Phyrox Posted December 15, 2007 Posted December 15, 2007 What part of my post made you think I was being a jerk? You're on the internet. That's all some people need to know.
Fatalist Posted December 16, 2007 Posted December 16, 2007 Umm, I was just saying that topic has already been discussed here. What part of my post made you think I was being a jerk? It's the way you come off on these boards David. Very show off know-it-all. I know this may seem weird, but most people don't troll these boards wanting or watching every single bit of posting info that comes along.
Noyhauser Posted December 16, 2007 Posted December 16, 2007 It's the way you come off on these boards David. Very show off know-it-all. I know this may seem weird, but most people don't troll these boards wanting or watching every single bit of posting info that comes along. Yeah Jeez DH, who asked you to bring truth to the forums? Sheesh, some people.
Nied Posted December 16, 2007 Posted December 16, 2007 Yeah Jeez DH, who asked you to bring truth to the forums? Sheesh, some people. You know what else? Flaps! that is all.
F-ZeroOne Posted December 16, 2007 Posted December 16, 2007 Strange tid-bit from the movie world - the forthcoming remake of that British wartime classic, The Dambusters, is to be scripted by Stephen "Brain The Size of Kent" Fry. This has raised one or two eyebrows, especially if the rumours that Alan Davies will be taking the role of Wing Commander Guy Gibson are true...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 .....The Dambusters, is to be scripted by Stephen "Brain The Size of Kent" Fry. This has raised one or two eyebrows, especially if the rumours that Alan Davies will be .... Who?
Noyhauser Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 Umm, a famous british actor more known for his comedic roles, like in Wooster and Jeeves, and he usually plays the bumbling Colonel/Lord/foil in the Black Adder Series. He's written a lot of books, produced a lot of smart programs... not surprisingly he's a pretty smart guy. Google image search for him/... I think you'll recognize him.
F-ZeroOne Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 If its the "Alan Davies" thing, this is a bit of a joke on my part. Stephen Fry hosts an unusual quiz show in the UK called "Q.I.". Its unusual because although points are awarded for correct answers, points are also taken away for "obvious" answers that are based on what might be called "man down the pub says" knowledge, rather than actual fact. Also unusually, answers can actually change between series, based on updated science; for example, in one series the question was asked "How many Moons does the Earth have?", and the answer had changed between the first time of asking and the next. [1] The audience have even won episodes on occasion. Although the contestants are generally changed between episodes, one constant is British actor/comedian Alan Davies, who generally plays the class dunce (with scores going down to minus -50 or more... ) to Stephen Frys intellectual firepower. [1] And if you answered "one" here - well done, you just lost ten points.
Ratchet Posted December 18, 2007 Posted December 18, 2007 Umm, I was just saying that topic has already been discussed here. What part of my post made you think I was being a jerk? Are you a pilot or ever was one, David?
David Hingtgen Posted December 18, 2007 Posted December 18, 2007 Nope. (I get that question a lot though)
the white drew carey Posted December 18, 2007 Posted December 18, 2007 Nope. (I get that question a lot though) That stinks. I would love to see you made into a series. OK, I'm a tard.
Dante74 Posted December 18, 2007 Posted December 18, 2007 (edited) That stinks. I would love to see you made into a series. OK, I'm a tard. LOL! We could have spinoffs like Hingtgen: New York, and Hingtgen: Miami with David talking about airplanes in a NY accent or while driving a big ol' Hummer. ::EDIT:: Yeah, I'm a bigger tard than you... Edited December 18, 2007 by Dante74
eugimon Posted December 18, 2007 Posted December 18, 2007 LOL! We could have spinoffs like Hingtgen: New York, and Hingtgen: Miami with David talking about airplanes in a NY accent or while driving a big ol' Hummer. ::EDIT:: Yeah, I'm a bigger tard than you... what sort of aircraft puns, one liners could we have him say?
Mr March Posted December 18, 2007 Posted December 18, 2007 David Hingtgen: Nope. But I get that question... *click on smiley* ...a lot though
Knight26 Posted December 18, 2007 Posted December 18, 2007 The STOVL F-35 rolled out for the first time today: Article
Nied Posted December 18, 2007 Posted December 18, 2007 (edited) The STOVL F-35 rolled out for the first time today: Article That's not a David Hingtgen/TV show pilot joke! On a serious note: does anyone else think that big intake door they used for the production version will make a great sail for a gust to pick up and knock the aircraft over as it's trying to balance itself on a column of thrust? Edited December 18, 2007 by Nied
Knight26 Posted December 18, 2007 Posted December 18, 2007 That's not a David Hingtgen/TV show pilot joke! On a serious note: does anyone else think that big intake door they used for the production version will make a great sail for a gust to pick up and knock the aircraft over as it's trying to balance itself on a column of thrust? Because David knows that he is my batty... lol
Nied Posted December 18, 2007 Posted December 18, 2007 (edited) Because David knows that he is my batty... lol Yeah but you're the swear word replacement bot's batty. Edited December 19, 2007 by Nied
David Hingtgen Posted December 19, 2007 Posted December 19, 2007 Why did they change the lift-fan's door? Bi-fold doors are not complex or prone to failure or anything. Half of all airliners have bi-fold landing gear doors 99% identical in size/shape/operation to the X-35's original lift-fan doors. I can't imagine that one big huge wind-catching piece is any better, besides saving a few hundred bucks a HUNDRED MILLION BUCK plane.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 19, 2007 Posted December 19, 2007 Would that big door flap be such a hazard? Its still quite minute in surface area compared to the side fuselage profile or tail fins.
Morikazu001 Posted December 19, 2007 Posted December 19, 2007 Looks like they changed the way the doors open on the F-35B compared to the X-35. The front lift fan now has a one piece door that is hinged at the rear instead of the bi-fold doors. The two doors behind the main lift fan now seem to open in the opposite direction. I don't think that the doors are big enough to cause any problems with crosswinds that the flight control computers can't handle. I'm sure the engineers at Lockheed-Martin already thought of that problem, I hope.
David Hingtgen Posted December 19, 2007 Posted December 19, 2007 I just realized---does the lift fan cut rear visibility to zero? Isn't that "fighter design no-no #1?"
Morikazu001 Posted December 19, 2007 Posted December 19, 2007 I just realized---does the lift fan cut rear visibility to zero? Isn't that "fighter design no-no #1?" I just looked at the pictures and you're right, it seems the F-35B has lousy rear visibility. That is a major flaw for a fighter, makes me wonder what the designers were thinking
Fatalist Posted December 19, 2007 Posted December 19, 2007 Nah, they'll be able to see everything in that crazy new helmet. =P
Morikazu001 Posted December 19, 2007 Posted December 19, 2007 Nah, they'll be able to see everything in that crazy new helmet. =P :lol: The sad part is that the engineers might have been actually thinking that. As one fighter pilot once told me: "Nothing beats the Mark I Mod 0 Sensor system, A.K.A. the human eye."
Awacs Posted December 19, 2007 Posted December 19, 2007 I just realized---does the lift fan cut rear visibility to zero? Isn't that "fighter design no-no #1?" It is considered to be a big "thou shalt not" in terms of fighter design I thought. I'm wondering whether they think they can sneak it past as the F-35 is being touted more as a "little bomb-truck with self-defence capability" than an actual fighter (at least, that's how the Navy and Air Force over here in Blighty seem to be regarding it). In that context it would join a long-line of aircraft with that flaw - Jaguar, early GR-Harrier marks to think of just a couple. Karl
Morikazu001 Posted December 19, 2007 Posted December 19, 2007 It is considered to be a big "thou shalt not" in terms of fighter design I thought. I'm wondering whether they think they can sneak it past as the F-35 is being touted more as a "little bomb-truck with self-defence capability" than an actual fighter (at least, that's how the Navy and Air Force over here in Blighty seem to be regarding it). In that context it would join a long-line of aircraft with that flaw - Jaguar, early GR-Harrier marks to think of just a couple. Karl Your probably right that the F-35 is being seen as a ground attack fighter first. The F-35B especially since the U.S.M.C. air arm considers close air support as its primary job. The problem is that some of the aircraft that the F-35 is suppose to replace, like the F-16 and the F/A-18C/D, are used in an Air-to-Air role. It will be even more likely to be used as a fighter since the F-22 is not expected to fully replace the F-15C in U.S. Air Force service due to cost.
