Great New Pics on JSF.mil

Discuss photos, special paintschemes and serial numbers of the F-35
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 21
Joined: 07 Mar 2009, 19:17
Location: Nottingham UK

by wolfsith » 18 Nov 2009, 22:44

There are many pics like this over on www.jsf.mil

Just thought I'd share
Attachments
F351.jpg
F352.jpg
f353.jpg


User avatar
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 637
Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 03:07

by PhillyGuy » 18 Nov 2009, 23:35

Great pictures! Even thought it's a thumbs up I love how it looks like he's flipping the cameramen in the second. :lol:
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."


Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 281
Joined: 13 Nov 2009, 02:50
Location: USA

by HaveVoid » 19 Nov 2009, 00:49

I've gotta say that I don't care what people say, this is one kicka$$ looking plane. D'ya think that the current dark grey all over camo is gonna make it into service aircraft, or is the paint gonna be morelike an F-22 style job?


User avatar
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 637
Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 03:07

by PhillyGuy » 19 Nov 2009, 00:58

npeterman18 wrote:I've gotta say that I don't care what people say, this is one kicka$$ looking plane.


That's why it was chosen in the first place. :wink:

Boeing forgot those senior heads were born in the 30's/40's. Aesthetics still meant something. :lol:
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."


Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 281
Joined: 13 Nov 2009, 02:50
Location: USA

by HaveVoid » 19 Nov 2009, 04:03

Boeing forgot those senior heads were born in the 30's/40's. Aesthetics still meant something


Boeing's poor X-32 looked like Vought's XF8U-3 Crusader III and Dassault's Mirage III had a bizarre love child. it was gloriously ugly, in its own way. I never fully understood if it went from tailless delta to tailed delta or vice-versa, but it certainly was an oddity


User avatar
Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2543
Joined: 31 Jan 2004, 19:18
Location: SW Tenn.

by LinkF16SimDude » 19 Nov 2009, 20:05

In the South, we'd have looked at the X-32 and said...."Well Bless Its Li'l Heart!" (translation: "good GOD that's an ugly kid!") :lol:
Why does "monosyllabic" have 5 syllables?


F-16.net Moderator
F-16.net Moderator
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:47

by Scorpion1alpha » 20 Nov 2009, 09:42

Image

Dave "Doc" Nelson is IMO, one of the more accomplished pilots in the test community. A 2-patcher and one of only a handful of people to fly both the F-22 and F-35. The Lightning II test team (and LM) should be glad to have such a knowledgeable and experienced guy like him.
I'm watching...


Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: 04 Apr 2009, 16:00
Location: UK

by shep1978 » 20 Nov 2009, 11:49

What's the little thing behind the radome area sticking out in an L sort of shape , air data sensor probe thing or IFF thing? Will it be gone in production versions?


Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 9
Joined: 16 Jul 2007, 18:42

by primary_solution » 20 Nov 2009, 17:12

It is an air data probe; So it will be there for production.


User avatar
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 637
Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 03:07

by PhillyGuy » 20 Nov 2009, 18:39

The Raptor has two of them, one on each side.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."


User avatar
Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2543
Joined: 31 Jan 2004, 19:18
Location: SW Tenn.

by LinkF16SimDude » 20 Nov 2009, 19:29

And before anyone asks....even the air data probes will have LO properties.
Why does "monosyllabic" have 5 syllables?


Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 457
Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 04:40

by strykerxo » 20 Nov 2009, 22:06

npeterman18 wrote:
Boeing forgot those senior heads were born in the 30's/40's. Aesthetics still meant something


Boeing's poor X-32 looked like Vought's XF8U-3 Crusader III and Dassault's Mirage III had a bizarre love child. it was gloriously ugly, in its own way. I never fully understood if it went from tailless delta to tailed delta or vice-versa, but it certainly was an oddity


X-32 looked good from the top, bottom, front and back, it was the side view that kills it. If Boeing came up with a better intake layout it might have saved it.

:2c:


Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 713
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 17:35
Location: Columbia, Maryland, USA

by stereospace » 21 Nov 2009, 18:16

npeterman18 wrote:I've gotta say that I don't care what people say, this is one kicka$$ looking plane.


Well, I still think it's ugly in its side profile (although it looks fine from the top and bottom). I don't think this plane is going to remembered for its beauty, that's for sure.

Still, what matters is its performance in combat, its affordability and its maintainability. Everyone who's had access to the classified stuff seems quite happy and confident and the test pilots all speak highly of it. That's gotta mean something.

I sure hope it measures up to the hype. There's an awful lot riding this aircraft being everything they say it is.

That F-18 looks like an aesthetic masterpiece by comparison to the F-35 it's flying with. I suspect that F-35 outperforms it in almost every category that really matters though, given the trade-offs required to maintain stealth - which is probably the most important characteristic it has.

Most beautiful combat aircraft ever flown or tested by the USAF since the 50's:
SR-71 Blackbird
XB-70 Valkyrie
B-58 Hustler
F-107A "Utra Sabre"
F-16 Falcon
F-22 Raptor
YF-23

The Rogues Gallery of ugliest ever flown or tested by the USAF since the 50's:
F-101 Voodoo
F-4 Phantom
A-6 Intruder
B-52H Stratofortress

Those last three ugly aircraft had long and distinguished careers. So looks aren't everything. Be nice if it looked better though. And the F-35 looks better than any of the aircraft in the Rogues Gallery.


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 9792
Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

by Corsair1963 » 22 Nov 2009, 02:04

Any possibility we could see a new camo on the F-35's???



Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest