F-16.net

Quote:

I must say that the F-35 is one ungainly looking creature on the ground, and not terribly attractive except for certain angles in the air.

That's a hard argument idesof, it's all subjective and I think it would look much better with a centerline tank, however, it's still SO MUCH BETTER LOOKING than Boeing's abortion and it's reliable as Hell to boot. For a first article jet of it's kind it's very impressive to say the least.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Quote:

Lockheed doesn't use boarding ladders, they use maintenance stands, all other F-35's other than AA-1 have a really cool built in boarding ladder system. In an emergency they just jump over the side, it's actually practiced and timed.

That was me and sorry, my reply didn't answer the question, I have no idea other then what y'all have already assumed, which were pretty good assumptions, 75% commonality between the variants plus ease of loading weapons in the two under belly weapon bays may have something to do with it.

honkhntr wrote:

Does the F-35 use a standard center control stick, or a Side Stick set-up like the F-16?

Honk

Yes, the F-35 (like the F-22) has a side stick controller. It does have quite a bit more motion (physical deflection range) than an F-16, though.

Raptor_claw wrote:

honkhntr wrote:

Does the F-35 use a standard center control stick, or a Side Stick set-up like the F-16?

Honk

Yes, the F-35 (like the F-22) has a side stick controller. It does have quite a bit more motion (physical deflection range) than an F-16, though.

Thanks for the info, I was lucky enough to get to spend an hour or so in the F-16 ADF simulator at Kingley Field in Klamath Falls, OR a few years back, before they converted to F-15's. I was amazed at how little play the F-16 side stick had... Plus it seemed like if you even thought about making a move the control stick sensed it... I wallowed around the sky for the first few minutes before I got the hang of it.

Honk

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1034 Status: Offline

honkhntr wrote:

Does the F-35 use a standard center control stick, or a Side Stick set-up like the F-16?

Honk

Your answer sir...

OK next question... Why the front hinged canopy set up???

Honk

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1034 Status: Offline

Well I know one reason is to be able to pull the seat without removing the canopy. Anyone else?

Lieven wrote:

Overview of the AA-1 test flights

#1: 15 Dec 2006
#2: 08 Jan 2007
#3: 10 Jan 2007
#4: 23 Jan 2007
#5: ?? Jan 2007
#6: 29 Jan 2007
#7: 30 Jan 2007
#8: 05 Mar 2007 (first afterburner take-off)
#9: 13 Mar 2007 (First 360º rolls)
#10: 04 April 2007
#11: 05 April 2007
#12: 11 April 2007 (Jeff Knowles' first flight)
#13: 12 April 2007 (Jon Beesley - First touch-and-go landing)
#14: ?? April 2007
#15: 26 April 2007 (Jeff Knowles)
#16: 26 April 2007 (Jeff Knowles)
#17: 27 April 2007 (Jon Beesley)

Perhaps you can fill the gaps?

Flight #5 was 24 Jan
Flight #14 was 18 April (Knowles)

First HMD flight was #10
First AB takeoff was actually #9, not #8

F-16.net Webmaster Joined: May 23, 2003 Posts: 2354

Raptor_claw, thank you for the corrections.

Here's an overview again:

Overview of the AA-1 test flights

#1: 15 Dec 2006
#2: 08 Jan 2007
#3: 10 Jan 2007
#4: 23 Jan 2007
#5: 24 Jan 2007
#6: 29 Jan 2007
#7: 30 Jan 2007
#8: 05 Mar 2007
#9: 13 Mar 2007 (First afterburner take-off and first 360º rolls)
#10: 04 April 2007 (First HMD flight)
#11: 05 April 2007
#12: 11 April 2007 (Jeff Knowles' first flight)
#13: 12 April 2007 (Jon Beesley - First touch-and-go landing)
#14: 18 April 2007
#15: 26 April 2007 (Jeff Knowles)
#16: 26 April 2007 (Jeff Knowles)
#17: 27 April 2007 (Jon Beesley)

I will try to keep this list updated in a separate topic: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8174.html

Quote:

Well I know one reason is to be able to pull the seat without removing the canopy. Anyone else?

Yep, a Navy requirement for good reason and imagine this, the Navy loves Martin Baker as always.

Newbie Joined: Dec 17, 2006 Posts: 8 Status: Offline

checksixx wrote:

Well I know one reason is to be able to pull the seat without removing the canopy. Anyone else?

What do you think about commonality between the different variants?
The STOVL aircraft hasn't got the ability to house the hinges at the rear of the cockpit because the space is taken by the huge lift fan.

Happy_Gilmore wrote:

Quote:

I must say that the F-35 is one ungainly looking creature on the ground, and not terribly attractive except for certain angles in the air.

