User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 7:34:58 PM EDT
The second Lockheed Martin F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing stealth fighter arrives at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., test site on Dec. 29. Maj. Joseph T. "O.D." Bachmann piloted the aircraft nonstop from Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth, Texas, plant to Patuxent River, successfully completing aerial refueling en route. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 7:36:23 PM EDT
[#1]
How many total F-35s have been built yet?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 7:40:59 PM EDT
[#2]
God, she is so much better looking than the runner-up:
-p. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 7:42:17 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
God, she is so much better looking than the runner-up: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y109/phuzzygnu/x32.jpg -p. Wheres the weapon bays? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 7:49:49 PM EDT
[#4]
That is a sexy badass looking aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 7:51:59 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
God, she is so much better looking than the runner-up:
-p. Looks like a middle age, pot bellied, F16. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 7:59:10 PM EDT
[#6]
The Boeing competitor is hands down the ugliest aircraft to ever be seriously considered for military service. Make no mistake, that played
against it. It would have played against it if it had been slightly superior to the X-35 in every way. You've gotta impress the judges. CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:00:55 PM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:04:18 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
The Boeing competitor is hands down the ugliest aircraft to ever be seriously considered for military service. Make no mistake, that played against it. It would have played against it if it had been slightly superior to the X-35 in every way. You've gotta impress the judges. CJ Aesthetics matter, that's for sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:05:13 PM EDT
[#9]
Quite possible the most ghastly looking fighter aircraft ever built. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:07:36 PM EDT
[#10]
It turned out to be a damn good looking aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:08:41 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y109/phuzzygnu/x32.jpg Quite possible the most ghastly looking fighter aircraft ever built. Really? It's not all that different from the A-7 Corsair or F-8 Crusader. High wings a low under slung intake don't keep showing up for shits and giggles, ya know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:12:14 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
How many total F-35s have been built yet? None. 
The aircraft produced so far are "test articles" (prototype), there are supposed to be 15 or 17 test articles built. They do not have BUNO's (Navy and Marines) or Serial Numbers (USAF) assigned to them, so technically they are not "F-35" aircraft. The tail number is BF-02, that's the second F-35B test bird. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:12:44 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
It turned out to be a damn good looking aircraft. But unfortunately it's only mediocre at best in performance. A jack of all trades, master of none, similar to the F18. Bring back the F14, F15, F16. Each of them is superior at its task. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:13:08 PM EDT
[#14]
The F-35 flight test program is so far behind schedule I seriously doubt that they will be able to get within two years of their planned IOC date. BF-1 still hasn't made a vertical landing except for on the hover pit. I'll bet nearly anything that the F-35 breaks Nunn-McCurdy in the first half of 2010.
Actually, the program might become the biggest failure in defense acquisition history unless things start to drastically change. If that does happen what's plan B? Reopen the F-22 line and new build F-16s? Accelerate UCAS-N for the Navy? It's a scary thought. There is about to be a huge industrial sustainment issue in aerospace, there are no warplanes currently be designed, we're down to essentially one large aircraft manufacturer. I worry that when the time comes to develop the fighter to replace the F-22 we will have lost the ability to do so. Edited to add: Apparently it took BF-2 3.4 hours to fly approximately 1080 nautical miles, which give an average cruise speed of 310 knots. Well shy of the 470 knot cruise speed on the spec sheet. Also BF-2 rendezvoused with two tankers en route? Can you say performance shortfall? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:17:26 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: God, she is so much better looking than the runner-up: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y109/phuzzygnu/x32.jpg -p. Isn't exactly the sexiest aircraft either. But I'm told it's quite good at it's job. Ugly chics can give pretty good BJ's ya know. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:22:27 PM EDT
[#16]
