Simviation Forums

Looks like we'll soon find out how she flies....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6212974.stm

Which varient? The VTOL or the conventional fixed wing one?


And how late is it?

Which varient? The VTOL or the conventional fixed wing one?


And how late is it?

The VTOL will be years late and over budget.
Harrier = KISS. Keep it simple stupid. One butterfly valve for puffer duct bleed, 4 nozzles connected by bike chains and drive shafts and a air motor to drive it. All mechanical.
JSF, more doors to open for VTOL than an advent calender.

Matt

Should be interesting...


...not...

Awesome news! Can't wait till the JSF takes to operational status. Get rid of the damned Bugs already  ;D

Awesome news! Can't wait till the JSF takes to operational status. Get rid of the damned Bugs already  ;D

Get ready to carry on waiting...


2014 if we're optimistic?

Which varient? The VTOL or the conventional fixed wing one?


And how late is it?

The VTOL will be years late and over budget.
Harrier = KISS. Keep it simple stupid. One butterfly valve for puffer duct bleed, 4 nozzles connected by bike chains and drive shafts and a air motor to drive it. All mechanical.
JSF, more doors to open for VTOL than an advent calender.

Matt

Based on that logic, digital fly-by-wire and redundant systems should be an abject failure.   All we need is a set of cables and brute strength to operate those flying surfaces on high performance aircraft.

Which varient? The VTOL or the conventional fixed wing one?


And how late is it?

The VTOL will be years late and over budget.
Harrier = KISS. Keep it simple stupid. One butterfly valve for puffer duct bleed, 4 nozzles connected by bike chains and drive shafts and a air motor to drive it. All mechanical.
JSF, more doors to open for VTOL than an advent calender.

Matt

Based on that logic, digital fly-by-wire and redundant systems should be an abject failure.

Which varient? The VTOL or the conventional fixed wing one?


And how late is it?

The VTOL will be years late and over budget.
Harrier = KISS. Keep it simple stupid. One butterfly valve for puffer duct bleed, 4 nozzles connected by bike chains and drive shafts and a air motor to drive it. All mechanical.
JSF, more doors to open for VTOL than an advent calender.

Matt

Based on that logic, digital fly-by-wire and redundant systems should be an abject failure.

there is a lot of work being carried out for JSF lasers and such like where i work.  i think we are running a bit behind schedule at the moment though...there have been a few problems with certain parts.  i dont really know to much about it, im currently working on the tiald project.

Which varient? The VTOL or the conventional fixed wing one?


And how late is it?

The VTOL will be years late and over budget.
Harrier = KISS. Keep it simple stupid. One butterfly valve for puffer duct bleed, 4 nozzles connected by bike chains and drive shafts and a air motor to drive it. All mechanical.
JSF, more doors to open for VTOL than an advent calender.

Matt

Based on that logic, digital fly-by-wire and redundant systems should be an abject failure.   All we need is a set of cables and brute strength to operate those flying surfaces on high performance aircraft.

You can use hydraulics instead of cables if your not strong enough. Having said, just put some pulleys on the cable.

I think the point was that the JSF is over complicating the whole hovering thing.

If they were seeking to achieve the same level of performance and/or combat efficiency/survivability as Harrier, I would agree with that.  But I suspect assumptions are being made to conclude that JSF is overcomplicating things.

And on that same notion, digital fly-by-wire offers tremendous advantages over a hydraulics/cable solution.  There's no comparison.

 

You are right there is no comparison, but the problem with fly by wire is that designers start to get clever when designing these things. My point was when you look at the JSF VTOL, how complicated it is and how simple the Harrier is, that is what counts in combat. If our aircraft went to a war where the other side actually put a good defence, then the buzz word is going to be battle damage repair. In the civil sector I have spend days troubleshooting fly by wire snags. That is a luxury you will not have in war. It seems that every time a new aircraft is produced we are extolling its attack virtues and how stealthy it is, but at the end of the day it is not bullet proof and never will be. It just seems that fly by wire is only going to make BDR just that much more difficult.

Matt

Matt

The A-10 is the measure of simplicity, and is very very hard to kill.  Thats why they never even had to make a two seat trainer, just throw the pilot in and toss him the keys.  ;D

Which varient? The VTOL or the conventional fixed wing one?


And how late is it?

The VTOL will be years late and over budget.
Harrier = KISS. Keep it simple stupid. One butterfly valve for puffer duct bleed, 4 nozzles connected by bike chains and drive shafts and a air motor to drive it. All mechanical.
JSF, more doors to open for VTOL than an advent calender.

Matt

Based on that logic, digital fly-by-wire and redundant systems should be an abject failure.   All we need is a set of cables and brute strength to operate those flying surfaces on high performance aircraft.

You can use hydraulics instead of cables if your not strong enough. Having said, just put some pulleys on the cable.

I think the point was that the JSF is over complicating the whole hovering thing.

If they were seeking to achieve the same level of performance and/or combat efficiency/survivability as Harrier, I would agree with that.  But I suspect assumptions are being made to conclude that JSF is overcomplicating things.

And on that same notion, digital fly-by-wire offers tremendous advantages over a hydraulics/cable solution.  There's no comparison.

 

You are right there is no comparison, but the problem with fly by wire is that designers start to get clever when designing these things. My point was when you look at the JSF VTOL, how complicated it is and how simple the Harrier is, that is what counts in combat. If our aircraft went to a war where the other side actually put a good defence, then the buzz word is going to be battle damage repair. In the civil sector I have spend days troubleshooting fly by wire snags. That is a luxury you will not have in war. It seems that every time a new aircraft is produced we are extolling its attack virtues and how stealthy it is, but at the end of the day it is not bullet proof and never will be. It just seems that fly by wire is only going to make BDR just that much more difficult.

Matt

Matt

I would agree with that, although their hasn't been a aircraft with that record. The worst thing that the US may do, (the aircraft engineer's) is move the CG location forward giving the aircraft less maneuverability, which seems to be one of the best way's of doing things. Well, I believe that the JSF will be the most sophisticated VTOL aircraft present when it reaches service release. And I would love to hear all the ridiculous comments disagreeing with me. Whatch me wip this topic around to, aircraft VS. aircraft, hehe...

We're feeling the pain of the JSF delay where I work.  Although "pain" isn't a good word for it because as long as they delay the F35 they extend the F22.  Congress passed some "Industrial Base Protection" law or whatever that forces the Air Force to keep building F22s until F35s become available.  And for us an F22 is like a Caddy whereas an F35 is like a Chevy.  So we're smilin' all the way to the bank.

Oh, and we're ahead on development of the F35 stuff to the point that there's talk of marketing our systems for tanks, ships, other aircraft, etc since we have a product and no place to sell it yet.

[quote]The A-10 is the measure of simplicity, and is very very hard to kill.