What is the coefficient of drag on the F-35 vs. other aircraft, or are you just eyeballing it?

Sorry, got to pull you up on this.
The coefficient of drag does not say how much drag is actually produced. It is merely a comparison with the same frontal area expressed as a flat plate.
A Formula one car has a high coefficient of drag but produces relatively little drag.

The US Defense Dept. doesn’t really want to purchase more Super Hornets as a stop gap until the F-35C arrives. So, I am sorry but I don’t see the logic in buying Typhoons especially considering the price! In that case the US would be better just buying more F-22’s. Even if it could afford say 25% less………..As for Tankers in the current economic climate I don’t seeing the KC-45 being viable……to bad.

I think an awfull lot of projects are going to be put on the back burner for quite a while to come.

Thanks for posting those. My father was there in the late ’40’s.

Hi Flyer

Your cockpit lamp (Mk1A Dome) has been used in a whole host of aircraft throughout the postwar years also, in fact they were still “airworthy” in the Canberra PR9’s retired in 2006. They tended to be used in equipment bays and hatches (ie battery bay and rear fuselage on Canberras of most marks), and were used on the ceiling of the rear crew quarters of B and TT mark Canberra’s to provide general illumination in that area.

I can provide the necessary bulb if you ever fancy powering the old thing up 😉

Also known as servicing lamps by chance? If so, then the Victor was liberally outfitted with them.

Then they have a claim, after all, wasn’t there a contract?

At any rate, JSF is an entirely different situation than the tanker deal….the bottom line is that “the same argument” cannot be applied to ALL military purchases, least of all the JSF.

I’m sure you know what you are talking about.

Exactly….

Why is this so hard to figure out?
It’s tax money.
Not private money (like when I bought my Mercedes. I’m free to buy what I want without ruinous import duties).
Not airline money (they can buy whatever will make them a profit or be at the peril of their shareholders).

But when the government is buying something with tax money, it’s fair to spend as much of it in the country as possible…if for no other reason than to give employment to the aforementioned tax payers.

The USAF should be free to buy the Airbus…but in return NG and EADS (hardly two charity organizations) should meet the Boeing level of U.S. content.
I’m sure they can do so…especially with a 179 aircraft deal…we’re not talking about 4 Globemasters.

The same argument could be applied to all military sales, the JSF for example…….

Hi Rob;

No mate, it’s my 1979 Suzuki GS.1000-E that I’ve owned since 1988 when it had a mere 8,000 miles on the clock, from new !!!!!!!!!!!!

Ironically, I’ve got some pix somewhere of it parked-up not far from the Main-Runway inside Wattisham whilst it was still an RAF-Phantom base (1988)

Wish they (F.4’s) were still flying around now; those were the days:cool:

I’m running a 1986 GPz 750 and a Turbo at the moment

While I think the Canberra (and neither the Lightning) wouldn’t win a ceiling contest versus a Sparrow missile, would it?

Depends on the height at which you fire the missile.