F-35 second test flight and beyond

armchairpilot · by **armchairpilot** » 17 Dec 2006, 03:47

Now that the first flight has come and gone (I missed the take off but saw the ascend and landing) I started the 2nd flight thread.

I heard today from an F-18 technician that a follow up flight will be held on Monday the 18th.

I wonder if anyone can confirm this to be true.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 17 Dec 2006, 07:05

In a LM statement the next flight (2nd) "could" be as soon as Monday... Looks good so far! :salute:

habu2 · by **habu2** » 17 Dec 2006, 16:41

WX does not look good for Monday.

Or Tuesday.

Or Wednesday.

They will wait for good weather, AA-1 is VFR only and ceiling must be 10K minimum for planned flight profile.

Happy_Gilmore · by **Happy_Gilmore** » 17 Dec 2006, 21:14

Not happening Monday and it's not because of the weather, 'that's all I got to say about that.' You have to read that like Forrest Gump said it.
Armchairpilot it was freaking awesome to see live, I was behind RS 4 watching.

armchairpilot · by **armchairpilot** » 18 Dec 2006, 05:40

Yeah im sure it was awesome.

I was at Walmart at the crack of 9, stayed till 11, left to go to the other side of hulen, then received a call saying it was going to take off at 12.30.

So at 12:35 we were JUST passing by the mall and I spotted the chase plane...and then a few seconds later, there it was.....passing overhead.

Oh well...If there is any way any one can let on a new time for the flight....please post!

Ztex · by **Ztex** » 18 Dec 2006, 15:19

armchairpilot wrote:Yeah im sure it was awesome.

I was at Walmart at the crack of 9, stayed till 11, left to go to the other side of hulen, then received a call saying it was going to take off at 12.30.

So at 12:35 we were JUST passing by the mall and I spotted the chase plane...and then a few seconds later, there it was.....passing overhead.

Oh well...If there is any way any one can let on a new time for the flight....please post!

Man, I hate when that happens....and it has more than once...Grrr

falconfixer860261 · by **falconfixer860261** » 18 Dec 2006, 15:58

Well I was there all week but we had to head back home Thursday night. Oh well. Will definitely be there as long as it takes to see first STOVL version flight....

msupepper · by **msupepper** » 18 Dec 2006, 19:19

falconfixer860261 wrote:Well I was there all week but we had to head back home Thursday night. Oh well. Will definitely be there as long as it takes to see first STOVL version flight....

If I'm remembering it right, the actual STOVL system tests will be performed in Palmdale because of the test pit setup they constructed for the X-35. But, to see the first takeoff of BF:001 will be historic, even if it is a conventional takeoff.

sjean77 · by **sjean77** » 18 Dec 2006, 20:12

LM is currently Constructing the facilities for that STOVL in Fort Worth. Not to get to far off Subject.

The word on the street is TBD...for the second flight.

idesof · by **idesof** » 18 Dec 2006, 21:06

sjean77 wrote:LM is currently Constructing the facilities for that STOVL in Fort Worth. Not to get to far off Subject.

The word on the street is TBD...for the second flight.

Whoever the subcontractor is for that malfunctioning data probe is f*cked...

Raptor_One · by **Raptor_One** » 18 Dec 2006, 21:18

idesof wrote:
sjean77 wrote:LM is currently Constructing the facilities for that STOVL in Fort Worth. Not to get to far off Subject.

The word on the street is TBD...for the second flight.

Whoever the subcontractor is for that malfunctioning data probe is f*cked...

I think you're jumping to conclusions a bit too quickly. Without any additional information about the malfunction, you can't even say that the manufacturer of the air data probe is to blame. In fact, you really have no idea what the cause of the malfunction is. Modern aircraft are very complex interconnected systems. To suggest that the air data probe malfunctioned because the air data probe was faulty is very premature. That would be the obvious reason, but certainly not the only one.

idesof · by **idesof** » 18 Dec 2006, 21:27

Raptor_One wrote:I think you're jumping to conclusions a bit too quickly. Without any additional information about the malfunction, you can't even say that the manufacturer of the air data probe is to blame. In fact, you really have no idea what the cause of the malfunction is. Modern aircraft are very complex interconnected systems. To suggest that the air data probe malfunctioned because the air data probe was faulty is very premature. That would be the obvious reason, but certainly not the only one.

You're right. May be software-related.

Raptor_One · by **Raptor_One** » 18 Dec 2006, 22:22

idesof wrote:
Raptor_One wrote:I think you're jumping to conclusions a bit too quickly. Without any additional information about the malfunction, you can't even say that the manufacturer of the air data probe is to blame. In fact, you really have no idea what the cause of the malfunction is. Modern aircraft are very complex interconnected systems. To suggest that the air data probe malfunctioned because the air data probe was faulty is very premature. That would be the obvious reason, but certainly not the only one.

You're right. May be software-related.

The malfunction could be the result of a number of things besides the air data probe itself. I don't think either of us are remotely qualified to even wager a guess as to the root of the problem. It could be the electrical system for all we know. There's just no point in speculating. It's unlikely we'll even find out what the cause was.

habu2 · by **habu2** » 19 Dec 2006, 17:24

R-1 is correct - don't be so quick to finger the supplier. I don't know for sure where the problem lies but it is poor form to point fingers without facts.

habu2 · by **habu2** » 19 Dec 2006, 17:26

sjean77 wrote:LM is currently Constructing the facilities for that STOVL in Fort Worth.

sjean77 is correct - I've seen "the pit". However, first flight for the STOVL B model isn't scheduled until some time in 2008.....