It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

First F-35B Hover in Fort Worth

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Not sure if this was posted already or not but here we go.



First time hovering in fort worth. Expensive as hell to boot.



For the first time in the history of the F-35 program, our test pilots performed a hover in a B-model aircraft at the Fort Worth, Texas F-35 factory. Learn more about the F-35B and how it hovers: http://(link tracking not allowed)/1DDREz2



edit on 4-11-2014 by grey580 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Some how I'm not inclined to be polite today. You Americans, it aint nothing new. We GAVE you the Harrier 20 years ago. So you've tarted it up a bit, gave it a new airframe but it's still a Harrier not a F35BC or D.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

So everything that hovers is now a Harrier huh. This is as far removed from a Harrier as a Model T is from a Corvette.

And you didn't GIVE us the Harrier, it was a joint development program, just like the F-35 is today.
edit on 11/4/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

You also "gave" us the two-masted 12-gun sailing frigate.

How DARE we be proud of building a Nimitz class CVN!?!

Obviously they both float so they are the same thing, right?



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: grey580

Do you have a link with more info on this? I noticed the link is missing in your description.

I know little about planes but always been interested in VTOL designs, just wondering if it is as risky to fly as the harrier was.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

The Harrier is an F-35 like a horse is a lorry.

That said, the whole F-35 project has been a huge, expensive boondoggle. I love me some jet fighters, but the F-35 JSF was something that should have stayed on paper.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Get off . Read the history. The Harrier was developed solely by Hawker Siddeley. It was up and running before Mcdonnell Douglas developed the next generation. No matter what you say the concept of vector thrusting came from the Harrier and the F35 is the next generation. Nothing new.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

No, when I said it's as different as a Model T was to a Corvette, I meant that literally. All the pilots, including the UK pilots say that it's a dream to fly, and easy as pie too, especially compared to the Harrier. Their first time landing on the Wasp they said they were shocked, because they could put the nose gear within a foot of their aim point, compared to the 8 or 9 feet the Harrier used. And it was stable as could be, while being almost hands off.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

Wrong again Bob. The Harrier was developed as the P.11.27 Kestrel, by Hawker, the US, and West Germany in 1957. The RAF bought them in 1969, the US Marines bought them in 1968. Douglas didn't start producing them until much later, when they produced the AV-8B. The US DoD paid for 75% of the development costs of the Pegasus engine as well.

Maybe YOU should read your history before you come in here spouting off.

theaviationist.com...

www.militaryfactory.com...



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

the link was removed by the board.

on the youtube page there is a link to more info from LM.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: RAY1990

No, when I said it's as different as a Model T was to a Corvette, I meant that literally. All the pilots, including the UK pilots say that it's a dream to fly, and easy as pie too, especially compared to the Harrier. Their first time landing on the Wasp they said they were shocked, because they could put the nose gear within a foot of their aim point, compared to the 8 or 9 feet the Harrier used. And it was stable as could be, while being almost hands off.


I think you replied to wrong person, you did partially answer my question though.

If it's as comfortable to fly as you say it is then it's a deadly piece of kit, the problem with the Harrier was always it's instability when in vertical thrust wasn't it?



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The P1127 flew in 1960 And it wasn't till after when Hawker developed the prototypes P1127 Kestrel( the Kestrel didn't fly till 1964). It was specifically developed for NATO and the Americans and Germans did not evaluate the aircraft till 1964 and entered service in 1966 as the GR.1.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

And they couldn't develop it until the Pegasus engine was fully developed, which came about with help from the US, who paid for most of that development. Every bit of history agrees, the Harrier was developed as a multination project, including the US. It was not "given" to the US, the US paid to help develop it, and bought it from the start.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
The Pegasus engine was developed at the same time as the Harrier and this was funded by NATO through the Mutual Weapons Development Program. 75% NATO 25% Hawker. Apart from being a member of NATO the Americans had no input till after 1964.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...


fwiw



In 1957, the Bristol Engine Company informed Sydney Camm of Hawker that they had a project to combine their Olympus and Orpheus jet engines to produce a directable fan jet.[1] The original idea on which the engine, named Pegasus,[note 1] was based came from Michel Wibault, a French aviation consultant.[2] Several adaptions and enhancements were made by Bristol to reduce size and weight over Wibault's original concept.[3] Hawker took the planned Pegasus engine as a basis for a plane that could meet the current NATO specification for a Light Tactical Support Fighter.[4] Prior to the P.1127 project, Hawker Aviation had been working on a replacement for the Hawker Hunter—the Hawker P.1121. However, the P.1121 was cancelled shortly after the 1957 Defence White Paper, which advocated a policy shift away from manned aircraft and towards missiles.[5]

By the end of 1958, barely eighteen months after the start of the project, all the main features of the P.1127 were developed with one exception, the reaction control system - this was resolved by April 1959.[6] As the P.1127 had been developed at a time of deep UK defense cuts, Hawker had to seek commercial funding, and significant engine development funding came from the U.S.[4][7] Wind tunnel tests conducted by NASA Langley Research Center using a sub-scale model showed acceptable flight characteristics.[4][8] Hawker test pilot Hugh Merewether went to the U.S. at NASA's request to fly the Bell X-14.[9] In March 1959, the company's board of directors (Hawker Siddeley then) decided to privately fund two P.1127 prototypes.[10] In late 1959 the British Ministry of Supply contracted for two P.1127 prototypes.[8]



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

And according to all the history of the program the US played a big role.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Whoah your'e right. Nasa did have an input. I still think it's a next generation Harrier.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

Your wrong its a VTOL vehical. It has nothing to do with the harrier. That would be like saying all cars are Benz patent motor cars. But we all know that's not true.

The harrier may have been the first jet vtol but it is not even comparable to a fifth generation jet fighter like the f35b. Again that's like comparing a ford model t to a ford f150 ecoboost truck.

Maybe you should be polite all the time because being rude just doesn't work.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

Actually they nicked the base design from the Russians


en.wikipedia.org...

Then tarted that up a bit



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Crazy, you're embarrassing us in front of the yanks.
It's completely different type of arrangement. If anything it borrows more from the Russian Yak than the Harrier.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join