That's a hard argument idesof, it's all subjective and I think it would look much better with a centerline tank, however, it's still SO MUCH BETTER LOOKING than Boeing's abortion and it's reliable as Hell to boot. For a first article jet of it's kind it's very impressive to say the least.

Well, I wasn't really trying to argue its aesthetic merits. How can anyone make an objective argument regarding a subjective judgement? However, I propose that most people with a pair of eyes would say that the F-16 is a far more attractive airplane than the F-35. At the very least it looks faster and more agile. The F-35 just looks rather bloated, which is why I think many people, that Firefox / Fox100 guy in particular, think the F-35 is / will be a poor performer. But I think that, especially as concerns the F-35, looks can be deceiving. The F-8, for instance, was one fugly fighter, and yet it could outmaneuver just about any American fighter of its day. The early Migs also were very unattractive, and yet were notoriously maneuverable. The English Electric Lightning is probably one of the ugliest aircraft ever built, yet by all accounts it maneuvered well and was a speed demon. Other fighters that look great fly like a ton of bricks, the Tornado ADF, for instance, or the Mirage III, or the F-111. Speedy to be sure, but hardly maneuverable. At any rate, one thing is for sure: the F-35 is doubtlessly more attractive than that monstrosity, X-32. I'm convinced part of the reason the X-35 was chosen is because of fears that US fighter pilots would have mounted a mutiny if they were forced to fly Boeing's Abortion, as you so eloquently put it. In plan view it was actually not wholly unatractive. But from the side and front, jesus, what an ugly mofo!

idesof wrote:

Well, I wasn't really trying to argue its aesthetic merits. How can anyone make an objective argument regarding a subjective judgement? However, I propose that most people with a pair of eyes would say that the F-16 is a far more attractive airplane than the F-35. At the very least it looks faster and more agile. The F-35 just looks rather bloated, which is why I think many people, that Firefox / Fox100 guy in particular, think the F-35 is / will be a poor performer. But I think that, especially as concerns the F-35, looks can be deceiving. The F-8, for instance, was one fugly fighter, and yet it could outmaneuver just about any American fighter of its day. The early Migs also were very unattractive, and yet were notoriously maneuverable. The English Electric Lightning is probably one of the ugliest aircraft ever built, yet by all accounts it maneuvered well and was a speed demon. Other fighters that look great fly like a ton of bricks, the Tornado ADF, for instance, or the Mirage III, or the F-111. Speedy to be sure, but hardly maneuverable. At any rate, one thing is for sure: the F-35 is doubtlessly more attractive than that monstrosity, X-32. I'm convinced part of the reason the X-35 was chosen is because of fears that US fighter pilots would have mounted a mutiny if they were forced to fly Boeing's Abortion, as you so eloquently put it. In plan view it was actually not wholly unatractive. But from the side and front, jesus, what an ugly mofo!

I happen to think that the F-35 looks better than the F-16 and especially the F-18. In certain areas -- like the intakes and the nose profile -- I think it looks better than the F-22 as well. The F-22 looks better from the rear because of the futuristic 2D vectoring exhaust. The F-35 has a starkly modern look to it whereas the F-16/18 looks horribly dated and cluttered by comparison.

An analogy will be comparing a Infiniti G35 to a Corvette Stingray -- the G35 is much more modern, clean, sleek and beautiful to my eyes even if the Stingray has more curvaceous contours and a pointier nose.

Or perhaps, we can compare the looks of WWII cruiser with that of the DDG-1000 USS Zumwalt and withness the same kind of aesthetic contrast. The best looking design ever has to be the YF-23, unfortunately it wasn't selected.

dwightlooi wrote:

idesof wrote:

Well, I wasn't really trying to argue its aesthetic merits. How can anyone make an objective argument regarding a subjective judgement? However, I propose that most people with a pair of eyes would say that the F-16 is a far more attractive airplane than the F-35. At the very least it looks faster and more agile. The F-35 just looks rather bloated, which is why I think many people, that Firefox / Fox100 guy in particular, think the F-35 is / will be a poor performer. But I think that, especially as concerns the F-35, looks can be deceiving. The F-8, for instance, was one fugly fighter, and yet it could outmaneuver just about any American fighter of its day. The early Migs also were very unattractive, and yet were notoriously maneuverable. The English Electric Lightning is probably one of the ugliest aircraft ever built, yet by all accounts it maneuvered well and was a speed demon. Other fighters that look great fly like a ton of bricks, the Tornado ADF, for instance, or the Mirage III, or the F-111. Speedy to be sure, but hardly maneuverable. At any rate, one thing is for sure: the F-35 is doubtlessly more attractive than that monstrosity, X-32. I'm convinced part of the reason the X-35 was chosen is because of fears that US fighter pilots would have mounted a mutiny if they were forced to fly Boeing's Abortion, as you so eloquently put it. In plan view it was actually not wholly unatractive. But from the side and front, jesus, what an ugly mofo!

