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

Discuss photos, special paintschemes and serial numbers of the F-35
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

SnakeHandler

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 718
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2007, 18:22

Unread post15 Mar 2008, 08:43

That canopy bow HAS to go.
Offline

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post15 Mar 2008, 19:05

Yeah, I noticed in the pictures that it seems to be in the worst place possible...
Offline

AeroG33k

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 20:49

Unread post15 Mar 2008, 22:34

Wow, those are great pictures. I agree, the canopy bow seems somewhat obstructive and but I'd imagine it's necessary for the through-canopy ejection system while allowing a for a birdstrike-proof front section or else it wouldn't be there. But remember that the Distributed Aperture System is supposedly able to make the pilot see "through" the airframe. Is that confirmed yet? I wonder how effective that will be in practice...
Offline

LMAggie

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 579
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2007, 07:43

Unread post17 Mar 2008, 02:11

AeroG33k wrote:Wow, those are great pictures. I agree, the canopy bow seems somewhat obstructive and but I'd imagine it's necessary for the through-canopy ejection system while allowing a for a birdstrike-proof front section or else it wouldn't be there. But remember that the Distributed Aperture System is supposedly able to make the pilot see "through" the airframe. Is that confirmed yet? I wonder how effective that will be in practice...


No-bow transparencies are heavy given that they have to be extremely thick to meet bird-strike requirements. Simply put, you'll take a performance penalty for a no-bow canopy. AeroG33k, that's good point. Only time will tell what the scope of that system will be. It will have to go through extensive pilot trials before a final config is found.
“Its not the critic who counts..The credit belongs to the man who does actually strive to do the deeds..”
Offline

Raptor_claw

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 07:11

Unread post18 Mar 2008, 05:35

A different (and high-res) pic has been posted on the LM site....


http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/pres ... efuel.html
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5716
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post18 Mar 2008, 05:51

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:man, what a nice looking plane. I cant wait to get a good model of it or get a good flight sim.



That makes two of us.............I would love a 1/48th scale F-35 for my desk! 8)


Note: Panda Models of China does make one. Yet, is in a piece of junk! :?
Offline

Yoram777

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 02:44

Unread post18 Mar 2008, 20:49

here are some more pics

flight 24:
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image


First US Air Force Flight:
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

8)
Offline

AeroG33k

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 20:49

Unread post18 Mar 2008, 21:53

Beautiful Aircraft! For some reason those pictures got me thinking about a delta-winged 2-seat tactical bomber variety with wings that extend from the intakes incorporating the horizontal stabs...I know, but one can dream.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5716
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post18 Mar 2008, 22:07

I like the pick between the F/A-18 Hornet and the F-35A! Really, shows how clean the Lightning is compared to your average 4th Generation Fighter. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the F-35 didn't have extraordinarily quick acceleration rates! :notworthy:
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5716
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post18 Mar 2008, 22:11

AeroG33k wrote:Beautiful Aircraft! For some reason those pictures got me thinking about a delta-winged 2-seat tactical bomber variety with wings that extend from the intakes incorporating the horizontal stabs...I know, but one can dream.



Personally, I don't see why the F-35 couldn't be stretched to include a second crewman and more fuel/weapons! Really, considering the numbers projected for the F-35. The bomber version would only add value...... :wink:
Offline

dwightlooi

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1170
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006, 00:14

Unread post19 Mar 2008, 02:16

Corsair1963 wrote:
AeroG33k wrote:Beautiful Aircraft! For some reason those pictures got me thinking about a delta-winged 2-seat tactical bomber variety with wings that extend from the intakes incorporating the horizontal stabs...I know, but one can dream.



Personally, I don't see why the F-35 couldn't be stretched to include a second crewman and more fuel/weapons! Really, considering the numbers projected for the F-35. The bomber version would only add value...... :wink:


You may need an engine upgrade for that. As it is right now, the F-35 is not an underpowered aircraft, but it is does not have excess power to spare like an F-22 either. At 50% fuel the F-35's power to weight ratio is about the same as an SU-27/30 in full afterburner (~1.16:1). In dry thrust it is slightly better -- 0.75:1 for the F-35 vs 0.72:1 on the SU-27. Given that it is a capable of carrying adequate combat loads while remaining a very clean aircraft we can expect very competitive performance and even superior performance in some portions of the envelope.

