Lightning splinter scheme

[GMK]

Something a little different. 
 

[JohnT]

Careful.  Doing things like that could start a trend for liking the F-35 when everyone “knows” it’s hideously ugly 

 

Great pic by the way 

[Bobby No Mac]

Still not got used to them being called Lightnings. My first thought when I saw the thread title was an English Electric Lightning in Swedish markings 

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

7 hours ago, Bobby No Mac said:

Still not got used to them being called Lightnings. My first thought when I saw the thread title was an English Electric Lightning in Swedish markings 

Me too

[JohnT]

Just looked at the photo again but this time on the big screen.  Is it just the light or my eyes but is the grey colour under the open wing leading edge slats (ie the areas normally concealed when slats not extended) a lighter shade of grey than that on the "exposed" wing surfaces?

 

My suspicion is its the way the light is hitting the colour but it does look at little lighter in shade.  

[Black Knight]

16 hours ago, Bobby No Mac said:

. . .      My first thought when I saw the thread title was an English Electric Lightning in Swedish markings 

mmmm, another idea for a Whif    

I have several 'scrap' E.E. Lightnings (the only one, the pure one, all the rest are just . . . . not) and I could devote one to this idea  

[Britman]

Just goes to show that they can be painted something other than grey!

 

Keith 

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

10 hours ago, JohnT said:

Just looked at the photo again but this time on the big screen.  Is it just the light or my eyes but is the grey colour under the open wing leading edge slats (ie the areas normally concealed when slats not extended) a lighter shade of grey than that on the "exposed" wing surfaces?

 

My suspicion is its the way the light is hitting the colour but it does look at little lighter in shade.  

My first guess is the light as the slats deflected down into the shadow. However if you zoom in on the colors on the fuselage. There seems to be a dark grey edging to the very light grey panels ? Almost as if there is a second set of splinters in dark grey over the base grey color. 

Edited September 4, 2022 by Corsairfoxfouruncle

[JohnT]

Well spotted @Corsairfoxfouruncle

sharp eyes there. Looks like more than just a two colour paint job. 

[Black Knight]

Warning; a hi-jack

2 hours ago, Blackcat2020 said:

Well, I'm working on a Harrier in said in Swedish "forest" splinter camouflage. 

Like this?

 

[Mike]

I don't love it, but I don't hate it either

[GMK]

3 hours ago, Blackcat2020 said:

I actually quite like the scheme but, nothing will make me like the F-35

You’ll get there. Resistance is futile. 

[Sabrejet]

On 03/09/2022 at 18:21, Bobby No Mac said:

Still not got used to them being called Lightnings. My first thought when I saw the thread title was an English Electric Lightning in Swedish markings 

 

Me too: "Lightning III" might cause less confusion...

[Ben Brown]

I’ve read that the USAF pilots are calling it the”Panther.” I guess that’s cooler than “Fat Amy.” 

 

Ben

[GMK]

3 hours ago, Ben Brown said:

I’ve read that the USAF pilots are calling it the”Panther.” I guess that’s cooler than “Fat Amy.” 

 

Ben

 

From Anchorman. 60% of the time, it works every time. 

[Bobby No Mac]

Was the F22 originally earmarked to be called the Lightning II or have I misremembered this? 

[Giorgio N]

14 hours ago, Sabrejet said:

 

Me too: "Lightning III" might cause less confusion...

 

At least in the US they add a II or a III to aircraft that reuse a previous name. Nothing like that is generally done in Britain: is the Typhoon the current RAF fighter or Hawker's fighter-bomber from the '40s ? Is the Nimrod the 4-engined patrol type or the single-engined FAA biplane ? Is the Whirlwind a British derivative of the Sikorsky S-55 or a two-engined fighter ?

[Graham Boak]

There are a fair number of examples from the US too.  Just how many Corsairs preceded the A-7?  Just how many people refer to the F-4 as the Phantom II?  And even when they use only designations, judging from posts on the net, what's an F4F?  What was a B-26? 

 

The key point about all of these, and the ones you quote, is that they were not contemporary.  The user was never in doubt.    As with ships, where names are commonly re-used.  There have been a lot of Ark Royals.  More than one Scharnhorst.  Other navies also do this, but with a shorter histories and/or historically smaller fleets to get the numbers up so high.

[Giorgio N]

35 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

There are a fair number of examples from the US too.  Just how many Corsairs preceded the A-7?  Just how many people refer to the F-4 as the Phantom II?  And even when they use only designations, judging from posts on the net, what's an F4F?  What was a B-26? 