I happen to think that the F-35 looks better than the F-16 and especially the F-18. In certain areas -- like the intakes and the nose profile -- I think it looks better than the F-22 as well. The F-22 looks better from the rear because of the futuristic 2D vectoring exhaust. The F-35 has a starkly modern look to it whereas the F-16/18 looks horribly dated and cluttered by comparison.

An analogy will be comparing a Infiniti G35 to a Corvette Stingray -- the G35 is much more modern, clean, sleek and beautiful to my eyes even if the Stingray has more curvaceous contours and a pointier nose.

Or perhaps, we can compare the looks of WWII cruiser with that of the DDG-1000 USS Zumwalt and withness the same kind of aesthetic contrast. The best looking design ever has to be the YF-23, unfortunately it wasn't selected.

Well, we obviously have divergent aesthetic senses, or perhaps you are still very young, so that by the time you came to know the Viper, it looked "old" to you. To me, "old" design in fighters was epitomized by the F-4, while the Viper has never ceased seeming to me a thoroughly modern design. I don't think, for instance, that an overall design philosophy has been copied as much and as often and for so many years as the Viper's. When it comes to fighters, the Viper is a line of demarcation: everything that came before it leading up to it, and everything hence, influenced by it. Objectively speaking, one could easily make a case for the F-16 being the most successful and influential fighter design in the history of aviation. In comparison, the F-35 breaks no new ground. It is almost entirely "off-the-shelf," building on technologies already advanced by other, more adventurous designs. It is like a Honda Accord: perfectly reliable, perfectly able, does its job well, but won't ever blow anyone's socks off. And I say that as an ardent supporter of the F-35. It is the perfect answer to a very specific requirement. But I don't think there is any way you could argue that the F-35 pushes the envelope in the way the F-16 did nearly 35 years ago.

idesof wrote:

Well, we obviously have divergent aesthetic senses, or perhaps you are still very young, so that by the time you came to know the Viper, it looked "old" to you. To me, "old" design in fighters was epitomized by the F-4, while the Viper has never ceased seeming to me a thoroughly modern design. I don't think, for instance, that an overall design philosophy has been copied as much and as often and for so many years as the Viper's. When it comes to fighters, the Viper is a line of demarcation: everything that came before it leading up to it, and everything hence, influenced by it. Objectively speaking, one could easily make a case for the F-16 being the most successful and influential fighter design in the history of aviation. In comparison, the F-35 breaks no new ground. It is almost entirely "off-the-shelf," building on technologies already advanced by other, more adventurous designs. It is like a Honda Accord: perfectly reliable, perfectly able, does its job well, but won't ever blow anyone's socks off. And I say that as an ardent supporter of the F-35. It is the perfect answer to a very specific requirement. But I don't think there is any way you could argue that the F-35 pushes the envelope in the way the F-16 did nearly 35 years ago.

Actually, I think the F-35 did push the envelope more than the F-16 did in many ways -- some visible, some not so visible.

The F-35 is of course the first time we see a 5th generation "shape" in a single engined fighter. The DSI intakes, the forward swept intake lips for instance are unique to nothing before it. What is most amazing is the way the designers are able to harmoniously place the engine in the middle with the weapon bays to each side of it, then place the intakes directly ahead of the weapon bays with a duct work which elegantly curves inwards to feed the engine while avoiding the space of both the weapon bays and the central location of the lift-fan. In fact, it is perhaps the ONLY aircraft designed to accommodate STOVL which does not look obviously like a STOVL aircraft at all. There is this "transforming robot" quality to the way everything is packaged to look so unassuming. The locations for the lift fan, the vectored thrust nozzle and the roll posts were perfect, yet completely disappears into the aircraft such that you wouldn't even suspect that the F-35 has a STOVL variant looking at the F-35A or C.

The less obvious breakthroughs come in form of the under recognized fact that the F-35 is the lightest, most mass efficient fighter in the history of jet aviation. Despite the challenging requirements of three very different variants, internal weapons and stealth, the F-35 design manages to post the highest fuel fraction ever for any fighter aircraft (About 40%). This would have been an achievement to brag about even if the design had no internal weapon bays or STOVL accomodations. But it does! Every time I look at the F-35 I marvel at how well packaged everything is and how LIGHT the aircraft is for all that it envelopes -- 8366 kg fuel, 2600kg of internal weapons, a 191 kN engine, lift fan space alotment, stealth shaping, DAS, EOTS, embedded antennas, APU, a 700mm class radar, etc. By traditional standards -- 1980s standard -- an aircraft enveloping that much volume and stuff should be a 16~17 ton class airframe. But the F-35A AF-1 is projected to be in the 12~13 ton range.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

First F-35 multi-flight day - Flight #14 and #15