F-35A

[Sgt.KAR98]

The F-35 is the JSF, the one that goes into production.

 

The X-32 was boeings contender, but it lost out. and it was particularly ugly.

 

I used to think the F-35 was called JSF,but I call it only F-35,for me the "JSF" fits better on the X-32...

[bluephoenix]

Great work on the model, and I can't wait to fly the final

 

one thing you might want to include is an SDB weapon (the one in the current weapon pack takes 1 per hardpoint, rather than in 4-packs as realistic)

 

another question is if the radar signiture will vary depending on wether or not external pylon loads are equipped. The F-35 and 22 have external pylons (2 on each side), but are mostly flown without.

 

I'll go back and look through what I have on the f-35 for loadout information if you need it.

 

once again, great work so far

[+SayethWhaaaa]

The X-32 was boeings contender, but it lost out. and it was particularly ugly.

 

One thing that has proven true has been that if an airplane's ugly, it usually performs well. look at the Phantom, the A-7 Crusader, the A-6 Intruder, the BUFF, The Bear, the Frogfoot and so on...

[+JediMaster]

Well, those are the ugly successful planes. There were plenty of ugly unsuccessful ones!

[+SayethWhaaaa]

Well, those are the ugly successful planes. There were plenty of ugly unsuccessful ones!

 

You're right, that's a good point. Ok, I mean, planes that aren't too fugly. I mean look at the Sea Vixen... Zoooweeee!! jk And the plane the Skyraider had to compete with...

[eraser_tr]

Yeah, some ugly planes perform well, but there is that saying "if it looks right, it is right" And quite frankly the X-32 and its giant underbite mouth did not look right. Their proposal for what the production F-32 would actually look like was alot better looking. Should have built the demonstrator in that design instead.

[Shin_kazama]

i remember once seeing a picture,

an artist's impression of the f-35 in different comou schemes, including Israeli air force scheme.

 

it pictured the 35 with wingtip sidewinder stations ala f-16.

 

i dunno if LM is considering that idea, but it would be great to have 2 more sidewinders to complement.

and sidewinders dont have much of an

rcs signature, right?

[+SidDogg]

i remember once seeing a picture,

an artist's impression of the f-35 in different comou schemes, including Israeli air force scheme.

 

it pictured the 35 with wingtip sidewinder stations ala f-16.

 

i dunno if LM is considering that idea, but it would be great to have 2 more sidewinders to complement.

and sidewinders dont have much of an

rcs signature, right?

 

Well, anyhting with right angles will ALWAYS show up strongly on radar, unless of course made of composite materials

[+JediMaster]

It's possible there are wingtip rails in development along with the underwing pylons for "post-zero hour days" sorties when stealth is no longer as important and a larger weapons load is. I've just not heard of any so far.

[+MigBuster]

One thing that has proven true has been that if an airplane's ugly, it usually performs well. look at the Phantom, the A-7 Crusader, the A-6 Intruder, the BUFF, The Bear, the Frogfoot and so on...

 

doh! - I think the F-4 and A-7 look good personally

[+JSF_Aggie]

Here's a video. It's pretty cheesy, but it does have some good shots of my sim.

 

Jedi, aim-9's are only carried externally, but there are no wingtip rails.

 

 

F-35 News Story

[+SayethWhaaaa]

doh! - I think the F-4 and A-7 look good personally

 

I agree, but with a nickname like double ugly, who can argue? I used to like how other navy pilots would rib Intruder pilots about how the pointy part of the plane was supposed to be at the front.

 

Has anyone seen the Discovery docco called Battle of the X-planes? In a nutshell it chronicles the development of both contenders up until the final selection process. It's pretty insightful and packed with all sorts of info about these planes but also has quite a bit of CG and coneptual footage and with different paint schemes like what Shin was talkng about. Seeing some X-32s performing a stol take off from a road/highway runway looked pretty cool. I haven't seen it for a while but I'm interested to see the bit on the pit again, and I thought I remember watching one of the designers talking about it's low observable characteristics when he made some comment about LO hardpoints and RAM coated weapons to help reduce radar return when there's high wing loading...

[+FastCargo]

Has anyone seen the Discovery docco called Battle of the X-planes? In a nutshell it chronicles the development of both contenders up until the final selection process. It's pretty insightful and packed with all sorts of info about these planes but also has quite a bit of CG and coneptual footage and with different paint schemes like what Shin was talkng about.

 

Actually, it was done by NOVA (and shown on Discovery) and is available on DVD (I have it). It's a pretty good show, and does a decent job of getting into the details of the competition.

 

Funny, as much as I hated the lift fan concept (used for the VTOL version of the X-35), Lockheed did a remarkable job with it, and was shown to have some clear advantages over Boeings more Harrier-like approach.

 

The Boeing version (X-32) simply didn't have the performance with the VTOL version that the X-35 did. From the program, the X-32 was always going to just barely have the power needed.

 

FastCargo

[serverandenforcer]

Finally got some time to get back working on this model. Nose gear is complete. I hid the doors because I don't know how to do animation. So I took the easy route to show the gear extended. I just wish I could do this stuff as fast as some of the guys here.... like Marc with his superhornet.

Edited May 27, 2007 by serverandenforcer

[+suhsjake]

But the more do model, the faster you become. So just keep it up. This is a great model.

[+whiteknight06604]

I have to agree with the above.it seems that the farther your getting the better it seems overall.It's already at this point a most impressive model.I'm sure once it's completed it will knock my socks off.

[Shin_kazama]

Well, anyhting with right angles will ALWAYS show up strongly on radar, unless of course made of composite materials

 

 

maybe a ram coated AIM-9x would do?

 

i dunno what the new sidey missile is made of, but it may make a difference in its performance if made from Carbonfiber materials....

 

but in a fight, i still would like to have 2 more missiles in my wings, regardless of RCS increase....

[Shin_kazama]

I agree, but with a nickname like double ugly, who can argue? I used to like how other navy pilots would rib Intruder pilots about how the pointy part of the plane was supposed to be at the front.

 

Has anyone seen the Discovery docco called Battle of the X-planes? In a nutshell it chronicles the development of both contenders up until the final selection process. It's pretty insightful and packed with all sorts of info about these planes but also has quite a bit of CG and coneptual footage and with different paint schemes like what Shin was talkng about. Seeing some X-32s performing a stol take off from a road/highway runway looked pretty cool. I haven't seen it for a while but I'm interested to see the bit on the pit again, and I thought I remember watching one of the designers talking about it's low observable characteristics when he made some comment about LO hardpoints and RAM coated weapons to help reduce radar return when there's high wing loading...

 

 

yup i watched it all.

 

part one and part 2.

 

ah what is that trouble of an engine sucking its ow breath and dying out?

 

i think that one killed the military's interest in boeings' plane.

 

and maybe Carbon fiber parts would actually help it reduce weight.

 

carbon fiber amraams, aim-9x, and launchrails would be nice.

[+SayethWhaaaa]

ah what is that trouble of an engine sucking its ow breath and dying out?

 

i think that one killed the military's interest in boeings' plane.

 

LM's X-35 suffered from that from time to time. It's a problem Harriers and other STOVL jets face because of the nature of VTOL takeoffs.

[serverandenforcer]

Main gears done... kind of. Just need to find a way to connect the top end of the gear leg to the inside of the gear bay. Be advise though. Everything inside the gear bay is all adlib. I have no freaken idea how things are really connected in there on he real aircraft. Also, after looking at the picks, I'll probably have to enlarge the gear bays a bit, unless LM had found a way to shrink the gears to fint in there. Anyways, here are the pics.

[eraser_tr]

I saw a recent pic online of the JSF, and noticed the landing gear is much taller. Lookd like it was on stilts compared to other planes.

[serverandenforcer]

I saw a recent pic online of the JSF, and noticed the landing gear is much taller. Lookd like it was on stilts compared to other planes.

 

I know what you're talking about. It is a big gear for such a small aircraft. I don't know how they were able to fit it in there. I'm having a hell of a time as it is to make sure that this thing "might" fit right when it retracts inside. I'm not going to over do it with detail though because most of the time the gears will be inside the aircraft while the player is using it.. I mean, who flies around waxing flankers with the gears down? I don't unless I want to look like a retard.

[+JediMaster]

Most planes have the oleos contract a bit during retraction. Remember those old F-4 and A-4 nose gears? It was very obvious with them.

Few planes leave the gear length constant while stowed. I don't know if you can do that or not.

 

As for what the gear looks like, send someone to Udvar-Hazy at Dulles and get them to take wheel well pics!

[eraser_tr]

Already been there

 

I dunno if I got any sufficient gear well pics, but I certainly spent alot of time by her. I'll see if I can find the pics and post them here for you.

[eraser_tr]

Here they are