This is just amazing stuff

Pierre Swanepoel

Logistics Co-ordinator

GoReefersLogistics CapeTown


This video link is fresh (for the public).

It was made just six weeks ago in the Atlantic, just off Newport News
(Hampton Roads), Virginia ...

These are the latest sea trials of the F-35B on the USS Wasp. They
were very successful, with 74 VLs and STOs in a three
week period.

The media and the program critics had predicted that we would burn
holes in the deck and wash sailors overboard.

Neither of which happened. You will notice a sailor standing on the
bow of the ship as the jet rotates.

That was an intentional part of the sea trials.
No catapult -- no hook. It's a /new world/ out there!
The shape and scope of defense - worldwide - just/changed.

Click your mouse here: F-35B

<http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Ki86x1WKPmE&feature=colike


The Kenyan African in the White-house is trying his best to destroy all this.

Paul Lamar

I wonder how those vertical takeoffs and landings affects the range
and top speed? If I remember right, range was a big problem with the
Harrier.

Harley

Certainly vertical take off is a problem. I think they will wind up
using the catapult on air craft carriers and a conventional take off
from a runway where possible.

The Falkland's war demonstrated that a harrier was an excellent dog
fighter as well.

When you can stop in mid air your opponent on your tail goes sailing
right by. Right after that you shoot the heat seeker missile :)

Ground pounder support is excellent. Almost as good as a C130 gun ship.
Gets there faster. Just think how things would be different in
Benghazi if we had F35 on alert in Sigonella or on an aircraft
carrier. Instead we have a stupid, incompetent, inexperienced, Kenyan
African as Commander in Chief.

I don't think the brits had steam catapults. I think they used ski jump bows.

In-flight refueling every 15 minutes is possible. The tanker flies in
formation
out to the combat area.

Paul Lamar


Another major difference between the F35 and the Harrier is that the
Harrier was closer to a pure turbojet vs
the F35 w/ the large lift fan. I'm not saying the Harrier was a pure
jet but by comparison [it had four nozzles that each
were ~ 1-2sqr ft in size vs a ~4-5ft dia lift fan in addition to the
tail pipe on the F35]. The Harrier couldn't do a VTO at
gross weight.  Also engine technology is always improving. The

Conquest I fly used to have a PT6-112 engine
w/ ITT limits of ~700 deg-C. We now have a Blackhawk conversion
[PT6-135] which is an improved version of the same
basic engine and ITT limits are 805 deg-C, a 15% increase and a 66%
increase in max Power [750hp vs 450
in the '112s']. This improvement is all possible due to improved
materials in the turbine wheel which can operate at
higher temps over the older designs.

The Harrier could only hover for a short period of time before the
engine would 'temp out'. If you've ever seen
the video of the Harrier hovering off-shore and then crashing into
the sea, I believe [IIRC] this was due to
overheating the engine and burning out the turbine wheel. I don't
believe the F35 has the same issue, or at
least has alot more room to move w/ that limitation.

All that aside, I think you'll see that non-VTOL units being much
more utilized over their VTOL cousins. The
ability to use that Lift fan space for fuel or ordinance etc will
offset the need for VTOL in alot of cases. I agree
that you'll see catapult style launches using this same airframe. I
don't think it will be 'steam catapult', more likely
the new electromagnetic unit they've been testing... but a catapult
non-the-less.

Just my opinion of course.

Jarrett Johnson

The Rotary Engine News Letter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
You Tube http://tinyurl.com/beqqxas
Copyright 1998-2013 All world wide rights reserved.