Max Headroom Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 If a Harrier's engine cuts on takeoff, it's bang-out time anyway... I imagine they've thought about re-attaching the pilot's head after ejection... either that, or they've engineered a solution of either blowing the "barn door" off, or retracting it quickly before it decaffeinates the pilot.C'mon, they don't doodle these things on the back of a fag packet and then build one in a day Has anyone seen a doodle for a twin stick version? Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gishuk Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 i do think it looks quite cool actually, its certainly grown on me anyway. but i agree about that nosewheel, it looks a bit alarming wobbling about on landing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 It'll be fine after a tweak with a spanner guv If anyone fancies that pic as a screen background, I've uploaded it at the bottom of this post after tweaking it for 1400 x 900 (my resolution). Help yourselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce3371 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 This was my favourite shot from the film: That's a cracking shot, it looks almost insect-like head on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kallisti Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 (edited) That hump behind the cockpit makes it look quite grumpy! I don't know about anyone else but idid anyone else think "Transformers" in that shot where suddenly everything starts to open up when getting ready to launch? Gave me the willies, just seemed so unnatural. Those landings looked very controlled though, that was quite impressive stuff. Still, will it be able to land safely with a full weapons load? Edited March 19, 2012 by Kallisti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I'm not sure the Harrier could land back on deck with a full warload, but I have no idea if the F-35 can - a lot of it might also depend on fuel load remaining It does look a bit transformer-like. I wonder if it makes the same sound? That would be kind of amusing in a puerile way The stability in hover is excellent, isn't it? The joys of computers flying the plane while the pilot tells it where to go. The poor Harrier pilots were responsible for every twitch, jerk and movement of their aircraft, which is a testament to their skill. Weren't they one of the most "tasked" pilots, when it comes to stuff going on in the cockpit? I'm sure I read that somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Good video, and yes its growing on me as well. That gear does look a bit wobbly though Julien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 There was a quote from the RAF test pilot who described the F-35 as "an iPhone on steroids." Does that mean that you can tweet while hovering? Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I'm not sure the Harrier could land back on deck with a full warload, but I have no idea if the F-35 can - a lot of it might also depend on fuel load remaining It does look a bit transformer-like. I wonder if it makes the same sound? That would be kind of amusing in a puerile way The stability in hover is excellent, isn't it? The joys of computers flying the plane while the pilot tells it where to go. The poor Harrier pilots were responsible for every twitch, jerk and movement of their aircraft, which is a testament to their skill. Weren't they one of the most "tasked" pilots, when it comes to stuff going on in the cockpit? I'm sure I read that somewhere? The SHAR in the hover acted in a similar way to a hecilopter so the pilots were no more "tasked" than the Sea King guys, but, it was all manual, unlike the F-35. When in normal flight and take off the only real difference in the cockpit was the nozzle position control. I only hope the maintenance is easier on these things, as it was horrible on the SHARs, everything being built around that bloomin' great engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff_B Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 The SHAR in the hover acted in a similar way to a hecilopter so the pilots were no more "tasked" than the Sea King guys, but, it was all manual, unlike the F-35. When in normal flight and take off the only real difference in the cockpit was the nozzle position control. I only hope the maintenance is easier on these things, as it was horrible on the SHARs, everything being built around that bloomin' great engine. Its supposed to be, however anything not directly accessible or servicable and its a return to manufacturer repair job, not too bad except thats either Fort Worth or the secondary assembly facility in Italy and possibly Japan. Not really good news when deployed at sea and 8000 miles away from your repair facility with half your aircraft U/S, servicability on this thing could yet make or break the success of this aircraft, as high tech/low servicability aircraft tend to get withdrawn alot sooner than their more rugged rivals (F-111, F-14 etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xffw45343tg Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 It'll be fine after a tweak with a spanner guv If anyone fancies that pic as a screen background, I've uploaded it at the bottom of this post after tweaking it for 1400 x 900 (my resolution). Help yourselves I do not have permission. Have I been bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Velociweiler Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 This was my favourite shot from the film: I hadn't realised how inaccurate the real airframe was. Look at that colour. It's WAAAY off. Intake warning chevrons have been applied in the wrong place, the undercarriage needs replacing and the tyre bulge is completely wrong. I can see just looking at the photo that they've got the wingspan wrong. The ejection seat could be useable but the pilot seems a bit naff. Sorry to be so negative but I won't be buying this one. Looks like we're going to have to wait a bit longer for the definitive - this is a real disappointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westie7 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Then there is all that dead weight of the fan when it's not working. Trevor Yak-38 anyone, another heavyweight bomb truck... not Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magwitch Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 00:30 - 00:35 is pure science fiction. Very cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 That barn door above the lift fan: worry not. The F-111 used to take off with its airbrake wide open - it was also the main undercarriage door - and it was hardly a sluggard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-32 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 It just looks a bit odd, especially with that massive barn door behind the cock pit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I do not have permission. Have I been bad? Probably, but I've fixed why it wouldn't download. Have a go now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 The poor Harrier pilots were responsible for every twitch, jerk and movement of their aircraft, which is a testament to their skill. Weren't they one of the most "tasked" pilots, when it comes to stuff going on in the cockpit? I'm sure I read that somewhere? I believe the highest cockpit workload was in the Jaguar GR1. I can't speak for Harrier 5s, 7s and 9s, but certainly the 3s were very well though of by their pilots. I know of at least one pilot who was very glad to convert onto Harriers from Jaguars. I only hope the maintenance is easier on these things, as it was horrible on the SHARs, everything being built around that bloomin' great engine. On the GR3, everything that ever went wrong required a bit of armament kit to be removed for access! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tripehound Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I don't know about anyone else but idid anyone else think "Transformers" in that shot where suddenly everything starts to open up when getting ready to launch? Gave me the willies, just seemed so unnatural. First time I saw it I thought it was exploding in slow-motion, Hollywood style Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xffw45343tg Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Probably, but I've fixed why it wouldn't download. Have a go now Have a go? OK: You're a dispicable tyrant sir! And your mother dresses you funny. (Pic downloads nicely now. Thanks.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 It'll still be cheaper than the hasegawa kit when its released lol how true ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff_B Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 That barn door above the lift fan: worry not. The F-111 used to take off with its airbrake wide open - it was also the main undercarriage door - and it was hardly a sluggard. The barn door opens against the airflow as it's supposed to help defelect air down so it can be sucked through the lift fan, the F-111 airbreak was a little better as it opened with the airflow rather than against it sheilding the main gear from the airflow when the gear was deployed, other wise the the rear door attached to the main gear would really act as a serious airbreak to the air flow. Their is a seperate set of intake door aft of the barn door to supplement the airflow to the actuall engine when in STOVL mode where the airflow is not being forced down the main intakes. Unfortunately the Fujimi kit of the F-35B represented these as moulded on doors along with the under wing control jets making the kit absolutley useless to display in STOVL mode despite including the nice lift fan and optional right angle main engine - GRRRR. We'll have to await either Hasegawa or Cyberhobby to release a more viable F-35 kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I suspect a new tool kit in 1:48 shouldn't be too far away by now. I do hope that they either leave it until it's in service, or at least tool it so that it can be tweaked when it is in service. The gestation of your modern fighter is a lot longer than the old days, when it was sometimes a handful of months between first drawings and first flight. Things were a lot simpler then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingo Degenhardt Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I've just realised for the first time that the canopy/windshield is front-hinged on the F-35. Never noticed that before. ID Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) The gestation of your modern fighter is a lot longer than the old days, when it was sometimes a handful of months between first drawings and first flight. Things were a lot simpler then... This is true but we shouldn't forget that a lot of the development back in the "good old days" occurred after the introduction into service, with the result that often the various "A" versions were not really operational and there have been cases of drastic design changes over the various versions (something that is great for us modellers!). Today aircrafts enter service at a more advanced stage of the development (or at least this is the idea...) I agree on the idea of better wait a while before issuing kits of the type. It's impossible to tell how many design detail changes might be introduced in the next year or 2 ! I can however also understand the kit manufacturers who want to be the first on the market with a kit. Edited March 20, 2012 by Giorgio N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now