 

 

There were actually at least 3 Corsairs preceding the A-7, meaning that this type should have in fact been the Corsair IV... one situation where US manufacturers forgot to add a II to the name, as the F4U should have been the Corsair III. Or maybe the A-7 should have been the Corsair V as Vought also had an experimental fighter with the same name.

Vought was one of the few companies in the US to continuously reuse a name for their aircraft. Guess the use of the Hawk name by Curtiss was similar but weren't most Hawks somehow related ?

It would also be interesting to verify which of these were official names given by the services and which were just names given by the company: the Curtiss Wright CW.21 was known as Demon and a Demon later entered service in the USN, however the former was just a name used by the company and the type never entered US service. And of course there was a Hawker Demon

 

As for the Phantom, People may often forget it but the original Phantom was afterall quite an important type, albeit with a pretty short career, for the fact of having been the first USN proper jet fighter. The II in the F-4 name may also have been forgotten but it was clearly shown in the various official and unofficial badges related to the type.

That doesn't mean that US designations were always logical, the F-35 itself is a clear example of this since the proper designation should have been F-24.

 

35 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

 

The key point about all of these, and the ones you quote, is that they were not contemporary.  The user was never in doubt.    As with ships, where names are commonly re-used.  There have been a lot of Ark Royals.  More than one Scharnhorst.  Other navies also do this, but with a shorter histories and/or historically smaller fleets to get the numbers up so high.

 

Of course, none of these types were contemporary and there's one further thing to consider: many here discuss the Lightning name with reference to the English Electric fighter, however the US designation system would have probably not cared much about the existance of something in Britain with that name. The F-35 is a Lightning II because there was a Lightning in the US, no matter how many Lightnings may have existed in other countries.

Said that, I can't remember right off my head if there were situations with contemporary aircraft in different countries carrying the same name. The Demon could have been an example as the Hawker type was retired after the introduction of the CW.21 in service, but again the latter did not really carry the name officially.

[JohnT]

2 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

 

 

Of course, none of these types were contemporary and there's one further thing to consider: many here discuss the Lightning name with reference to the English Electric fighter, however the US designation system would have probably not cared much about the existance of something in Britain with that name. The F-35 is a Lightning II because there was a Lightning in the US, no matter how many Lightnings may have existed in other countries.

 

15 hours ago, Ben Brown said:

I’ve read that the USAF pilots are calling it the”Panther.” I guess that’s cooler than “Fat Amy.” 

 

Ben

 

Quite right Giorgio  Arado 234 "Blitz" just for starters.  There must be dozens.

 

Ben - I am always amazed at folk who think the Harrier was svelt but that the F-35 is podgy

[Graham Boak]

I don't think that there is much relationship between the various Hawk biplanes and the P-36.  There was more than one Falcon, too, IIRC.  And at least two Condors.  Of course a lot of Americans didn't use names at all, which is cheating.  But even then, DC-4 anyone?  Basically there is a distinct shortage of names, especially if you want nice aggressive ones for warplanes.  There are a lot more aircraft in history.  Something realised early in Britain when the Air Ministry introduced its categorising system, which lead to some very unaggressive names for non-fighters.  There has been some deliberate avoidance - the Meteor was to have been the Thunderbolt.

[Britman]

I just want to say, Fighting Falcon! What a mouthful,and yes I do remember that it was supposedly because Dassault claimed Falcon as copyright. This thread has no end by the way.

 

Keith 

 

 

[jarkmodels]

On 02/09/2022 at 08:35, JohnT said:

Careful.  Doing things like that could start a trend for liking the F-35 when everyone “knows” it’s hideously ugly 

 

Great pic by the way 

I must confessed that is exactly what is happening to me....I've always found the F-35 awful....a truly bad copy of the F-22, designed by someone short sided and with astigmatism ... .but after seen Tamiya's new kit, and these new schemes somehow is not too bad anymore, specially the C variant...

Edited October 18, 2022 by jarkmodels

[Ben Brown]

On 10/16/2022 at 8:11 PM, GMK said:

 

From Anchorman. 60% of the time, it works every time. 

Ah, I completely missed the reference! 

 

I have to admit, the F-35 is growing on me. 

 

Ben

[Paperback writer]

Did someone airbrush away the controversial RAM panels on the F-35A in the opening picture? The F-35As that can be seen trundling around the Lakenheath taxiways don't seem to have visible panels either. Kit designers have made a meal of these, even Tamiya seems to have been a bit heavy-handed. Very odd.