Latest F-35 AA-1 test flight photos (Flight 24 thru 26)

brancwp · by **brancwp** » 26 Feb 2008, 16:30

Well why not come out and fly ours! :wink:

johnwill · by **johnwill** » 26 Feb 2008, 17:59

Checksixx wrote:

Dumb question:

Any reason they didn't clip the horizontal stabs like they did on the Raptor? I'm guessing its an airflow issue, but I'd love a firm answer if anyone knows.

-Check

Not a dumb question at all. I can't give you a definitive F-22 answer, but based on F-16 experience (note the Block 15 big tail is clipped) the reason is probably runway clearance. There are specific ground rules (heh heh) about tail/runway clearance - rotate the airplane until the aft fuselage contacts the runway, deflect tail full trailing edge down, and one main gear fully compressed with a flat tire - no tail/runway contact allowed.

checksixx · by **checksixx** » 26 Feb 2008, 19:17

I'm talking about the horizontal stabs, not the tail...

SixerViper · by **SixerViper** » 27 Feb 2008, 05:12

OK, I'll bite--what does IPP stand for?

VprWzl · by **VprWzl** » 27 Feb 2008, 05:28

Word on the atreet is that it will have an AOA limit, but that it will be much higher. (Something like the Hornet's, not nearly as limited as the Viper's.)

johnwill · by **johnwill** » 27 Feb 2008, 05:58

checksixx,
So am I. Horizontal tail, Horizontal stab - same thing. Guess I don't see how you could confuse anything I said as pertaining to anything but the horizontal tail. If so, I apologize for the confusion.

To get picky about it, there is no horizontal stabilizer on airplanes with all-moving tails, such as all fighters for the past fifty or sixty years. Prior to that most if not all airplanes had two-piece tails. The fixed part was called the stabilizer and the moving part was called the elevator.

Many people still use the term stabilizer or stab, and I guess it's ok, because everyone knows what is meant. The folks who build the airplanes call the horizontal control surfaces "horizontal tails" on all the drawings and T.O.s.

LMAggie · by **LMAggie** » 27 Feb 2008, 05:59

SixerViper wrote:OK, I'll bite--what does IPP stand for?

Integrated Power Package.

Just a fancy term for the APU. It's bad when you explain acronyms by using other acronyms!

checksixx · by **checksixx** » 27 Feb 2008, 06:10

Sorry for the confusion John...so you have no answer to my question then, and I have no idea why you posted what you did, but thanks for trying.

johnwill · by **johnwill** » 27 Feb 2008, 06:54

Well, let's go back and try again then. By extending what I said a bit, I thought you'd be able to see that the F-35 doesn't need to clip the tails (or stabs if you will) because they have sufficient tail/runway clearance. One reason may be that the F-35 tail has a little positive dihedral on the tail, thus increasing ground clearance.

I should have mentioned the tail dihedral the first time, as maybe that would have helped you understand what I was trying to say (poorly).

habu2 · by **habu2** » 29 Feb 2008, 01:16

LMAggie wrote:
SixerViper wrote:OK, I'll bite--what does IPP stand for?

Integrated Power Package.

Just a fancy term for the APU. It's bad when you explain acronyms by using other acronyms!

Umm, it's a bit more than an APU...

Try APU/ECS/JFS/PTMS/(insert additional acronyms here)....

LMAggie · by **LMAggie** » 29 Feb 2008, 03:12

habu2 wrote:
LMAggie wrote:
SixerViper wrote:OK, I'll bite--what does IPP stand for?

Integrated Power Package.

Just a fancy term for the APU. It's bad when you explain acronyms by using other acronyms!

Umm, it's a bit more than an APU...

Try APU/ECS/JFS/PTMS/(insert additional acronyms here)....

Semantics. Simple answer for a simple question.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 29 Feb 2008, 03:57

cywolf32 wrote:I can't see why some people think the F-35 is an ugly airplane!! I think its an awesome looking aircraft. It just looks the buisness to me, esp. compared to the euro canards.

Like the Raptor it has a bird of prey look to it! Personally, I think it more aggressive looking than the former.............of course that is just my personal opinion.

Scorpion1alpha · by **Scorpion1alpha** » 29 Feb 2008, 06:36

VprWzl wrote:Word on the atreet is that it will have an AOA limit, but that it will be much higher. (Something like the Hornet's, not nearly as limited as the Viper's.)

Think: combining the F-16's speed, energy, and turning abilities with F-18's slow speed and high AoA envelope. If you're a Viper driver and are going to transition to the Lightning, I think you're going to like it.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 29 Feb 2008, 07:09

Scorpion1alpha wrote:
VprWzl wrote:Word on the atreet is that it will have an AOA limit, but that it will be much higher. (Something like the Hornet's, not nearly as limited as the Viper's.)

Think: combining the F-16's speed, energy, and turning abilities with F-18's slow speed and high AoA envelope. If you're a Viper driver and are going to transition to the Lightning, I think you're going to like it.

Let's not forget the sheer power of the P&W F-135...............Man, its going to be part F-15, part F-16, and part F/A-18! Personally, I doubt anybody is going to be disappointed with its flight performance......I think the critics of the Lightning are in for a big surprise! :twisted:

Raptor_claw · by **Raptor_claw** » 14 Mar 2008, 21:33

Couple photos from the tanker during air refuel testing.
Photo credit goes to Liz Kaszynski....