F-35- Is this possible? Slow speed loop

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Is this even real or possible in a F35?

Someone sent me this, and to me it seems improbable to fly thru your own jet-wash especially in a single engine
jet. You might destroy a $70M airplane and dent the flight deck.
Kinda cool tho!

What do you guys think?




posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Hey is there a movie to go with it because im not sure what im looking at in the picture?



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
That is fake, its been knocking around for ages.....I do seem to remember SNOPES debunked it ages ago



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I wouldn't think so.

At that slow of speed anyway. Once it's upside down there is no thrust to keep it up.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
are you actually serious?

I`m probably making a fool of myself saying this, but thats computer generated, and I find it hard to believe anyone would think for a second it`s real footage.

Maybe you genuinely thought it was real though, if you did, I apologise if I appear condescending.

But it`s not real.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by blackrabbit1
 


I thought it might be fake. but I thought you guys would know instantly. You did!

Thanks



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Whaha, this is BattlefieldII the game, lol

Not real footage.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
That's a CGI representation of what it could do in slomo, I even know the person who made the LW model of the F35..



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08
That's a CGI representation of what it could do in slomo, I even know the person who made the LW model of the F35..



I play this game on a weakly bases....trust me. it's battlefield2.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Definately Battlefield2.

I've run around on that carrier many a time after having a noob pilot crash the seahawk into the sea on take off


Can't remember the name of the map though, as I tend to stick to infantry only maps now.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Battlefield2 or a Desert Combat Mod for Battlefield 1942.

As a long time clan gamer of both, I could tell from the picture what it was.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThraexX

Originally posted by vkey08
That's a CGI representation of what it could do in slomo, I even know the person who made the LW model of the F35..



I play this game on a weakly bases....trust me. it's battlefield2.


I'm sure it is, the CGI plane however was modeled in Lightwave.. ported over to a few things I'm sure over time..



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
It's from a PC game called Battlefield 2. I used to play it. Was like... the 130th best aviator in world in the game for a period of time...



I'm sure it is, the CGI plane however was modeled in Lightwave.. ported over to a few things I'm sure over time..

The entire sequence was filmed in the game Battlefield 2. The F-35B within the game is actually inaccurate as it is modeled off the X-35B, and the actual game itself is an arcade game...

Also, the bulk of 3d modeling for the objects contained within Battlefield 2 is done with 3dsmax, gmax, and maya... not lightwave.

[edit on 18/12/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
That was cool to see, but nope.. it's fake. There are VTOL craft, - but this is not one of them. vtol craft do not use a back jet exclusively to take off. This craft only has the one back jet.

If you notice before the fake jet exhaust switched to a downward position, the craft goes out of frame. this is done to hide the fact that the jet did not change positions as it should do if it were a vtol craft.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
The Marine Corps version of the F-35, the F-35B, is a VTOL aircraft, meaning that it can takeoff and land vertically just like the AV-8B Harrier, but it is still in its flight testing stage. And as has already been noted, could not perform this stunt anyway.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by bagari
 


Not only is the stunt roll too far fetched, but so is the take off.

The F-35B is *not* a VTOL or even a V/STOL aircraft (though the X-35B was).

It is purely a STOVL aircraft (Short Take Off Vertical Landing) and there was even some concern that its 'STO' was not short enough for the UK carriers. It could not possibly take off from the current RN ships and for its recent political jaunt up the river Thames it was winched on and off the ship by a crane (a mock up was used). It will, I'm sure, be fine for the new ships though which are much bigger, but please don't kid yourself that it can do VTO, it cannot.

To John Phoenix though, yes, it does 'move the back jet'. It is a two-position nozzle that points either straight back or straight down and is of use only for landing, being uniquely limited for thrust vectoring as even the F-22 and X-32 plus all the Russian vectoring types from Sukhoi and MiG have benefits in forward flight (manouvering) and take off. As of course does the Harrier.

I think the F-35 is going to be great, but that limitation on the vector nozzle does trouble me.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by waynos]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Zeptepi
 


You questiond the possibility of such a maneuver can be done.

The awnser is: No.

Gravity should have kicked in the moment that downward thrust would be "gone". Instead it seems that it pivots around a magical pole with steel wire to the nose of the AC attached.

BTW: BF2 sucks! too much lag on the servers and had ridiculous system demands when it came out.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

BTW: BF2 sucks! too much lag on the servers and had ridiculous system demands when it came out.

System demands were not that high... even an X800 could max it out. And let's face it, anyone running a Geforce 4 ti doesn't deserve to play the game.


I felt the main problem was the hitbox lag, nooby commander system, nooby artillery system, helicopter physics, aircraft, and it taking 5 shots to kill people with SVD half the time... Desert Combat (0.7 / 0.8) mod for Battlefield 1942, was MUCH better.

[edit on 22/12/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzzSystem demands were not that high... even an X800 could max it out. And let's face it, anyone running a Geforce 4 ti doesn't deserve to play the game.


Well cobz, my previous computer had a X-800 pro and i still couldnt max it out!


I felt the main problem was the hitbox lag, nooby commander system, nooby artillery system, helicopter physics, aircraft, and it taking 5 shots to kill people with SVD half the time... Desert Combat (0.7 / 0.8) mod for Battlefield 1942, was MUCH better.
[edit on 22/12/2009 by C0bzz]


Well aside from the problems i liked it a bit. especialy the map Strike at Karkand.

----

On topic:

If this AC is supposed to replace the Harrier, then why cant it VTOL? Too low T/W ratio? Design limitations?

Also i find it disturbing that it has such a low max speed: Mach 1.6!! That is very, VERY slow comparerd to other fighters.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by James R. Hawkwood
 


Yes, its just too damn heavy.

It was concluded very early on (even at the time of BAe's ASTOVL studies) that asking a supersonic combat aircraft with a useful range and payload to perform VTO's was unnecessary, expensive and complicated.

The early mk.1 Harrier was limited to 5,000lb inc fuel for VTO but could operate in STO mode at 9,000lb. The Harrier GR.5/AV-8B entered service with no ability to perform VTO's with any kind of useful load due to it being much heavier than the earlier model (it is also about 80mph slower due to higher drag).

Improvements to later versions of the Pegasus increased thrust to the point where VTO was possible again, but in reality it is never used.

Indeed the only reason the X-35B and its Boeing rival were required to demonstrate VTO was because the Russians had done it with the Yak 41 (The French had also done it in the 1960's with the Mirage IIIV but this seems to be glossed over).

The F-35B could be made to perform a VTO, at a push and *IF* engine thrust can be increased by about 10%, but it would'nt be able to carry any ordnance or fly very far.

I think the far more serious defect is that the nozzle cannot be used for manouvering. I mean, how ridiculous is that? The F-35B basically has an automated process that means whenver the nozzle is rotated, the lift fan spools up, the wheels come down and it lands. That is its sole function, which seems a waste.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join