- Thread starter
- #1,061
Moving right along ....First Japanese-built F-35 Begins Assembly
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Greg, for Christ's sakes, you keep saying the same thing over and over again and have provided little to back up your claims, with that said...
I never censored your posts but called you on your bullsh!t. Now if you're going to be a f*#king baby, go play somewhere else!!!!
Last edited:
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
bahhh....radials are vastly inferior to liquid cooled engines!!Not as fast as it would've with a BMW!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
bahhh....radials are vastly inferior to liquid cooled engines!!
Only if they're from Pratt Whitney
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
A good chronology of Japan's F-35 purchase as well as other stuff.
Japan's Next F-X Fighters: F-35 Wins Round 1
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
"Physical
Pilots have to meet the Air Force's height, weight and physical conditioning requirements. They must be 64 to 77 inches tall when standing, and 34 to 40 inches tall when sitting. They must weigh 160 to 231 pounds"
Air Force Fighter Pilot Qualifications | Chron.com
Height Weight - airforce.com
"Testing of the seat, built by UK company Martin-Baker, last August showed an "elevated" risk of injury for F-35 pilots weighing under 165 pounds, and an "unacceptable" risk for those under 136 pounds, according to the Air Force."
F-35 Ejection Seat Fix Delayed to 2018; Pilot Restrictions Continue
Having worked on a USAF base since 2003 and meeting many fighter pilots, I could tell you I haven't met one under the noted weight/ height requirements, including women.
And again, the same seat is in the T-6, T-38, Eurofighter and Rafale - NO ISSUES REPORTED THERE!!!!
Pilots have to meet the Air Force's height, weight and physical conditioning requirements. They must be 64 to 77 inches tall when standing, and 34 to 40 inches tall when sitting. They must weigh 160 to 231 pounds"
Air Force Fighter Pilot Qualifications | Chron.com
Height Weight - airforce.com
"Testing of the seat, built by UK company Martin-Baker, last August showed an "elevated" risk of injury for F-35 pilots weighing under 165 pounds, and an "unacceptable" risk for those under 136 pounds, according to the Air Force."
F-35 Ejection Seat Fix Delayed to 2018; Pilot Restrictions Continue
Having worked on a USAF base since 2003 and meeting many fighter pilots, I could tell you I haven't met one under the noted weight/ height requirements, including women.
And again, the same seat is in the T-6, T-38, Eurofighter and Rafale - NO ISSUES REPORTED THERE!!!!
GregP
Major
Regarding post 1062, I'd send a PM but don't know how in this new format that seems to be getting better by the hour. Not sure a "conversation" is the same thing. It might be public.
Sent email instead.
Cheers.
Sent email instead.
Cheers.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Greg, from what I can tell, "conversation" is the new language for Private Message.
I'm still trying to figure this mess out myself...
GregP
Major
Thought so, but didn't want my reply to go anywhere but the intended destination.
Thanks for your reply, Graugeist! You really SHOULD get over to Chino sometime on a Saturday. I'll show you around, buy you lunch, and we can talk.
But I know how far away it is ... maybe we could fly up and get you sometime, but it would have to be good VFR weather there and back. Not always the case. You're right at the limit for where the airlines are as fast as a Mooney 201.
Thanks for your reply, Graugeist! You really SHOULD get over to Chino sometime on a Saturday. I'll show you around, buy you lunch, and we can talk.
But I know how far away it is ... maybe we could fly up and get you sometime, but it would have to be good VFR weather there and back. Not always the case. You're right at the limit for where the airlines are as fast as a Mooney 201.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #1,072
More on the ejection seat issue .JPO Accelerates Timeline for F-35 Ejection Seat Fix
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And regarding post 1062, if you don't have the balls to say something on here, then I suggest don't say it at all!!!!
GregP
Major
Saying it in language that you use in here to members usually gets people banned. I think not. I'd rather stay in the WWII forum, posting-wise, and just let it go. We'll only cancel the F-35 if Trump gets elected, and even I won't vote for him just for that result. We have more problems that that.
Out of curiosity, why are you continuing to bait me? I said I'd let it go and I won't take the "please ban me" bait with an acidic reply to give you a reason for it.
Can YOU let it go? One hopes so. I will not mention it again in here if you don't, even if the site owner asks. Consider it settled. Can we move forward without acrimony?
I won't ask anymore questions in here I see in Aviation Week & Space Technology or hear in the news, I promise. I'l stay mostly in WWII, where we all can verify it or it doesn't matter due to the time factor.
It would be nice to get a non-escalating reply, unless that's unreasonable?
Out of curiosity, why are you continuing to bait me? I said I'd let it go and I won't take the "please ban me" bait with an acidic reply to give you a reason for it.
Can YOU let it go? One hopes so. I will not mention it again in here if you don't, even if the site owner asks. Consider it settled. Can we move forward without acrimony?
I won't ask anymore questions in here I see in Aviation Week & Space Technology or hear in the news, I promise. I'l stay mostly in WWII, where we all can verify it or it doesn't matter due to the time factor.
It would be nice to get a non-escalating reply, unless that's unreasonable?
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Greg, I don't know if your memory is just short or you're having a comprehension issue, but I'm going to direct you here;
A few ground rules for the new folks
And specifically from that thread;
"The administrators and moderators run a fairly tight ship. We do let some banter go on for a bit, but when any one of us tells you to settle down, just do it. Do not pick a fight with any one of them, because they stand pretty united, and you WILL lose."
"Don't be thin-skinned."
I gave you a reply in your other post and you brought this up AGAIN! I am not going to tell you AGAIN to let it go, I hope I'm making this crystal clear!!!
A few ground rules for the new folks
And specifically from that thread;
"The administrators and moderators run a fairly tight ship. We do let some banter go on for a bit, but when any one of us tells you to settle down, just do it. Do not pick a fight with any one of them, because they stand pretty united, and you WILL lose."
"Don't be thin-skinned."
I gave you a reply in your other post and you brought this up AGAIN! I am not going to tell you AGAIN to let it go, I hope I'm making this crystal clear!!!
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
And here we go again: Still terrible: Pentagon releases new list of F-35 program issues
This latest article from Russian Trash...oops, I mean RT, is rehashing/regurgitating the same old garbage with a new spin and it's making the rounds in the media.
A few of my favorites from this "journalistic slurry":
And soon after RT posted this "latest" on the F-35, other "news" sites picked it up and ran with it, including Al-Jizzwad, which is another "trusted news source" that the ill-informed public slops at the trough for their information...
This latest article from Russian Trash...oops, I mean RT, is rehashing/regurgitating the same old garbage with a new spin and it's making the rounds in the media.
A few of my favorites from this "journalistic slurry":
And soon after RT posted this "latest" on the F-35, other "news" sites picked it up and ran with it, including Al-Jizzwad, which is another "trusted news source" that the ill-informed public slops at the trough for their information...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And Military.com picked up on the same ignorant trash! Brought up the friggin ejection seat non-issue, and of course every half-witted armchair general picks up on this trash and runs with it!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Which aircraft are most mission ready
Some good info about MC rates. The F-35 isn't listed here. But check this out...
F-35A cost and readiness data improves in 2015 as fleet grows...
"The cost of operating the Lockheed Martin F-35A has come down 37.6% compared to last year and is now $17,000 cheaper to fly per hour than its fifth-generation cousin, the Lockheed F-22 Raptor."
The F-35, despite the rubbish printed in the press, just keeps shutting up the nay-sayers! THE F-35A NOW HAS A HIGHER MC RATE THAN THE F-22!!!
"The director of operational test and evaluation reported this week that F-35As located at Hill AFB maintain the highest aircraft availability rate, averaging 80% followed by F-35Cs at Eglin AFB at 79% — compared to the Lightning II fleet-wide average of 51%."
Some good info about MC rates. The F-35 isn't listed here. But check this out...
F-35A cost and readiness data improves in 2015 as fleet grows...
"The cost of operating the Lockheed Martin F-35A has come down 37.6% compared to last year and is now $17,000 cheaper to fly per hour than its fifth-generation cousin, the Lockheed F-22 Raptor."
The F-35, despite the rubbish printed in the press, just keeps shutting up the nay-sayers! THE F-35A NOW HAS A HIGHER MC RATE THAN THE F-22!!!
"The director of operational test and evaluation reported this week that F-35As located at Hill AFB maintain the highest aircraft availability rate, averaging 80% followed by F-35Cs at Eglin AFB at 79% — compared to the Lightning II fleet-wide average of 51%."
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Just a side not on all of this - sometimes the operator will establish an MC rate that is well below 100%, this would be your basic performance threashold. They may consider operations, aircraft maintenance and mission requirements, for example I think the B-2 is operated at a 50% MC rate on purpose. Where I work at many of our aircraft are only required to maintain a 75% MC rate although we frequently exceed 90%.
- Thread starter
- #1,080