Knight26 Posted December 19, 2007 Posted December 19, 2007 Actually the reason for the single lift fan door is for airflow control, the inlet doors for the main engine behind the lift fan is dual door. The single door therefore acts to split the air going to the two engines making sure that both engines get enough air.
Nied Posted December 19, 2007 Posted December 19, 2007 I just realized---does the lift fan cut rear visibility to zero? Isn't that "fighter design no-no #1?" That's always been the case. Hell didn't everyone here think all F-35 variants were going to be like that for a while because the X-35 was designed that way? I don't think it will be that big of an issue since A) two of the aircraft it's meant to replace are attack aircraft (AV-8B and GR.7/9) and one of the fighters it's meant to replace (SHAR) doesn't exactly have good rear visibility itself; and B) as someone mentioned the helmet is supposed to solve the rest. The JSF helmet definetly looks like it will be really cool, allowing the pilot to see through the whole airplane with thermal sights (and it looks pretty good when modeled by hot redheads).
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 19, 2007 Posted December 19, 2007 . The JSF helmet definetly looks like it will be really cool, allowing the pilot to see through the whole airplane with thermal sights (and it looks pretty good when modeled by hot redheads). The just need to push the visor a bit out further and we can have the Gatchaman 'Beak Helmets'!
Awacs Posted December 19, 2007 Posted December 19, 2007 That's always been the case. Hell didn't everyone here think all F-35 variants were going to be like that for a while because the X-35 was designed that way? I don't think it will be that big of an issue since A) two of the aircraft it's meant to replace are attack aircraft (AV-8B and GR.7/9) and one of the fighters it's meant to replace (SHAR) doesn't exactly have good rear visibility itself; That's a fair point actually. The SHAR isn't exactly blessed with fantastic rear arcs either. Mind you - it was a distinct improvement on those of the GR marks that it was contemporary with (rear view.... er, you can see your headrest if you turn your head right around, was about the size of it on those). (and it looks pretty good when modeled by hot redheads). Most things do though.... Karl
Apollo Leader Posted December 20, 2007 Author Posted December 20, 2007 Regarding the door for the lift fan on the F-35B, maybe they went to a single piece for RCS purposes? It also may have been done for manufacturing purposes (less parts, less expensive, etc.).
David Hingtgen Posted December 22, 2007 Posted December 22, 2007 Remember the C-5 that crashed yet broke up into just a few very large pieces? Crash animation recreation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI5xTmmPbsY From watching the video, hopefully the cause isn't as simple as "they throttled back the wrong engine". (which has happened before, and will likely happen again) Watch N1, and throttle position. #2 is what failed and is holding at zero N1 (almost---the small amount shown is probably just windmill effect). Seems ok as they reduce thrust, but once they start throttling up to get back up on glidslope, they throttle up number TWO instead of number three. Effectively having 2 engines failed. Low, slow, with two engines out---not good.
Morikazu001 Posted December 22, 2007 Posted December 22, 2007 From the crash recreation the C-5 was already below glide path when they throttled back, and unfortunately they throttled up the failed #2 engine and not the good #3 engine. I know it is possible to land a loaded C-5 with only two engines, but it cannot climb with two. IMHO if they were on proper glide slope the throttle mixup would not be a big problem, but with them being too low, this mistake proved catastrophic.
Recommended Posts