Are any C models flying yet?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:23:13 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Are any C models flying yet? No, the Navy is allowing LM to develop the F-35C last so they can keep buying Super Hornets.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:26:46 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: The F-35 flight test program is so far behind schedule I seriously doubt that they will be able to get within two years of their planned IOC date. BF-1 still hasn't made a vertical landing except for on the hover pit. I'll bet nearly anything that the F-35 breaks Nunn-McCurdy in the first half of 2010. Actually, the program might become the biggest failure in defense acquisition history unless things start to drastically change. If that does happen what's plan B? Reopen the F-22 line and new build F-16s? Accelerate UCAS-N for the Navy? It's a scary thought. There is about to be a huge industrial sustainment issue in aerospace, there are no warplanes currently be designed, we're down to essentially one large aircraft manufacturer. I worry that when the time comes to develop the fighter to replace the F-22 we will have lost the ability to do so. Edited to add: Apparently it took BF-2 3.4 hours to fly approximately 1080 nautical miles, which give an average cruise speed of 310 knots. Well shy of the 470 knot cruise speed on the spec sheet. Also BF-2 rendezvoused with two tankers en route? Can you say performance shortfall? the Marine variant is also a pig with extra moving parts sapping power |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:39:48 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: The F-35 flight test program is so far behind schedule I seriously doubt that they will be able to get within two years of their planned IOC date. BF-1 still hasn't made a vertical landing except for on the hover pit. I'll bet nearly anything that the F-35 breaks Nunn-McCurdy in the first half of 2010. Actually, the program might become the biggest failure in defense acquisition history unless things start to drastically change. If that does happen what's plan B? Reopen the F-22 line and new build F-16s? Accelerate UCAS-N for the Navy? It's a scary thought. There is about to be a huge industrial sustainment issue in aerospace, there are no warplanes currently be designed, we're down to essentially one large aircraft manufacturer. I worry that when the time comes to develop the fighter to replace the F-22 we will have lost the ability to do so. Edited to add: Apparently it took BF-2 3.4 hours to fly approximately 1080 nautical miles, which give an average cruise speed of 310 knots. Well shy of the 470 knot cruise speed on the spec sheet. Also BF-2 rendezvoused with two tankers en route? Can you say performance shortfall? Your post is putting a shiver up my spine. With President-What-Comes-After-Trillions? in office, I wonder if he's gonna shitcan the F-35 project? Maybe keep the existing F-22 without expansion, and attempt to reduce operation-time (to keep down wear and tear) on the remaining F-16s and F-15s - we could be looking at a real reduction in both readiness and long-term capability in our aviation branches of the services.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:41:15 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y109/phuzzygnu/x32.jpg Quite possible the most ghastly looking fighter aircraft ever built. Really? It's not all that different from the A-7 Corsair or F-8 Crusader. High wings a low under slung intake don't keep showing up for shits and giggles, ya know. No, the A7 had a little F8 in it. This thing looked like seething vomitous mass. The old aviation axiom that said, "if it looks right, it is right" follows this one, too. Good thing the DOD canceled it. I'd have hated to have this thing as a symbol of American aviation, cough, greatness. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:43:04 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Apparently it took BF-2 3.4 hours to fly approximately 1080 nautical miles, which give an average cruise speed of 310 knots. Well shy of the 470 knot cruise speed on the spec sheet. Also BF-2 rendezvoused with two tankers en route? Can you say performance shortfall? Well, you can only go 250 knots below 10k' per FAA rules. And we normally don't go blasting around at full speed all the time (even full cruise speed)... sometimes, we're trying to pad our logbooks
The data you posted does not say a damn thing about it's actual performance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:45:23 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
God, she is so much better looking than the runner-up: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y109/phuzzygnu/x32.jpg -p. Isn't exactly the sexiest aircraft either. But I'm told it's quite good at it's job. Ugly chics can give pretty good BJ's ya know. http://globalmanufacturingtech.com/images/a10_pic.jpg I dont know why every one thinks the A-10 is ugly, i think they look badass.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:52:12 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Quoted: God, she is so much better looking than the runner-up: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y109/phuzzygnu/x32.jpg -p. Wheres the weapon bays?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:55:41 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y109/phuzzygnu/x32.jpg Quite possible the most ghastly looking fighter aircraft ever built. Really? It's not all that different from the A-7 Corsair or F-8 Crusader. High wings a low under slung intake don't keep showing up for shits and giggles, ya know. No, the A7 had a little F8 in it. This thing looked like seething vomitous mass. The old aviation axiom that said, "if it looks right, it is right" follows this one, too. Good thing the DOD canceled it. I'd have hated to have this thing as a symbol of American aviation, cough, greatness. Was an A7 just a shortened subsonic F8? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 8:58:48 PM EDT
[#25]
That Boeing F32(?) sure was ugly - but I bet if they had built it without the vertical takeoff mumbo jumbo it would have made a cheap and effective CAS aircraft. It reminds me of the A7 or the Skyhawk. Supposedly Boeing was going to make the top of both wings out of one big piece of composite - that would have been strong as sh*t!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 9:00:16 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y109/phuzzygnu/x32.jpg Quite possible the most ghastly looking fighter aircraft ever built. Bullllll shit, it was a good looking plane. Especially the production model.      |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 9:01:15 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Quoted: The F-35 flight test program is so far behind schedule I seriously doubt that they will be able to get within two years of their planned IOC date. BF-1 still hasn't made a vertical landing except for on the hover pit. I'll bet nearly anything that the F-35 breaks Nunn-McCurdy in the first half of 2010. Actually, the program might become the biggest failure in defense acquisition history unless things start to drastically change. If that does happen what's plan B? Reopen the F-22 line and new build F-16s? Accelerate UCAS-N for the Navy? It's a scary thought. There is about to be a huge industrial sustainment issue in aerospace, there are no warplanes currently be designed, we're down to essentially one large aircraft manufacturer. I worry that when the time comes to develop the fighter to replace the F-22 we will have lost the ability to do so. Edited to add: Apparently it took BF-2 3.4 hours to fly approximately 1080 nautical miles, which give an average cruise speed of 310 knots. Well shy of the 470 knot cruise speed on the spec sheet. Also BF-2 rendezvoused with two tankers en route? Can you say performance shortfall? Your post is putting a shiver up my spine. With President-What-Comes-After-Trillions? in office, I wonder if he's gonna shitcan the F-35 project? Maybe keep the existing F-22 without expansion, and attempt to reduce operation-time (to keep down wear and tear) on the remaining F-16s and F-15s - we could be looking at a real reduction in both readiness and long-term capability in our aviation branches of the services. At this point, I'd be very surprised if he does. Unlike the F-22, there are many other countries who have invested millions into the Lightning II, and have orders in and would be utterly pissed if Obama pulls out US funding. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 9:02:23 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
It turned out to be a damn good looking aircraft. This. That shit just looks cool as hell. Someone, please tell me more planes are going to get that color scheme? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 9:03:35 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y109/phuzzygnu/x32.jpg Quite possible the most ghastly looking fighter aircraft ever built. Bullllll shit, it was a good looking plane. Especially the production model. I disagree - I think it looked better as a tailless delta. It would have been much cheaper to build as a tailless delta too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 9:04:11 PM EDT
[#30]
Although the Boing version looked like crap, the one thing they DID have going for it, was ease of production. Boing had the entire thing designed with high production rates in mind. The thing was designed to be easily buildable and they had the facilities to do it also.
The f35 sure looks sweet, but no matter how pretty it is, if they cant get it to work right, and they cant make them, its worthless. At least the F22 keeps its promise of performance. They should shit can the F35 and make F16's, F18's and A10 thunderbolts. The Warthog is THE best CAS jet ever made, made to take a beating and fly home safe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 9:09:22 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y109/phuzzygnu/x32.jpg Quite possible the most ghastly looking fighter aircraft ever built. Bullllll shit, it was a good looking plane. Especially the production model. I disagree - I think it looked better as a tailless delta. It would have been much cheaper to build as a tailless delta too. I'm not dissing the pelican tail, but I think the four poster tail was more practical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 9:09:32 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Although the Boing version looked like crap, the one thing they DID have going for it, was ease of production. Boing had the entire thing designed with high production rates in mind. The thing was designed to be easily buildable and they had the facilities to do it also. The F35 will have parts built in what, 8 or so countries? I can't see how that would work in a protracted conflict. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 9:09:32 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
God, she is so much better looking than the runner-up: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y109/phuzzygnu/x32.jpg -p. Isn't exactly the sexiest aircraft either. But I'm told it's quite good at it's job. Ugly chics can give pretty good BJ's ya know. http://globalmanufacturingtech.com/images/a10_pic.jpg It's funny you put it that way –– the Boeing competitor was referred to as "Monica" because of it's large open-mouthed look. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 9:10:12 PM EDT
[#34]
I used to live up the river from Pax. Sure would be cool to be out on the boat running a trout line and see/hear that thing blast by!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 9:11:57 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Although the Boing version looked like crap, the one thing they DID have going for it, was ease of production. Boing had the entire thing designed with high production rates in mind. The thing was designed to be easily buildable and they had the facilities to do it also. The f35 sure looks sweet, but no matter how pretty it is, if they cant get it to work right, and they cant make them, its worthless. At least the F22 keeps its promise of performance. They should shit can the F35 and make F16's, F18's and A10 thunderbolts. The Warthog is THE best CAS jet ever made, made to take a beating and fly home safe. The F-35 is in certain ways more advanced than the F-22. Besides it's a better plane than our legacy aircraft. There is no reason to shit can it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 9:12:34 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
It turned out to be a damn good looking aircraft. This. That shit just looks cool as hell. Someone, please tell me more planes are going to get that color scheme? Isn't that the same scheme as an F15E? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 9:21:36 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Although the Boing version looked like crap, the one thing they DID have going for it, was ease of production. Boing had the entire thing designed with high production rates in mind. The thing was designed to be easily buildable and they had the facilities to do it also. The f35 sure looks sweet, but no matter how pretty it is, if they cant get it to work right, and they cant make them, its worthless. At least the F22 keeps its promise of performance. They should shit can the F35 and make F16's, F18's and A10 thunderbolts. The Warthog is THE best CAS jet ever made, made to take a beating and fly home safe. The F-35 is in certain ways more advanced than the F-22. Besides it's a better plane than our legacy aircraft. There is no reason to shit can it. Are the range issues getting worked out? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 9:24:52 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y109/phuzzygnu/x32.jpg Quite possible the most ghastly looking fighter aircraft ever built. Didja know that the procurement folks nicknamed this the 'Monica'? The reason is that the air intake reminded them of a certain Whitehouse intern who gained some notoriety around the same time this plane was being pitched to the government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 9:50:03 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Although the Boing version looked like crap, the one thing they DID have going for it, was ease of production. Boing had the entire thing designed with high production rates in mind. The thing was designed to be easily buildable and they had the facilities to do it also. The f35 sure looks sweet, but no matter how pretty it is, if they cant get it to work right, and they cant make them, its worthless. At least the F22 keeps its promise of performance. They should shit can the F35 and make F16's, F18's and A10 thunderbolts. The Warthog is THE best CAS jet ever made, made to take a beating and fly home safe. The F-35 is in certain ways more advanced than the F-22. Besides it's a better plane than our legacy aircraft. There is no reason to shit can it. Are the range issues getting worked out? Kinda... The F-35 already carries a decent amount of internal fuel. If more fuel is needed there are 480lbs drop tanks which can handle supersonic flight. The F-35 might be able to handle 600lbs tanks, but I've not read or heard anything about those being compatible with the bird. I have heard talk of conformal fuel tanks being considered, but I kinda doubt those will be implemented or developed for decades. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 9:52:18 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: I had, of course, forgotten this, as us rotary-winged types tend to fly @ max cruise all the time.Quoted: Apparently it took BF-2 3.4 hours to fly approximately 1080 nautical miles, which give an average cruise speed of 310 knots. Well shy of the 470 knot cruise speed on the spec sheet. Also BF-2 rendezvoused with two tankers en route? Can you say performance shortfall? Well, you can only go 250 knots below 10k' per FAA rules. And we normally don't go blasting around at full speed all the time (even full cruise speed)... sometimes, we're trying to pad our logbooks The data you posted does not say a damn thing about it's actual performance. Mostly because max cruise on a helo and top speed (and top speed of a Chevy Chevette) are all one and the same thing.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 10:08:38 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
It turned out to be a damn good looking aircraft. But unfortunately it's only mediocre at best in performance. A jack of all trades, master of none, similar to the F18. Bring back the F14, F15, F16. Each of them is superior at its task. Oooh....that is just asking for trouble. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 10:09:59 PM EDT
[#42]
Rumor has it Israel is going to buy a ton of these. I have a buddy in WA that makes parts for the nosecone and he seems convinced. dunno ... I like the fat thing
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 10:12:17 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
God, she is so much better looking than the runner-up: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y109/phuzzygnu/x32.jpg -p. Isn't exactly the sexiest aircraft either. But I'm told it's quite good at it's job. Ugly chics can give pretty good BJ's ya know. http://globalmanufacturingtech.com/images/a10_pic.jpg you do you know why?.............because they have to! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 10:15:40 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
It turned out to be a damn good looking aircraft. But unfortunately it's only mediocre at best in performance. You are not qualified to make that assertion. If you were, you wouldn't be making it (because that conclusion would be based on classified information). A jack of all trades, master of none, similar to the F18. Bring back the F14, F15, F16. Each of them is superior at its task.
That would be incorrect. The F-14 was a fantastic aircraft in its time. It's days are long past, and it was retired for good reason. The Super Hornet is better in every respect (that means anything in the tactical world) than the F-14. The F-15 is an awesome aircraft, but it, too is getting long in the tooth. The F-35 is a dramatic improvement over the F-15 and the F-16 in many many ways. The aircraft of yesteryear are not superior in ANY way to the F-35. That's as much as I'm going to say about that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 10:23:03 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Apparently it took BF-2 3.4 hours to fly approximately 1080 nautical miles, which give an average cruise speed of 310 knots. Well shy of the 470 knot cruise speed on the spec sheet. Also BF-2 rendezvoused with two tankers en route? Can you say performance shortfall? Well, you can only go 250 knots below 10k' per FAA rules. And we normally don't go blasting around at full speed all the time (even full cruise speed)... sometimes, we're trying to pad our logbooks
The data you posted does not say a damn thing about it's actual performance. I thought that was only in controlled airspace or within X miles of a towered airport. Can't remember which. Guess I was wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 10:28:28 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Quoted: God, she is so much better looking than the runner-up: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y109/phuzzygnu/x32.jpg -p. Isn't exactly the sexiest aircraft either. But I'm told it's quite good at it's job. Ugly chics can give pretty good BJ's ya know. http://globalmanufacturingtech.com/images/a10_pic.jpg I'll take that fat chick any day. badass airplane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 10:29:17 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Apparently it took BF-2 3.4 hours to fly approximately 1080 nautical miles, which give an average cruise speed of 310 knots. Well shy of the 470 knot cruise speed on the spec sheet. Also BF-2 rendezvoused with two tankers en route? Can you say performance shortfall? Well, you can only go 250 knots below 10k' per FAA rules. And we normally don't go blasting around at full speed all the time (even full cruise speed)... sometimes, we're trying to pad our logbooks
The data you posted does not say a damn thing about it's actual performance. I thought that was only in controlled airspace or within X miles of a towered airport. Can't remember which. Guess I was wrong. If you are below 10k' MSL, you must be less than 250 knots indicated airspeed. If you're under class B airspace, you must be 200 knots or less indicated airspeed (if you're IN the Class B, you can be 250 knots). If you're outside those, you can go as fast as you want... as long as you don't break the number (Mach). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 10:30:05 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: God, she is so much better looking than the runner-up: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y109/phuzzygnu/x32.jpg -p. Isn't exactly the sexiest aircraft either. But I'm told it's quite good at it's job. Ugly chics can give pretty good BJ's ya know. http://globalmanufacturingtech.com/images/a10_pic.jpg you do you know why?.............because they have to! Agreed. Fat chics fall into that category too, but I've managed to avoid that scenario, regardless of the rumors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 10:31:23 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Quoted: Apparently it took BF-2 3.4 hours to fly approximately 1080 nautical miles, which give an average cruise speed of 310 knots. Well shy of the 470 knot cruise speed on the spec sheet. Also BF-2 rendezvoused with two tankers en route? Can you say performance shortfall? Well, you can only go 250 knots below 10k' per FAA rules. And we normally don't go blasting around at full speed all the time (even full cruise speed)... sometimes, we're trying to pad our logbooks The data you posted does not say a damn thing about it's actual performance. hell, I have seen several .mil planes do over 250 below 10. some pretty damn close to boot always fun to watch thoughI can understand wanting to pad the logbook, most guys get what...200-300 hours a year? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 10:32:31 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Apparently it took BF-2 3.4 hours to fly approximately 1080 nautical miles, which give an average cruise speed of 310 knots. Well shy of the 470 knot cruise speed on the spec sheet. Also BF-2 rendezvoused with two tankers en route? Can you say performance shortfall? Well, you can only go 250 knots below 10k' per FAA rules. And we normally don't go blasting around at full speed all the time (even full cruise speed)... sometimes, we're trying to pad our logbooks
The data you posted does not say a damn thing about it's actual performance. hell, I have seen several .mil planes do over 250 below 10. some pretty damn close to boot always fun to watch thoughwell... uh.... I don't... uh.... know anything about... that.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
