| Author |
Message |
|
Corsair1963
|
 Posted: Mar 10, 2009 - 03:48 AM
|
 
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Dec 19, 2005 - 04:14 AM
Posts: 1831
Status: Offline
|
|
Ztex wrote:
WOW, I didn't expect them to appear so large........  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 26, 2012 - 3:25 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
sprstdlyscottsmn
|
|
Posted: Mar 10, 2009 - 04:03 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Mar 10, 2006 - 01:24 AM
Posts: 1111
Status: Offline
|
| Well, a GBU-10 isnt small |
_________________
James,
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic (WTF?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prinz_Eugn
|
|
Posted: Mar 10, 2009 - 05:00 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Aug 03, 2008 - 04:35 AM
Posts: 722
Status: Offline
|
|
daemonllama wrote:
6 = feasible, that i get.
OMG F-35 wit teh 27 missile inturnol stealth mode mega macross FAST pack = not so feasible
C'mon- FB-35 is totaly for realz, i rote my congress-man. |
_________________
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shaken
|
|
Posted: Mar 10, 2009 - 05:40 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 07, 2006 - 02:52 AM
Posts: 59
Status: Offline
|
This is AA-1, at least according to the Aviation Week Ares Blog:
http://tinyurl.com/F-35-opens-weapons-bay-doors
According to this article, AA-1 has added a number of weapons bay and noise tests to its plan, extending its flight life by roughly a dozen (past the originally planned seventy flights.)
And, MAN! the bays looks HUGE from this angle! Sure, each will look cramped with a Mk.84 PGM plus AMRAAM; but empty... it looks like you could drop a stick of paratroopers out of the thing.
-- Shaken - out -- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
falcon_mr.b
|
|
Posted: Mar 10, 2009 - 04:32 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 03:57 AM
Posts: 33
Location: west of the runway
Status: Offline
|
This is definitely not AF-1, which has not flown yet.
It is AA-1, which for those around Carswell is set to fly at 1:30 today. |
_________________
"Lethal Survivable Supportable Affordable"
|
|
|
|
|
|
mil_hobbyist
|
|
Posted: Mar 10, 2009 - 05:27 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Jul 30, 2006 - 02:48 AM
Posts: 84
Status: Offline
|
| Why is the F-22, with its smaller weapons bays and similar fuel load, 20000lb heavier than the F-35 (65000lb vs 45000lb usual takeoff weight)? Does a second engine weigh that much? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dwightlooi
|
|
Posted: Mar 11, 2009 - 02:59 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Aug 02, 2006 - 01:14 AM
Posts: 1170
Status: Offline
|
|
mil_hobbyist wrote:
Why is the F-22, with its smaller weapons bays and similar fuel load, 20000lb heavier than the F-35 (65000lb vs 45000lb usual takeoff weight)? Does a second engine weigh that much?
Two times as many engines, bigger duct work, bigger (but thinner) wings, enveloped by a larger airframe, plus the F-22 has not just the belly bays but also two side bays and a much bigger nose with a big radar. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
end
|
|
Posted: Mar 11, 2009 - 11:18 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 - 10:19 AM
Posts: 69
Status: Offline
|
New pics found
 |
_________________
I think therefor I am
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conan
|
|
Posted: Mar 11, 2009 - 01:55 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Apr 27, 2007 - 08:23 AM
Posts: 772
Status: Offline
|
|
end wrote:
New pics found
Those pics aren't new. They are at LEAST 2 years old... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corsair1963
|
|
Posted: Mar 11, 2009 - 08:01 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Dec 19, 2005 - 04:14 AM
Posts: 1831
Status: Offline
|
| The top pick is very old and the lower appears just a chop and paste of the former........not that I don't believe the F-35 can't carry 6-AAM's. Yet, no body is going to be sold with such a drawing nonetheless............. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
