I wonder how Lookheed Martin came up with “Super Cruise” being greater than Mach 1.5???

It’s called “moving the goal posts when others catch up”.

Your debating yourself now………….:confused:

“Me fail irony? That’s unpossible!”

I have answered your question over and over again. I don’t know what Mr. Beesley was thinking at the time…….

I have never ever asked you what you think Mr. Beesley was thinking. As this has never been my question, I wonder how you could have answered it over and over again.

For all I know “41,000” could refer to pre-production examples, could mean the pre-production test model is limited for some reason, maybe it was just a simple slip of the tongue! Who knows…..

So he was describing operational scenarios with non-representative figures? Would that make sense? Would that be the proper way to evaluate the F-35 when presenting it in an interview?

Regardless, at this stage it hardly makes him uncreditable…

Indeed, I consider it very probable here that the F-35 works with 41,000 lbs of thrust instead. I consider it possible that the true figure diverges though and that he made a mistake in any form. I also consider it possible that the figure diverges and he stated it because that’s what the current PR or security line tells him to state. I also consider it possible that there is an explanation I haven’t considered yet or I’m unable to come up with.

Clearly, you are trolling…………

Clearly, you have no clue.

Your sarcasm is hardly improving your case………

There’d have to be a case I’m trying to make. Which would that be? Also, sarcasm is a mode of presentation. If I had a case to make, I’d hope it to be strong enough on its own to withstand potentially adverse effects of a sarcastic presentation. For example, I don’t think Christopher Hitchens’s points ever suffered from his sarcasm.

In fact you are asking me to guess or speculate on Mr. Beesley remarks. I can’t read minds nor do I know the context of the remarks…….As I have already stated. There many possibilities for the 41,000 lbs comment. As of yet I’ve seen nothing to doubt his creditablilty………

Do you consider it more likely that he made a mistake by describing an operational scenario with non-representative figures, or do you consider it more likely that the F-35 will have a thrust rating of 41,000 lbs?

Please do speculate. Even if it’s speculation, I’d still like to see it and hear your opinion.

You know instead of getting me to guess or speculate on what Mr. Beesley was thinking.

I have not asked you to guess what Mr. Beesley had been thinking.

Why don’t you contact Mr. Beesley, Lockheed Martin, or the JSF Program directly to clarify the issue………….

I’m much less interested in the true thrust rating than I am in your rather interesting way to process information.

:rolleyes:

Oh, with all your harping on about sarcasm, do you think your abundant use of emoticons rolling their eyes is the right thing to do? It’s seems the horse you claim your own is even to high for yourself.

Sorry, you’re trolling

So you are saying that asking for your opinion constitutes trolling? I would have expected you to hold yourself in higher regard than that.

and just up-set that I won’t “Speculate”……….

Yes, I’m so upset. Oh, wait, the word we are looking for here is amused.

Any comment at this stage would be guessing!:eek:

I’m not asking you to guess about the F-35. I’m asking you something about your assessment: Do you consider it possible that Beesley was wrong? Note: I’m not asking whether he indeed was wrong, but whether you consider it possible that he was wrong. If you can’t answer whether you consider something possible, then you are just avoiding the issue.

And I would appreciate it if you answered each of my points instead of lumping them together and not answering them.

Personally, I considering Mr. Beesley to be highly creditable. As for his comments about 41,000 lbs. As I stated I don’t know and it could be explained many different ways. Regardless, I can’t read minds and I am not going to speculate what Mr. Beesley was saying at the time nor his intent.:rolleyes:

Scooter giving a big red thumbs down to a selection of his own quotes. Wow! 🙂

I am not going to speculate what Mr. Beesley was saying at the time

Are you kidding? Speculating what he was saying? He’s there in the video. Listen. Unless you want to claim that there is a fake dub track on the video putting words in his mouth.

nor his intent.

So you agree that he doesn’t necessarily always tell the truth and may have other priorities than to inform the public?

Just as likely for the good.

It’s possible either way. My response was to the tenor of your post that because the F135 managed 41k+ at some point in another prototype it should not fall below that. It could decrease, it could increase. For now, by stating 41k, Beesley says it’s less than expected or advertised beforehand.

Most likely Beesley hasn’t kept up with the latest press releases to the degree of the average keyboard warrior. :rolleyes: Or do you actually believe they’re throwing the real numbers out there for public consumption? If “41k is cleared for release” that’s likely good enough for him. I don’t know what all the brouhaha is about anyway, the F135 produced well over 41k even back in the X-35 and it’s unlikely it’s power has gone down.

It’s completely irrelevant what I believe. Personally, I don’t have an opinion either way. But Scooter has gone to great lengths before to cement what a great and reliable source of information Mr. Beesley is supposed to be. So I would like to know whether Scooter thinks that Beesley manipulates statements to serve a purpose other than information or whether he thinks that the F-35 thrust figures fall short. Which one is it?

And the fact that the F135 produced well over 41k in the X-35 does not matter much. Different design, potentially different inlet and routing, different thermal management, and potentially differing reliability and longevity requirements that could lead the F135 to have a lower thrust output when mounted in an operational F-35 as opposed to the X-35.

What it truly puts out I don’t know. But I think there are enough parameters that could affect the thrust rating in its operational spec in an F-35.

Let it be.. 43,000 or 41,000 makes a preciously little difference. It has no impact on max dry thrust, which is the most important figure anyway (unless you wanna reduce your 600nm combat radius to 200nm).

Oh, I don’t expect it to make much practical difference. I just wondered whether Scooter would be able to handle the fact that his beloved Beesley says that the F-35 might fall short of expectations in at least one regard (and something so basic and fundamental and well-grasped as engine thrust at that).