Forum: General F-35 Forum

I cannot hear it but have saved it for later. Perhaps sound can be resynchronised? The .MP4 will be in your Internet Explorer Cache.

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by SpudmanWP on Jul 27, 2012 - 06:29 AM; edited 1 time in total

I downloaded it separably (173mb), ie cache... PLEASE LMAO

The vid starts ok, but after a few minutes the audio jump forward by over a minute. VLC can't even compensate.

By the end of the video it had lost 3 minutes of audio.

Last edited by SpudmanWP on Jul 27, 2012 - 06:58 AM; edited 1 time in total

A couple of things from the Q&A section:
1. Ship trials included a few VL --> takeoff --> go around --> VL w/o refuel.
2. Hehe... first question from China News Agency was... Do you have a comment on the J-20? I kid you not.
3. Blk 2A more stable than 1B which was more stable than 1A.
4. SRVL and Ski Jump takeoffs this year. SRVL let's them recover about 2-3k lb more and approach 35kts faster. Ski Jump allows for larger loads and saves 150ft of deck run.

Thanks for the quotes SWP. You know what I like. Very Happy

I liked how Norman didn't have any idea there was a Mach 1.0 restriction on the Test Fleet. Evidently, the QLR was talking about the Production Fleet, not the Test Fleet. Evidently, Sweetman and APA prefer to take the worst possible thing out of everything they read about the F-35, twist it, take it out of context, and scream it from the roof top. Evidently, they cried Wolf again and have been proven wrong.

Let the back pedaling begin (like the melt the deck, blow people overboard back pedalling. "I never said it will melt the deck." Yeah, well you implied pretty strongly.)

Now the contrail arguement, which comes directly from APA. And the response, all aircraft do this, it will be monitored and assessed. If it is an issue it will be sent to the engineers.

Sufa Viper

Also notice that the mach 1 restriction was not a problem with the plane, but a request from the services.

The USUAL SUSPECTS.... Very Happy

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedma ... 0504541988

BIG PIC: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7134/7545 ... aacd_o.jpg

Another 'Pilot(s) Speaks' Video:

F-35 - A Pilot's Perspective Scusi if a repeat of 'usual suspects'. Very Happy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kshe7-BY ... r_embedded

"Published on Jul 11, 2012 by LockheedMartinVideos
See the Lightning II in action and hear three pilots describe what it's like to fly the F-35."

All the focus is on solo F-35's. Imagine multiples working together. That's the key.

shingen wrote:

Sweetman... <clipped> He has stated that Rafale is a better plane for Canada than F-35 because Rafale has a more balanced approach to survivability.

If he had limited it to Quebec, then okay. You know it suits the French in Quebec better. Otherwise, not a good fit for Canada.

shingen wrote:

The guy is a fanboy and a tool and I boycott Av Week because they employ him.

I doubt whether Aviation Week is losing any sleep over your decision…

Just for the record, the programme manager of one major aerospace programme (not the F-35, Eurofighter, Gripen or Rafale) recently described Sweetman as being one of the most well-informed defence journalists around.

And since 2002 he has won no less than six Aerospace Journalist of the Year Awards, and shared a seventh.

That sort of kudos is not easily earned.

mercuriuscantab wrote:

shingen wrote:

The guy is a fanboy and a tool and I boycott Av Week because they employ him.

I doubt whether Aviation Week is losing any sleep over your decision…

Just for the record, the programme manager of one major aerospace programme (not the F-35, Eurofighter, Gripen or Rafale) recently described Sweetman as being one of the most well-informed defence journalists around.

And since 2002 he has won no less than six Aerospace Journalist of the Year Awards, and shared a seventh.

That sort of kudos is not easily earned.

With all due respect to Bill Sweetman his commentary on the F-35 has been off the mark. Like many opponents of the F-35 Bill Sweetman intially didn't understand the advantages of moving the F-35's fuel and weapons inside its highly aerodynamic "high volume" fuselage. In his intial reports Bill kept complaining about the extra weight of the F-35's high volume fuselage because he couldn't grasp the concept that as the "moments of inertia" of a stucture increases so does its structural efficiency.

sufaviper wrote:

I liked how Norman didn't have any idea there was a Mach 1.0 restriction on the Test Fleet. Evidently, the QLR was talking about the Production Fleet, not the Test Fleet. Evidently, Sweetman and APA prefer to take the worst possible thing out of everything they read about the F-35, twist it, take it out of context, and scream it from the roof top. Evidently, they cried Wolf again and have been proven wrong.

Let the back pedaling begin (like the melt the deck, blow people overboard back pedalling. "I never said it will melt the deck." Yeah, well you implied pretty strongly.)

Now the contrail arguement, which comes directly from APA. And the response, all aircraft do this, it will be monitored and assessed. If it is an issue it will be sent to the engineers.

Sufa Viper

In this age, almost everything in developmental test has a potential consequence in external optics because someone is going to inject an item (serious or otherwise) into the internet vortex where it gets spun and magnified by critics, and then virally perpetuated through blogs and the modern re-reporting phenomenon. Many "journalists" don't do much fact finding anymore, they simply report what was reported elsewhere. Rumor, innuendo, and outright lies become the reality for some because "...if it is so widely reported it must be true...".

As Sufa and others around here understand, as a matter of routine there are many, many temporary restrictions put on aircraft in developmental flight test -- it has never been otherwise for any program. The temporary limit identified in the QLR, was just that -- a temporary restriction put in place to ensure that the aircraft (horiz stabs) were not further damaged until the engineers fully understood the aero and thermal phenomena which were causing the excess heating. Once they understood what was going on and defined the path fwd for resolution, the restrictions were lifted. In the meantime, every Chicken Little on the planet (including some who should have known better) were running around declaring the sky was falling (again).

The early LRIP aircraft at Eglin also have some flight restrictions -- not because there is some hidden mystery but because operations or certain parts of the flight envelope have not yet been completely cleared yet in flight test. For new jets, those restrictions diminish over time, but even jets that have been in service for decades (take your pick) still have many operating restrictions. It's the nature of operating machines that fly...

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35 Pilots Discuss Capabilities Farnborough Brief 10jul12