Add another fuselage plug, more weight, a second dude, etc. and all of ti goes away.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5716
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post19 Mar 2008, 03:44

dwightlooi wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
AeroG33k wrote:Beautiful Aircraft! For some reason those pictures got me thinking about a delta-winged 2-seat tactical bomber variety with wings that extend from the intakes incorporating the horizontal stabs...I know, but one can dream.



Personally, I don't see why the F-35 couldn't be stretched to include a second crewman and more fuel/weapons! Really, considering the numbers projected for the F-35. The bomber version would only add value...... :wink:


You may need an engine upgrade for that. As it is right now, the F-35 is not an underpowered aircraft, but it is does not have excess power to spare like an F-22 either. At 50% fuel the F-35's power to weight ratio is about the same as an SU-27/30 in full afterburner (~1.16:1). In dry thrust it is slightly better -- 0.75:1 for the F-35 vs 0.72:1 on the SU-27. Given that it is a capable of carrying adequate combat loads while remaining a very clean aircraft we can expect very competitive performance and even superior performance in some portions of the envelope.

Add another fuselage plug, more weight, a second dude, etc. and all of ti goes away.



Personally, I doubt thrust would be a problem! First, because a bomber version would not require the thrust to weight ratio of a fighter. Second, the GE F-136 is suppose to make much more power than its P & W cousin. Either way power or lack thereof shouldn't be a issue.........Note: The proposed FB-35 would likely have a larger wing with more lift!
Offline

AeroG33k

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 20:49

Unread post19 Mar 2008, 03:52

The second cockpit could fit mostly within the space for the lift fan, without the need for another fuselage section (just a modified forward one), but the larger delta wing would have to pick up the slack of fuel capacity. T/W wouldn't be critical, for the reasons corsair pointed out. Structural concerns would be the biggest concern for me, although given commonality between F-35A and F-35C, it seems doable, especially since a delta wing would reduce wing loading. The delta wing would be optimized for high subsonic or even supersonic cruise. That, along with some low observable/low drag under-wing pods for 4 small diameter bombs would be a very nice alternative to the FB-22 which seems to have been scrapped.

Heck, I'm still thinking of a 2-seat F-35 with the C's wing and dorsal AESA's in the weapons bays for a combat-capable mini-AWACS, but that's just me dreaming.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5716
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post19 Mar 2008, 04:41

AeroG33k wrote:The second cockpit could fit mostly within the space for the lift fan, without the need for another fuselage section (just a modified forward one), but the larger delta wing would have to pick up the slack of fuel capacity. T/W wouldn't be critical, for the reasons corsair pointed out. Structural concerns would be the biggest concern for me, although given commonality between F-35A and F-35C, it seems doable, especially since a delta wing would reduce wing loading. The delta wing would be optimized for high subsonic or even supersonic cruise. That, along with some low observable/low drag under-wing pods for 4 small diameter bombs would be a very nice alternative to the FB-22 which seems to have been scrapped.

Heck, I'm still thinking of a 2-seat F-35 with the C's wing and dorsal AESA's in the weapons bays for a combat-capable mini-AWACS, but that's just me dreaming.



That's the beauty of the F-35 design! Just mix and match..... :D Another thing to consider the price for a Bomber Version of the F-35 would be much more reasonable than a likely conversion of the F-22 for the same role! Especially, important in the export market! Think of all of the Strike Eagles and Tornado's that will need to be replaced in the coming decades..... :wink:
Offline

Guysmiley

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1496
  • Joined: 26 May 2005, 19:39

Unread post19 Mar 2008, 15:00

Is it just me or are there some "fit" issues with the canopy? Looks like there's a pretty significant gap between the front edge of the canopy and the fuselage.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Spotting & Photography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests