1969912 0 #1 March 25, 2010 That's what it says anyway. Must make a lot of noise!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_byIiJffIU "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #2 March 25, 2010 QuoteMust make a lot of noise! The Harriers are sure noisy for their size. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ridestrong 1 #3 March 25, 2010 This video is pretty sweet too. (take off and landing) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPdG9tOUS_A&feature=related&fmt=34 I love the way it looks during take-off with the vents opening etc... bad ass!*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.* ----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.---- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #4 March 25, 2010 Looks like CGI? Not sure. Just wonder. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tjm 0 #5 March 25, 2010 +1If you're not living on the edge; you're taking up too much room! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ridestrong 1 #6 March 25, 2010 QuoteLooks like CGI? Not sure. Just wonder. Yeah... it might be CGI.*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.* ----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.---- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,365 #7 March 25, 2010 QuoteLooks like CGI? Not sure. Just wonder. They both look like CGI to me. The landing only (OP) doesn't have any distortion/refraction/heat "shimmer" under the plane as it lands, and the shadows look "off" to me. The takeoff one (again) doesn't have any evidence of thrust as it lifts off, and the timing of the retraction of the vertical hardware as it flies off is suspicious. It completely retracts all the hardware, holds the hover for a time and then flies off. It doesn't happen that way in the real world. I could be wrong though."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #8 March 25, 2010 QuoteLooks like CGI? Not sure. Just wonder. It surely does but nicely done.. Isn't great that we're getting to the point where it's very difficult to tell? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #9 March 25, 2010 QuoteLooks like CGI? Not sure. Just wonder. I think it's a clip from a documentary called Battle of the X-Planes that detailde the competition between Lockheed and Boeing to produce the concept version of the X-35. Good programme. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
burtonjm 0 #10 March 25, 2010 I've worked on that engine!This shit, right here, is OK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #11 March 26, 2010 The first one is real. It was the first iteration of the design. Note the large darn door on top.Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #12 March 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteMust make a lot of noise! The Harriers are sure noisy for their size. Aren't they also pretty dangerous planes. I saw a special on the Military Channel and they referred to them as "Widow Makers'". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #13 March 26, 2010 Actually, a lot of planes have been given that nickname. one that comes to mind is the Starfighter (F-104). They used to say that if you wanted your own Starfighter, then buy a field in Germany and wait. The Harrier is a fucking ace a/c - did Stirling work in the Falklands. That said, hovvering an a/c is a very unforgiving flight mode. The pilot has very little time to correct problems and with zero ground speed, even if he ejects he can come down 'very' close to a burning pile of ex-plane (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beerlight 0 #14 March 26, 2010 Nice! Although I still can't see why we need VTOL anymore. Waste of valuable space on this aircraft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ion01 1 #15 March 26, 2010 First, its not CGI. Second, there is no heat wave because it uses a "lift fan" which is directly behind the pilot, along with the vectored thrust of the engine, to hover. What this does is since it is only a shaft driven fan it brings in cool air and blows the cool air under the craft so no heat distortion is under the craft. This is also important to prevent stalling of the engines as has happened with the harrier as the hot exhaust is sucked back into the intake of the engine while close to the ground. Third, it is much more stable than the harrier due not only to computers but also the lift fan and vectored thrust which provides a much larger and stable base of lift, unlike the harrier which has 4 thrust nozels near the center point of balance of the craft. In addition with the main method of maneuvering provided by vectored thrust instead of small bursts of thrust at the wind tips like the harrier, the F-35 is much quicker to respond. Fourth, vertical take-off and landing is extremely important and there will be several variations of the craft depending on application. One carrier version will only have short takeoff and landing capability but this will allow it to take off and land on a carrier with extremely high payloads that it couldn't otherwise carry. Full vertical takeoff and landing can be used on small boats which typically can only carry helicopters. They now can carry the F-35 for close support and intercept making the small boats more self sufficient and capable of operating further from carriers or other support. Another full vertical landing and takeoff version can be used for close support and intercept for troops which typically only have helicopters as well. This also allows for quick establishment of an "airbase" at any location such as the front lines meaning immediate response for men on the ground because a runway would not be needed which also makes the airbase harder to locate and destroy. Australia and several european contries will buy variations of the aircraft as well which will not contain the secret and advanced avionics and radars the US version will have. Finally, the aircraft is very stealthy even though it only utilizes a small amount of radar absorbant materials around leading edges and such. This is due to how efficient the shape is in redirect radar away from the source and the lack of seams due to manufacturing meathods used. How stealthy is classified for all stealth aircraft so any info in this area are rough estimates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beerlight 0 #16 March 26, 2010 QuoteAnother full vertical landing and takeoff version can be used for close support and intercept for troops which typically only have helicopters as well. This also allows for quick establishment of an "airbase" at any location such as the front lines meaning immediate response for men on the ground because a runway would not be needed which also makes the airbase harder to locate and destroy. Still, the Harrier had it's ass shot off in the Gulf War, and we haven't required even a STOL fighter yet. Back in the Cold War, with the Russian's knocking on our door and them advancing through the Fulda Gap, we wanted a VSTOL. But, historically it's not needed. Wanted, but not needed. It's a waste of a great plane to load it up with all this extra equip to make it VSTOL, yet not needed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
