|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Is the F-35 fundamentally flawed? I mean, airframes now have max afterburner times before the skin literally starts falling off payload v fuel cost, maintenance Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Feb 25, 2021 |
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
brains posted:annual reminder that with enough thrust, anything will fly Happened more than once to the Mercedes Le Mans team https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e21ZjwZGjiQ
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 04:09
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:If the idea was to be cheap or have reasonable operating costs... That's been my argument forever. The F-35 should've been several platforms, because it has to encompass several missions. The idea was that, compared to the F-22, this one had to be cheap to buy and operate. And it is cheaper to buy and probably will be cheaper to operate in a few years, but the only reason the difference is so significant is that economy of scale favors the F-35 (thousands sold) and penalizes the F-22 (half the minimum purchased). We wanted a sneaky sedan, but we actually wrote the requirements so it had to be equally competitive in the Dakar and Monaco.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 04:19
|
|
|
Blitter posted:Happened more than once to the Mercedes Le Mans team Mark Webber made a career out of it., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IebMKoX1EA
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 04:30
|
|
|
 So, I had a bird strike on the way up while traveling for work in 2011-ish and... yeah, if this scale is one minute that’s pretty much what the plane/my heart rate did for what felt like five minutes. I was in the seat that most of the scary videos of this thing are from, but on a smaller plane. Flight attendant looked out my window, then at me, and then ran full speed aft. Cling clang at the start, and eventually the longest 10 seconds of my life of that full on failure noise which I’m guessing is an order of magnitude more frightening in a 777. The number of people that pressed the attendant buttons on engine cutoff was actually darkly humorous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 05:43
|
|
|
Why isn't it called the VF-35B?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 05:59
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Why isn't it called the VF-35B? Because it isn't Variable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNn1_OlyjLk
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 06:49
|
|
|
The most correct designation would be F-24A for the Air Force version, F-24B for the Navy, and FV-24A for the Marines. If the Marines decided it was primarily a ground attack plane, it should be the AV-15A. Suicide Watch posted:Why isn't it called the VF-35B? FV- means a fighter with VTOL capability, VF- means a staff transport with air combat capability. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Feb 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 07:23
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That's been my argument forever. The F-35 should've been several platforms, because it has to encompass several missions. The idea was that, compared to the F-22, this one had to be cheap to buy and operate. And it is cheaper to buy and probably will be cheaper to operate in a few years, but the only reason the difference is so significant is that economy of scale favors the F-35 (thousands sold) and penalizes the F-22 (half the minimum purchased). You probably could have an aircraft that met all of the requirements by simply not requiring the Air Force and Navy versions to be common airframe with the Marine one, and having two different designs. The Navy and Air Force requirements for a fighter are going to be similar enough (assuming you get the Navy to agree to a single engine design) that you can use essentially the same aircraft for both, since the stronger structure for catapult launches and arrested landings basically means the Air Force version is just a bit heavier than it needs to be, and maybe the Navy version needs slightly larger wings to bring down the approach speed, but there's still a lot of commonality between both aircraft. Once you then decide that basic airframe also has to be a VTOL aircraft, things get stupid in a hurry. Since the fuselage now has to fit the equipment associated with a lift fan or nozzles, it now has to be wider, which makes the aircraft heavier, produce more drag, etc... which then starts compromising the Navy and Air Force versions that would have been perfectly happy with a less chunky airplane. The problem was that there was no way Congress was going to spend tens of billions on a Marine-specific airplane, and since the Marine Corps insisted they had to have a VTOL design, you end up with the F-35 having a lot of issues that deciding to put the airplane into production whole testing was still going on just exacerbated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 08:23
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That's been my argument forever. The F-35 should've been several platforms, because it has to encompass several missions. The idea was that, compared to the F-22, this one had to be cheap to buy and operate. And it is cheaper to buy and probably will be cheaper to operate in a few years, but the only reason the difference is so significant is that economy of scale favors the F-35 (thousands sold) and penalizes the F-22 (half the minimum purchased). I think the F-35A will be a very successful aircraft. The Air Force will use it well. I still think the -B and -C models are going to be loving nightmares. MX-wise, and just the x-factor of the first stealth aircraft in a corrosive salt water environment. I'm sure LockMart's got some wonder cleaning chemical/sealant to use (or will develop/license/steal one) that costs a fortune and will give a bunch of cleared enlisted sailors cancer, but I think we're going to hear a lot of  poo poo-talking leaking through about how the -35B and -C are nightmares to keep combat-ready underway for a full multi-month deployment. It wouldn't surprise me if Ford-classes don't go to sea with more than 4-6 of them on board at any given time, and maybe TWO on LHAs.
BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Feb 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 08:59
|
|
|
priznat posted:Forbes is basically a medium.com with a once prestigious magazine name. Forbes is garbage, a couple of years ago I looked into how I could write for them and it's basically blog posts + ~networking~ and you're in
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 09:53
|
|
|
hellotoothpaste posted:So, I had a bird strike on the way up while traveling for work in 2011-ish and... yeah, if this scale is one minute that’s pretty much what the plane/my heart rate did for what felt like five minutes. I was in the seat that most of the scary videos of this thing are from, but on a smaller plane. Flight attendant looked out my window, then at me, and then ran full speed aft. i shat myself so hard when we had intense turbulence (literal rollercoaster feel) and the plane started washing machining. i don't know if it's a regular thing but they also turned the cabin completely dark which didn't help. can't imagine what a bird strike must be like half an hour later everything was back to normal and captain just says "sorry about that, we got a bit of turbulence there lol"
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 13:42
|
|
|
Mustard did an Antonov video https://youtu.be/twwDv7jjjfw
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 14:12
|
|
|
Local spotto 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 14:39
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:Local spotto Did they land on a small hamlet in the outback?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 16:09
|
|
|
Re: LS in a 172. How does putting an uncertified engine in a certified airframe work?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 16:56
|
|
|
SNiPER_Magnum posted:Re: LS in a 172. How does putting an uncertified engine in a certified airframe work? I think you tell the FAA you’re developing it as a product and bam it’s experimental? https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/may/07/aircraft-maintenance-explaining-experimental You have to abandon your previous certificate though and product development is temporary so have fun with that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I think you tell the FAA you’re developing it as a product and bam it’s experimental? https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/may/07/aircraft-maintenance-explaining-experimental Yeah, basically if you are putting in a non-standard engine, its an experimental, I think you still have to pass a flight worthiness inspection. quote:All amateur-built/homebuilt airplanes must be registered with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). These airplanes must be inspected by an FAA inspector or a designated inspector before an airworthiness certificate can be issued. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Feb 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 17:57
|
|
|
SNiPER_Magnum posted:Re: LS in a 172. How does putting an uncertified engine in a certified airframe work? As I recall, that plane is the one mentioned in https://airfactsjournal.com/2020/11/the-20-an-hour-cessna-172-experiment/ , and I think they want a STC for 172s, https://corsairpower.com/ is the company, and https://corsairpower.com/converting-standard-aircraft-to-experimental/ is them writing about switching to experimental exhibition category. Experimental exhibition means that you can't provide for-pay instruction, and that you usually have a relatively tight set of operating restrictions. They are blase about it, but that's because EE makes sense for someone making a demonstration aircraft to try and sell a product down the road. Sometimes you'll see Experimental Exhibitions planes for sale when an out-of-country company tries to break into the US, but doesn't have a certified airplane yet. I feel like those planes are usually worth quite a bit less money then a certified plane, but some people probably disagree!
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
Saw a clip of this from an Ozzyman video and clicked to watch the whole thing, impressive! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odk5BROcBG0 Just from the thumbnail you can probably guess where this is gonna go..
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I think you tell the FAA you’re developing it as a product and bam it’s experimental? https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/may/07/aircraft-maintenance-explaining-experimental Ah, I think that article explains it. I've always heard that a certified airframe is forever a certified airframe. So it's one of those things where it's technically not true, but practically is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 00:15
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:You probably could have an aircraft that met all of the requirements by simply not requiring the Air Force and Navy versions to be common airframe with the Marine one, and having two different designs. All this, plus exports.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 02:58
|
|
|
SNiPER_Magnum posted:Ah, I think that article explains it. I've always heard that a certified airframe is forever a certified airframe. So it's one of those things where it's technically not true, but practically is. An aircraft ceases to be certified when it deviates from its Type Certificate, so it is absolutely true that a certified aircraft is a certified aircraft as long as it is a certified aircraft. If someone crams a PT-6 into a 172 and the PT-6 isn't listed as an engine option in a 172's Type Certificate Data Sheet, the aircraft no longer conforms to the TCDS and loses certification through its TCDS. There's a whole can of worms about like Supplemental Type Certificates and what counts as a deviation from TCDS too, so sometimes it's ok to change your airplane in some pretty significant ways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 05:45
|
|
|
Ultra pedantic english/plane fact, aircraft are type certificated not type certified
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 11:12
|
|
|
Goddammit FAA, that is not a word.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 11:16
|
|
|
marumaru posted:i shat myself so hard when we had intense turbulence (literal rollercoaster feel) and the plane started washing machining. i don't know if it's a regular thing but they also turned the cabin completely dark which didn't help. can't imagine what a bird strike must be like I wrote about it somewhere and maybe can find it, it was a business trip and I spent the week in the field completely preoccupied with it. Sounds like a compressed version of what you experienced, with zero information while the pilots are doing the stuff that’s more important than communicating with the passengers. That part sucked so bad. If I find the write up I’ll post it, was quite harrowing for a super normal 6am flight out of PVD.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 11:49
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Goddammit FAA, that is not a word. Nominal
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 12:28
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Goddammit FAA, that is not a word. I’m from the FAA and I’m here [PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] to help.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 12:53
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:Nominal Secondary
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 13:51
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Goddammit FAA, that is not a word. Only the best English words practicable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 13:54
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Goddammit FAA, that is not a word. What? Its perfectly cromulent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 14:14
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I’m from the FAA and I’m here lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 14:59
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Goddammit FAA, that is not a word. they didn't certify it, they gave it a certificate
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 15:01
|
|
|
certificated flight instructor 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
You guys are interpolating this all wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:certificated flight instructor
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:37
|
|
|
Excuse me, why are you putting inflammable materials in the flammables closet?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:they didn't certify it, they gave it a certificate Precisely! "Certificated" helpfully removes the connotation of "someone has done thinking and made sure this is OK" which "certified" contains.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 19:28
|
|
|
I’m a certificated badass 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
Living at my best secondary minimums. Foreverially certificated and, LOVING! IT!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2021 00:06
|
|