JSF/F-35 name & details on where it will be built in Europe
- Thread starter contedicavour
- Start date
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Drum roll
Well its official USAF have named the F-35 the F-35 Lightning II,:dance2 not exactly as catchy as the Raptor, but meh, its better than the Black Mamba, Viper would of being better, perhaps, the other variants will have different names time will tell.
Check out www.af.mil for the video news article.
Well its official USAF have named the F-35 the F-35 Lightning II,:dance2 not exactly as catchy as the Raptor, but meh, its better than the Black Mamba, Viper would of being better, perhaps, the other variants will have different names time will tell.
Check out www.af.mil for the video news article.
Last edited:
The first Thunderbolt was a single. The second (and subs refd to as Thunderbolt2 had twins - so it can happen in reverse)Occum said:
"Piglet" has been suggested.Occum said:Will be interesting to see what those who operate and maintain the aircraft end up calling it.
Hah looks like LM just couldn't forget about P-38. They tried to name the F-22 Lighting II also, but that didn't work out. I guess they got their way this time around.
Cootamundra
New Member
"Pidgeon on Steroids" sounds good to me! :heheOccum said:Gotta agree with you, Alexsa - it looked like a pregnant pidgeon while the JSF (eh, Lightning II) is more like a pidgeon on steroids.
The P-38 didn't look all that flash but it sure did the job
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I DO want what's best for Australian forces, I just don't necessarily agree with you or others of like mind to you as to what is best for Australia. I'm also sick of arguing about.Occum said:Don't know why you would think this or that I am somehow down on the JSF. Provided it makes it through the development program intact and proves itself in DT&E, IOT&E and FOT&E, then it should be a good platform for what the JORD requires it to do. I suggest the point you are missing is that I, like many, do not believe it is the right system for Australia. To put this another way, the decision to go JSF is flawed; not the aircraft, necessarily.
What is it that makes some people (and it would appear this includes you) not want the best for our troops - particularly when the best is far more capable than, far more cost effective than and far less risky than what senior folks in Defence are intending for Australia to acquire?
Neither you or Dr KOPP in all his AA, Defence Today, Air International, Headsup or Air Force Monthly articles (etc) articles have convinced me of anything more than the fact that you are both fixated upon the F-22 and F-11 respectively.
As such any desire to debate this issue any further has completely left me.
AS to the actual topic of this thread, Lighting II? Wasn't the Lightning a British aircraft???
Both.Aussie Digger said:
the P-38 was the lockheed lightening also refered to as the "fork tailed devil"
The English Electric Lightening was a very attractive two engined beast that I understand was ofter described as "what the hell was that".
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/index.html
As noted earlier this was the first supercuising air craft in the world. Not bad considering the prototype first flew in august 1954. max speed in excess of mach 2.2 with a ceiling of 60000, Range on the other hand was not its strong point, but a beaut looking aircraft
If you say sorjmaz1 said:Incorrect. The website says supercruise when it never supercruised.
Mach 0.8 or below = subsonic
Mach 0.8 to 1.2 = transonic
Mach 1.2 to 5.0 = supersonic
Mach 5 and above = Hypersonic
So the it never reached supersonic speeds without afterburning
But my understanding is supersonic capability is sustained level flight above mach 1 while transonic exceeds mach 1 in the dive. The web sites states
"On the 4th of April 1957 the first P.1B flew. On this flight it also exceeded Mach 1 without using reheat."
I understand this was in level flight and to me that supercruse but I am no expert. The author of the site seems to think this is supercruise and he does seem to know what he is talking about.
Where did you get your defination of supercruise from?
Thats incorrect.alexsa said:
Supersonic is when the entire aircraft is infront of that shock wave.
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/sound_barrier/DI94.htm
There are many other sources that state this. Just type "supersonic subsonic, transonic mach" into google
Again Mach 1.2 and 0.8 are only estimates as if the aircraft is larger or smaller it may require more or less speed to become supersonic.
I love a challenge. Did what you said and typed supersonic and supercruise into google:rjmaz1 said:
Supersonic (from NASA):
"Planes which travel faster than Mach 1 (or the speed of sound) are traveling at supersonic speeds. An example of this speed regime is the Concorde. The speed range is 760 - 3500 MPH or Mach 1 - Mach 5."
Cool so exceeding mach 1 is supersonic, then
Supercruise (from wikipedia this time):
"A supercruising aircraft is able to cruise at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners."
So if they cruise above mach 1 wihtout reheat they are supercruising by this definition. In any case I believe the Lightning could achieve higher speed that just Mach 1 without reheat as it was basically two engines with wings (hence the miserly 800 mile range without tanks (I am trying to find a previous reference on this).
In any case it was an impressive effort for 1957 and given the UK involvement in JSF maybe Lightening II is an appropriate name because of this.
I know my voice will probably be fairly meaningless considering all the politics surrounding what "supercruise" means. However, as an aeronautical engineer specialising in applied aerodynamics I feel obliged to state what is accepted standard in the industry (note - I am referring to the technical side of the industry, not what those involved with marketing want to call it). When the true airspeed of an aircraft is lower than the local speed of sound, it is subsonic. When it is faster than the local speed of sound, it is supersonic. It is as simple as that. The terms "transonic" and "hypersonic" are terms that engineers and physicists came up with to describe certain characteristics of the flow. Transonic refers to a flow condition where there is a "significant" (note the vague term) amount of mixed flow - i.e., there are considerable amounts of subsonic airflow as well as considerable amounts of supersonic airflow. Because of the mixed nature of the flow, it is a very tricky area in which to do flow analysis, and therefore the separate term "transonic". "Hypersonic", on the other hand, refers to flows where the speed is high enough so that several terms that we usually ignore in the lower supersonic speed range become significant, and therefore a separate term was chosen to refer to those types of flows. Both the terms "transonic" and "hypersonic" are defined in a fairly vague way, and no self-respecting aerodynamicist will try to say transonic starts at "exactly" Mach 0.7 and ends at "exactly" Mach 1.4, or whatever. In fact, almost all supersonic flows around aircraft have areas where the flow will be subsonic (for instance directly behind fairings), and sometimes local flows can be supersonic even though the aircraft is flying very slowly (for instance near propeller tips). Even for a given airplane "transonic" is not well defined - the point at which you can say that the amount of subsonic flow is insignificant depends completely on the point of view. An aerodynamicist working on the wing design may say it is fully supersonic at Mach 1.2, while another working on the refueling probe will say it is still well within the transonic regime (you can't make the assumption the flow is fully supersonic for the purpose of analysis) even up to Mach 1.5.rjmaz1 said:
In contrast, the terms "subsonic" and "supersonic" are defined exactly, as explained in the beginning of this post. If the free-stream Mach number (TAS divided by local speed of sound) is 1.01, you are going supersonic. If it is 0.99, you are going subsonic. Yes, in both cases the flow around the aircraft is in the mixed subsonic/supersonic regime and when I do an analysis on the flow I will say it is transonic, but according to the definitions of subsonic and supersonic and based on its free-stream Mach number, the aircraft is supersonic in case 1 and subsonic in case 2.
The word "supercruise" is a marketing term. If you want to use correct aerodynamic nomenclature and describe the aircrafts Mach number based on the free-stream speed as has been done throughout the history of flight, then an aircraft that can "cruise" at Mach 1.01 without afterburner will be supercruising. (Even the afterburner part is a bit misleading - what if an aircraft and its engine was actually designed to cruise with afterburner? Anyway, I'll ignore that ambiguity for now). Since the term is used by aircraft marketers, however, I guess they can give it any meaning they want and you can argue until you are blue in the face over what the term really means without getting anywhere. What is irritating, though, is that they are now using the word "transonic" in a way it was never meant to be used, and say "look, aircraft X is not supercruising - it is transocruising"... Yes, and Chuck Yeager didn't go supersonic in the X-1 on October 14, 1947, he merely attained a high transonic Mach number
Thanks for this. I did actually contact Dryden/NASA, one of the F-22 Prog Mgrs I know and Dr Kopp some 6 months ago re this and they were all virtually identical in their offerings. Transo/transonic cruising was one of the interesting additions to the emails.Oryx said:
So I guess a standard does apply outside of the marketing