Im still curious to see what it is as it seems much to big to be just a trainer.

You mean like an iron bird trainer, or a proper flying trainer?

There are number of things that mystify me.
1. Why transport it during daylight?
2. Why not take the wings off and fly it in a cargo aircraft? (how wide is an il-76?)
3. If it is an empty frame, why not sling it under a helicopter? (How much would a Hip lift?)
4. Probably most perplexing… why transport it at all!?!

The only answer I can think of is that it is a structural test rig and the assembly plant does not have the facilities for static/dynamic load testing. Further to that, the testing site does not have assembly facilities available to re-attach wings.

If it were a normal frame, the engines and systems would be brought to it and it would be flown out. [Assembly plants are never located where there are no airfields.]

Amiga – One problem is that the LHA-6 and later are not new designs, but evolved Wasps, and the Wasp was based on the Tarawa class, which was designed before the Marines ordered Harriers.

Doesn’t stop them from making the elevators bigger though does it? 🙂

Not exactly what I would call a radical departure!

Or how about just make good posts.

It pretty quickly becomes clear who knows what they are talking about and who doesn’t.

Notice how he swiftly backpeddled away from claiming it was a rumour

Do you understand what “If anything – I am being disingenuous calling it a rumour at this point” actually means?

Are you 5 years old?!? Or is your grasp of English just shocking?!?

when I called him out on his bs, to which he then responded (in the standard amatuer fashion) by attempting to prove his case by throwing figures up on the board,

Figures that Lockheed themselves used in the USAF’s TAC Brawler program. :rolleyes:

I can only post figures that are in the public domain. Those are already out there.

Funnily enough – professionals only deal in numbers – its hard to quantify “terrific” or “great” and compare it to “excellent” or “superb”. I’m actually becoming more convinced you aren’t an engineer at all – all engineers pretty much only use numbers to compare things – its the only logical way of doing it.

With every post, you are revealing more and more your general ignorance.

This is rich coming from yourself.

Yep.

If you’ll note in the other thread, I did supply some figures that are available in the public domain for you to digest.

I note you didn’t bother to respond to them. Or to the counter point about body lift – which really was a ridiculous mistake on your part.

What a load of rubish.

I know your posts are complete “rubish”, indeed, they unbelievably seem to be getting worse. Perhaps I should put you on ignore.

So if you were unclear about what I was getting at, let me clear it up for you. The article heavily features indications that the F22 being “stealthy” and the Typhoon “not stealthy” was beaten, insinuating that this was a big “win” for the Typhoon over its “Stealthy” counterpart,

Tell you what – go re-arrange that bit in bold into something that is not grammatical gibberish and I might be able to understand it.

may I ask what you think “Stealth” will bring to a close combat action ?

The author never once mentioned “stealth” in close combat. Your imagination seems to be following something that isn’t there.

The article also show’s a complete lack of understanding of how these exercises are planned and conducted, they are not simply lets get into the air and fight it out, they are very much staged events with very specific parameters.

No it doesn’t.

1 v 1 is about as basic as air combat maneuvering training gets.

Yes, the author used “simple maneuvers” instead of “simple exercises”, but the meaning, if not the terminology, is correct.

The outcome is possibly what they were expecting, without seeing the purpose of the exercise, they could have been aware of this and were running the particular scenario to develop outcomes to counter this, once again these things do not operate in a vacuum

Of course it could.

But you never said that in your original reply.

You panned the author for incorrect terminology and rejected everything in the article based on that.

If you were even a tenth as knowledgeable as you’d like to purport; you’d gather the information out of the article, rather than get hung up on a few words badly used.

At the minute, I have no reason to doubt the poster may reside in the UK.

However, I have every reason to doubt their intimacy with the F-35 program, particularly regarding their knowledge of aero and loads.

They might be an engineer, but not stress or aerodynamics, or at least, not stress involved with the program. They definitely aren’t aerodynamics. Possibly electronics – I wouldn’t expect an electronics guy to understand the aero end – but at the same time they might think the F-35 is great due to the electronic complexities of it.

Mate, you’re telling tall tales and that’s all there is to it. End of story.

Maybe your a lockheed shill, maybe not.

Maybe you do actually talk to the engineers, maybe you even are one, maybe not.

Maybe you are in the RAF or USAF and believe the powerpoint BS, maybe not.

However, there are no maybes about the F-35s poor sustained turning performance.

A small aspect ratio wing of high wing loading leads to only one thing. It is one of the more incontrovertible rules of thumb of aerodynamics. Any aerodynamicist will take one look at it and tell you that never mind one that has worked with folks that have designing the thing.