEngineData]&&//0=Piston, 1=Jet, 2=None, 3=Helo-Turbine, 4=Rocket, 5=Turboprop

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #13 - Dec 7^th, 2006 at 5:12am

Chris_F Offline
Colonel
Insert message here

Posts: 1364

We're feeling the pain of the JSF delay where I work. Although "pain" isn't a good word for it because as long as they delay the F35 they extend the F22. Congress passed some "Industrial Base Protection" law or whatever that forces the Air Force to keep building F22s until F35s become available. And for us an F22 is like a Caddy whereas an F35 is like a Chevy. So we're smilin' all the way to the bank.

Oh, and we're ahead on development of the F35 stuff to the point that there's talk of marketing our systems for tanks, ships, other aircraft, etc since we have a product and no place to sell it yet.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #14 - Dec 7^th, 2006 at 11:34am

dcunning30 Offline
Colonel
This is me......really!!!!
The Land of Nod

Gender:
Posts: 1612

DaveSims wrote on Dec 7^th, 2006 at 1:08am:

The A-10 is the measure of simplicity, and is very very hard to kill. Thats why they never even had to make a two seat trainer, just throw the pilot in and toss him the keys. Grin

The A-10 is an aircraft built around a gun. It's role is straightforward. Fly low and slow, kill tanks and have a high survivability component. Being a high-performance air-superiority fighter is not a requirement.

TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE 34 RR THE WORLD WONDERS

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: