F-35 Lightning II (aka JSF)

[GTX]

And doesn't it have an afterburner? I'd have thought they'd have used it during a blast deflector test.

Yes, it does have an afterburner.  You might find that the use wasn't part of this particular test or simply that it isn't envisaged that the afterburner will be used in operations - remember that the F-135 has a LOT of dry thrust.

Actually having re-looked at the video, I think afterburner is engaged - at around the 1min mark.

One thing you will note with the F-35 is that when engaging afterburner, you don't see a huge flame extending out the rear (you do see some, but nothing like earlier jets).  See video below (by clicking on the photo) to see what I mean:



Regards,

Greg

[Maverick]

An emotive shot, I like the vortices coming off the wingtip.

Regards,

Mav

[GTX]

I see the fairing over the gun on the port side in the load trainer.  Is that a 'stealth' issue having the fairing over the muzzles?

Not sure if you mean by a stealth issue whether you are asking if it is a problem or whether the fairing is a solution.  The gun installation is designed to maintain the low observable characteristics of the aircraft.

Regards,

Greg

[Maverick]

That's what I figured.  It's really surprising how a small aperture like a cannon muzzle can upset stealth, but such is the nature of the beast.  I didn't expect it was a problem, just an added extra to the baseline.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

That's what I figured.  It's really surprising how a small aperture like a cannon muzzle can upset stealth, but such is the nature of the beast.  I didn't expect it was a problem, just an added extra to the baseline.

Regards,

Mav

Could be two problems.  The first is that an aperture for a Gatling gun needs to be larger than a single barrel cannon and so hence it upsets stealth a lot more or secondarily it just might be a case that at certain angles it degrades the stealth on the aircraft to what is considered "unacceptable levels" (ie something times greater than the target value of the aircraft without the aperture) - this could be even a quite small value.  It all depends upon what the size of a radar target is sought.

[PR19_Kit]

One thing you will note with the F-35 is that when engaging afterburner, you don't see a huge flame extending out the rear (you do see some, but nothing like earlier jets).  See video below (by clicking on the photo) to see what I mean:

As yes, I do see what you mean. We Brits are so used to seeing 'burner flames the same length as the whole aircraft it's difficult to understand how it could work without them. Does the F-35 have a ceramic coating to the inside of the exhaust 'feathers'? It certainly looks like it.

Not a bad take-off, not anywhere NEAR as good as a Lightning, but then what is? 

[GTX]

Does the F-35 have a ceramic coating to the inside of the exhaust 'feathers'? It certainly looks like it.

Various forms of thermal barrier coatings including ceramics.

Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

Much more extensive video of the F-35B - click on the pic below:

[Scooterman]

Thanks for that latest vid, Greg.  Amazing how much more stable the VLs are compaired to the AV-8B.

Looks like she's takes to the air slower than the Harrier in the STO, too. 

I really don't care how much it costs, or what will happen politics wise, but that is an awesome aircraft.  Hopefully we will get to see the Bravo in service.

[Taiidantomcat]

I really don't care how much it costs, or what will happen politics wise, but that is an awesome aircraft.  Hopefully we will get to see the Bravo in service.

Buy that man a beer 



Big Pic but a good one. Its actually just about to rotate almost the exact same as Greg's afterburner shot at the top of the page, different angle and the USN version of course.

[GTX]

Buy that man a beer 

Here, here!

[Maverick]

Neat pics.  Is there a reason the C doesn't have the cannon fairing?  I thought that the B was the only model not to have an internal gun?

Regards,

Mav

[PR19_Kit]

Thanks for that latest vid, Greg.  Amazing how much more stable the VLs are compaired to the AV-8B.

As it should be, the thing's a zillion years more modern than the Harrier!

Reading the chapter on the VAAC Harrier project in John Farley's book 'A View from the Hover' shows just how difficult it was to decide on the control philosophies they developed for the F-35, and which were ultimately successfull and very much better than that developed for the Harrier in the 60s.

[dy031101]

Is there a reason the C doesn't have the cannon fairing?  I thought that the B was the only model not to have an internal gun?

Neither of them does.

[PR19_Kit]

After watching the vid a few times there's some interesting things going on.

Firstly they seemed to use two different approach techniques, one a straight-in approach along the axis of the deck, and two, the 'fly alongside and crab in approach' which the SHARs developed.

Secondly the rear nozzle doesn't deploy to it's 'furthest down' angle during take-off until the aircraft has actually rotated, and that angle isn't 90 deg, it's more like 60 or 70. As the ship doesn't have a ski-jump that'd explain why the F-35 doesn't 'leap' off the deck like Harriers tend to.

Thirdly I noticed the pilot applies almost full nose-DOWN pitch control as he goes off the edge of the deck! Perhaps the forward lift fan can only generate a fixed maximum amount of thrust (the blades can't vary their pitch angle so its thrust depends on the rotational speed of the engine) and if the rear nozzle isn't at 90 deg that gives a big nose-up pitch as it takes-off?