Simviation Forum - Favorite Fighter/Bomber

Reply #15 - Jan 26^th, 2007 at 9:06am

RAF_OldBuzzard Offline
Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 13

In FS2004:

Hawker SeaFurys by David Hanvey/Paul Berry/Jerry Beckwith. Great visuals, and awesome FM.

FSD T-38 not 'really' a fighter, but it was the base for the F-5.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Jan 26^th, 2007 at 1:23pm

Papa9571 Offline
Colonel
Gotta get there on Time
Toledo, Ohio

Gender:
Posts: 701

Not to mention the F-20 Tigershark

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Jan 27^th, 2007 at 5:20pm

fighter25 Offline
Colonel
Dayton, Ohio

Gender:
Posts: 1272

Bomber the B-1 man what sinister looking plane. Fighter the F-35 JSF good old American STOVL. Cool

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Jan 27^th, 2007 at 5:43pm

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

fighter25 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2007 at 5:20pm:

Fighter the F-35 JSF good old American STOVL. Cool

Good old American STOVL eh? Quite a lot of foreign design and development in there... Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Jan 27^th, 2007 at 8:47pm

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

Charlie wrote on Jan 27^th, 2007 at 5:43pm:

fighter25 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2007 at 5:20pm:

Fighter the F-35 JSF good old American STOVL. Cool

Good old American STOVL eh? Quite a lot of foreign design and development in there... Wink

I don't think the F35 is capable of STOVL yet is it? Shocked

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 #20 - Jan 28^th, 2007 at 2:46am

Papa9571 Offline
Colonel
Gotta get there on Time
Toledo, Ohio

Gender:
Posts: 701

Yes it is. Its designation is F-35B.

The "A" model is for the Air Force and the "C" model is for the Navy

« Last Edit: Jan 28^th, 2007 at 4:28am by Papa9571 »

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Jan 28^th, 2007 at 5:07am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2007 at 8:47pm:

Charlie wrote on Jan 27^th, 2007 at 5:43pm:

fighter25 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2007 at 5:20pm:

Fighter the F-35 JSF good old American STOVL. Cool

Good old American STOVL eh? Quite a lot of foreign design and development in there... Wink

I don't think the F35 is capable of STOVL yet is it? Shocked

It will be, but it isn't yet. The X-35 has been...

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Jan 28^th, 2007 at 8:24am

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

Also, arn't it's claims to be short take off a little dubious considering the RN needs new aircraft carriers with catapults for it to have any chance getting off the deck with operational payloads?

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 #23 - Jan 28^th, 2007 at 9:15am

fighter25 Offline
Colonel
Dayton, Ohio

Gender:
Posts: 1272

Charlie wrote on Jan 27^th, 2007 at 5:43pm:

fighter25 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2007 at 5:20pm:

Fighter the F-35 JSF good old American STOVL. Cool

Good old American STOVL eh? Quite a lot of foreign design and development in there... Wink

Ture very true. Embarrassed

The F-35 good old International STOVL.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #24 - Jan 28^th, 2007 at 9:32am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2007 at 8:24am:

Also, arn't it's claims to be short take off a little dubious considering the RN needs new aircraft carriers with catapults for it to have any chance getting off the deck with operational payloads?

I've heard with a full payload the RN will either need a floating runway or to bolt the two new carriers together...

...and still use a catapult... Grin

Nope, I'm sure once they've sorted the weight problems out (why on earth did they not follow the Harriers 45 year old principle and use one engine, rather than one with a huge great big nozzle and another just for vertical thrust?)...

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #25 - Jan 28^th, 2007 at 9:42am

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

Charlie wrote on Jan 28^th, 2007 at 9:32am:

(why on earth did they not follow the Harriers 45 year old principle and use one engine, rather than one with a huge great big nozzle and another just for vertical thrust?)...

Why go for a completely new aircraft when it would take very little to push the Harrier through the soundbarrier, which together with a slight avionics facelift would put the Harrier at least on par with the JSF.

The JSF's ability to hover indefinately is probably the most useless thing anyone has ever attached to a fighter plane. Tongue

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 #26 - Jan 28^th, 2007 at 9:59am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2007 at 9:42am:

Charlie wrote on Jan 28^th, 2007 at 9:32am:

(why on earth did they not follow thhttp://www.simviation.com/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/wink.gif
Winke Harriers 45 year old principle and use one engine, rather than one with a huge great big nozzle and another just for vertical thrust?)...

Why go for a completely new aircraft when it would take very little to push the Harrier through the soundbarrier, which together with a slight avionics facelift would put the Harrier at least on par with the JSF.

P.1154?

Quote:

The JSF's ability to hover indefinately is probably the most useless thing anyone has ever attached to a fighter plane. Tongue

What do they want, a supersonic Apache replacement? Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #27 - Jan 28^th, 2007 at 10:02am

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

Charlie wrote on Jan 28^th, 2007 at 9:59am:

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2007 at 9:42am:

Charlie wrote on Jan 28^th, 2007 at 9:32am:

(why on earth did they not follow thhttp://www.simviation.com/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/wink.gif
Winke Harriers 45 year old principle and use one engine, rather than one with a huge great big nozzle and another just for vertical thrust?)...

Why go for a completely new aircraft when it would take very little to push the Harrier through the soundbarrier, which together with a slight avionics facelift would put the Harrier at least on par with the JSF.

P.1154?

Exactly.

But as I said, maybe with updated avionics.

Course, doing that would turn the Harrier into a real Harrier. Instead of a rebranded Kestrel. 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 #28 - Jan 28^th, 2007 at 6:19pm

Chris_F Offline
Colonel
Insert message here

Posts: 1364

I'm not sure how many VTOL F-35s are scheduled to be built. I'd expect most will be traditional runway or carrier variants. The US doesn't have a ton of need for VTOL and it's the biggest buyer of the plane. Besides, that VTOL fan takes up a lot of space and looks awfully heavy. My guess is it's intended to "check the box" and produce a design that, in theory, could do VTOL but in practice it just makes more sense to leave it off.

What advantage does an F-35 have over a Harrier? The same advantage it has over the F-16 and F-18 it's slated to replace (or at least supplant).

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #29 - Jan 28^th, 2007 at 6:45pm

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

Chris_F wrote on Jan 28^th, 2007 at 6:19pm:

What advantage does an F-35 have over a Harrier? The same advantage it has over the F-16 and F-18 it's slated to replace (or at least supplant).

So what advantage is that?

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

	Search the archive: