F-35 first flight

LinkF16SimDude · by **LinkF16SimDude** » 15 Dec 2006, 21:43

The press...idiots...just...ugggghhh!! Idiots! :roll:

tiedyed · by **tiedyed** » 15 Dec 2006, 22:32

idesof wrote:
Smithsguy wrote:So it was complete not cut short? That's a relief...

The press is already spinning it as a failure, saying that the jet landed "early," 35-min. into a planned hour-long flight, with LM not providing any explanations for the change in plans.

Well, wait moment or two before deciding what is and is not spin. The first flight was delayed, and its first flight was cut nearly in half. That's more than just foobar with a line of code or something else likewise. I am surprised by the cheers simply because the plane finally got its feet off of the ground since that feet should be elementary today.

idesof · by **idesof** » 15 Dec 2006, 22:41

tiedyed wrote:Well, wait moment or two before deciding what is and is not spin. The first flight was delayed, and its first flight was cut nearly in half. That's more than just foobar with a line of code or something else likewise. I am surprised by the cheers simply because the plane finally got its feet off of the ground since that feet should be elementary today.

LM is calling it a "successful" inaugural flight...

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/pressrelease/F-35.html

We'll have to see what comes out of the press conference.

djcross · by **djcross** » 15 Dec 2006, 22:56

First flights are always conservative. If the test instrumentation or any system isn't working the way the engineers thought it should, the flight will be aborted. The last thing the F-35 program needs is a first flight like the F-14A had.

ArrowHawk · by **ArrowHawk** » 15 Dec 2006, 23:00

Has it ever occurred to anyone that during the flight test brief that the engineers and pilot decided to take out some test points? Just because the flight didn't last as long as LM originally said or as long as "we" think it should last does not mean in wasn't a successful flight. Jon Beesley took off in the F-35 and landed safely at the same airport on the same day. Successful flight in my book. And if there are squawks, then there are squawks. This is a brand new airplane. I always find it amazing how many people can become "virtual" engineers or test pilots when they don't know the full story.

Great job LM on a successful inaugural first flight of the F-35A Lightning II!! :cheers:

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 15 Dec 2006, 23:05

tiedyed wrote:I am surprised by the cheers simply because the plane finally got its feet off of the ground since that feet should be elementary today.

I guess that's why everybody is turning out F-35 equivelants. Oh wait. . . :roll:

navav2002 · by **navav2002** » 15 Dec 2006, 23:56

I was watching the video. While he was airborne and out of view of the camera, a still photo of the AC was shown and a message scrolled across the bottom of the page. His projected landing time in that message was 13:15 CST. I believe he touched down @ 13:18...

Again, nice Job Fellows...

idesof · by **idesof** » 16 Dec 2006, 00:20

navav2002 wrote:I was watching the video. While he was airborne and out of view of the camera, a still photo of the AC was shown and a message scrolled across the bottom of the page. His projected landing time in that message was 13:15 CST. I believe he touched down @ 13:18...

Again, nice Job Fellows...

Well there you go, they altered the flight plan prior to the flight. Guess no flying monkey tearing out the plane's components after all...

Raptor_One · by **Raptor_One** » 16 Dec 2006, 00:26

tiedyed wrote:I am surprised by the cheers simply because the plane finally got its feet off of the ground since that feet should be elementary today.

Give us a break, man! If you were involved in such an endeavor like the design and construction of a fighter aircraft, you would cheer too the first time it took to the skies. They're not cheering because the thing flew in a literal sense. First flights are ceremonial occasions these days. Something can always go wrong, but nobody expected that the F-35 wouldn't actually fly. C'mon man! Really!

idesof · by **idesof** » 16 Dec 2006, 00:32

Raptor_One wrote:but nobody expected that the F-35 wouldn't actually fly.

Wrong. Firefox genuinely doubted the F-35 would even get airborne. Too bad there is no stick out your tongue smiley :wink:

Lieven · by **Lieven** » 16 Dec 2006, 00:39

BRAVO! BRAVO! On behalf of the F-16.net team, I'd like to offer my congratulations to all people involved!

G3 Image not found

The first F-35 Lightning II flew for the first time on Friday, Dec. 15. The plane is shown climbing out shortly after takeoff from Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, Texas. [LMTAS Photo by Tom Harvey]

idesof · by **idesof** » 16 Dec 2006, 00:52

It doesn't look like the pilot was flying with the HMD, and you can clearly tell the airplane doesn't have a HUD either. Am I wrong? Is the HMD ready?

JanHas · by **JanHas** » 16 Dec 2006, 00:54

Probably just using the bigscreens in the pit.

Raptor_One · by **Raptor_One** » 16 Dec 2006, 01:00

idesof wrote:
Raptor_One wrote:but nobody expected that the F-35 wouldn't actually fly.

Wrong. Firefox genuinely doubted the F-35 would even get airborne. Too bad there is no stick out your tongue smiley

I somehow doubt he REALLY thought that. Remember the Spruce Goose? Even that thing flew. It's not exactly hard to make something actually fly. Fly well... yes, rather difficult.

Raptor_claw · by **Raptor_claw** » 16 Dec 2006, 02:37

idesof wrote:
Raptor_One wrote:but nobody expected that the F-35 wouldn't actually fly.

Wrong. Firefox genuinely doubted the F-35 would even get airborne. Too bad there is no stick out your tongue smiley

Can't say a whole lot right now, but I will say that Jon had to climbout at a steeper angle than expected (at mil power) to keep the airspeed within limits.
Also, the F-16's apparently had trouble keeping up (during the climbout).

Wasn't in the debrief, but from all accounts the airplane was 'rock solid'.

Not bad for a 'fat' ostrich.... :lol: