Looking for Jet Fighter name.

[MBrown]

F-35 Joint Stike Fighter. Its only the Marine and British variets that will have the stovl capabilty. stovl= short take off vertical landing. The reason for only verticle take off is because when you have a full load of weapons and everything you can take off vertically because of the weight. With a light payload it can. I love airplanes. I go to airshows all the time.

Edit: Just to add a little bit more. When these were still x planes (X-35 by lockheed, X-32 by Boeing) they went through a little battle jus the Yf-22, and YF-23. The X-32 had the old style hover system like the harrier. Lockheed used a new hover system for the X-35 which I think was much better and was one of the main reasons Lockeed one the bid the JSF. The other reason I bet was because the person who made the decision for which company got the bid was a former employee of lockheed martin. And the boeing X-32 was the ugliest thing I've ever seen.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: loic2003

I guess it depends on load, and the model... If it can land after a controlled hover it must be able to take off if it doesn't have a pile of weaponry strapped to it. I can't see the linked video as I'm at work, but I'm going to stick my neck out and guess that it's a demo flight rather than a fully loaded model? someone want to describe it to me?

I was under the impression it was strictly STOVL across the board but I have my doubts now.

JSF Variants:

Conventional Take-off and Landing = CTOL, small wing configuration, no lift fan, limited thrust vector nozzle.

Short Take-off and Landing = STOVL, small wing configuration, lift fan, full down nozzle vectoring.

Carrier Version = CV, large wings and horizontal stabilizers, no lift fan, limited thrust vector nozzle.

X-35 demonstrater showed capability of vertical take-off, and went supersonic.

F-35 (JSF) uses same engines as F-22 Raptor, so thrust vector capability is still on the table for development into variants.

 

[cruzer]

NOVA made a really great documentary on the competition between Boeing and Lockheed to win the JSF contract. I highly recommend it: Link

 

[Remy XO]

Part of the design crew for the JSF works right next to our office.

 

[MasterAndCommander]

As far as I know, the JSF doesn't have a name designation yet like the F-14 "Tomcat" or the F-16 "Fighting Falcon"


Therefore, I hereby name the JSF after the most lethal animal on the planet...ney the universe.
Henceforth, the JSF will be known as the F-35 "Chuck Norris" :thumbsup:

 

[Connoisseur]

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: MasterAndCommander

Originally posted by: Connoisseur
Lockheed's making a mint. First the F-22 and then the F-35. They'll be making @ssloads of money for a while to come. Although there's a lot of debate on whether or not the YF-23 was a superior aircraft.

.
My vote would have been to the YF-23. It looks cooler

IIRC it was actually one of the reasons the boeing model lost out to the LM version. The boeing version did look like it had eaten all the pies...

Actually I believe the YF-23 was technically stealthier as well. The body was better molded into one flowing design (a la B-2) which (in theory) makes for a smaller cross section. But the F-22 had it beat maneuverability-wise.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: MasterAndCommander
As far as I know, the JSF doesn't have a name designation yet like the F-14 "Tomcat" or the F-16 "Fighting Falcon"


Therefore, I hereby name the JSF after the most lethal animal on the planet...ney the universe.
Henceforth, the JSF will be known as the F-35 "Chuck Norris" :thumbsup:

lol you beat me to it,

Though I seem to remember they actually gave it a nickname not too long ago??

Its possible the Air Force/Navy version (No VTO) and the Marine Version (VTO) will have different nick names

Cant wait to see one of these babies up close and in flight. I remember watching Harriers do manuevers over cherry point air station, what a sight! Especially when they slow down to speeds that other aircraft cant do, sorta like they are showing off. And at my current base I get to watch F-16's take off/land.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: KamikazeSloth

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: loic2003

doesn't have vertical take-off, however, only short take off and vertical landing. STOVL, or something...

Oh ?

From what I can tell, they gave up the idea of VTOL in favor of ASTOVL (Advanced Short Take Off Vertical Landing) in doing so they were able to increase the wing size and thus the fuel capacity. So it can take off in a short area, and land vertically, all the while having a slighty increased distance.

Wiki Info

That movie does show STOVL but not VTOL. STOVL as you will see has forward momentum and then a burst to push it up vertically...then it pushes forward again. It can land vertically.

The harrirer can actually take off vertically from standing still with no forward movement. That is what VTOL is and the JSF doesn't have that capability....at least as designed. I believe it did in the X-35 and variants but the actual production model they are using won't have it from what I understand.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: OdiN

That movie does show STOVL but not VTOL. STOVL as you will see has forward momentum and then a burst to push it up vertically...then it pushes forward again. It can land vertically.

The harrirer can actually take off vertically from standing still with no forward movement. That is what VTOL is and the JSF doesn't have that capability....at least as designed. I believe it did in the X-35 and variants but the actual production model they are using won't have it from what I understand.

You might want to watch it again - near the end it demonstrates VTOL over the 'Pit'.
The Boeing version nearly crashed in it's comparable phase of the demonstration tests, as it had the same
liability as the Harrier - hot gas ingestion into the engine intakes, the jet exhaust that is vectored down
is pulled into the forward intakes reducing thrust avalibility - it results in a sudden drop of the vehicle.
They 'fly' them over a 'pit' to reduce the potential ingestion of these hot exhaust gases,
but still encounter problems.

You do not experience nearly the volume of hot gas ingestion by using the lift fan in the forebody,
although it can still occur - as in a wind bringing the exhaust from the back.

The ongoing development of the first production models are geared to get vehicles into the flight dynamic envelope
so lessons learned can be applied to succesive generations of design improvements.
The first plane is a CTOL - conventional take-off and landing, followed by the initial STOVL model begining early next year.
There is already consideration of converting the CTOL into the larger winged Carrier Varient, as it is viewed as
being able to deliver more payload - weight constraints are driven by the Navy version,
more robust landing gear systems,
arresting hook, Etc. Air Force wouldn't use the foldiing wings either.

Engine is the same powerplant that the F-22 Raptor uses, so a commonality exists there, along with many capabilities
that the F-22 has that are on the table for future JSF enhancements.
(Super-Cruise and Thrust Vector come to mind)

Air Force F-35 is only 11.5 feet shorter and 9.5 feet less wingspan than the Raptor.
Navy F-35 is the same general length, but only 1.5 less wing span - see attch'd:


Raptor = 62 OAL / 44.5 Span

JSF = 50.5 OAL / 35.0 Span

PS - they DON'T name aircraft after 'People' - usually birds under todays name assignment for the Air Force,
Navy uses bugs and drunken brawls. (Hornet & Tom Cat):laugh:
Helicoptors are named after Native American Indian Tribes.