Just Click on logo to return to full home page

 

Your Ad Here

JSF recap

pvtpile
11-10-06, 08:24 PM
http://img316.imageshack.us/img316/2894/jsffamilyvariantshd0.jpg

USAF-Multi-role aircraft (primarily air-to-ground) to replace F-16 and A-10 and to complement F-22. The Air Force JSF variant poses the smallest relative engineering challenge. The aircraft has no hover criteria to satisfy, and the characteristics and handling qualities associated with carrier operations do not come into play. As the biggest customer for the JSF, the service will not accept a multirole F-16 fighter replacement that doesn't significantly improve on the original.

USN-Multi-role, stealthy strike fighter to complement F/A-18E/F. Carrier operations account for most of the differences between the Navy version and the other JSF variants. The aircraft has larger wing and tail control surfaces to better manage low-speed approaches. The internal structure of the Navy variant is strengthened up to handle the loads associated with catapult launches and arrested landings. The aircraft has a carrier-suitable tailhook. Its landing gear has a longer stroke and higher load capacity. The aircraft has almost twice the range of an F-18C on internal fuel. The design is also optimized for survivability.

USMC-Multi-role Short Take-Off & Vertical Landing (STOVL) strike fighter to replace AV-8B and F/A-18A/C/D. The Marine variant distinguishes itself from the other variants with its short takeoff/vertical landing capability.

UK-STOVL (supersonic) aircraft to replace the Sea Harrier. Britain's Royal Navy JSF will be very similar to the U.S. Marine variant.

STOVL Engine design
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/4752/img3ceef510ck2.jpg

http://img316.imageshack.us/img316/4922/jsfxi2.png

STOVL test video (Verticle Take Off)
http://www.youtube.com/v/1W2CE8fViMs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash

Great source on US military aircraft and equipment (http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp)

njohnson747
11-10-06, 09:37 PM
Pile, this is an incredible post. Brilliant.

jod
11-10-06, 10:15 PM
^ agreed, sweet one man, yer on a roll, If you can get me one of those in bf1942 I'm signing up

pvtpile
11-11-06, 09:26 AM
OH and as a side fact. Verticle take offs are not normally used. They usually vector the nozzles at 40 or 45 degrees (Don't know for sure) So they use the thrust and lift from the wings to achieve flight.

Look at the picture and you can see the water from the flight deck being displaced.
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/061107-N-8154G-018.jpg

They will land verticly but to take off with that much weight (fuel, armarments) from a stand still is EXTREMELY ineffecient!

jod
11-11-06, 09:33 AM
^I knew that, the harrier was one of my favourite planes as a kid, spent many a day dragging my family around to air shows just cos the harriers were there. Thats why I loved the video, to see almost true vertical in action is pretty awe inspiring

EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum