Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots  
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1551 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 13330 times:

And according to an USMC test pilot with the F-35 programme, the flight performance envelope is similar to the legacy F/A-18, but better in acceleration.

Quote:
The F-35 program is also making headway in clearing the flight envelope to begin training at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. There have been few surprises, Kelly said.

Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35's performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-Management diagrams, which display an aircraft's energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope.

"The E-M diagrams are very similar between the F-35B, F-35C and the F/A-18. There are some subtle differences in maximum turn rates and some slight differences in where corner airspeeds are exactly," Kelly said.

Thomas, who is also an F/A-18 pilot and a graduate of the Navy's Top Gun program and the Marines' Weapons and Tactics Instructor Course, agreed that all three variants should be lethal in the within-visual-range fight.

And according to publicly released documentation, this is exactly where they had hoped performance would be; F/A-18 level (F-16 level was the bare minimum). And since the F/A-18 has better low speed maneuverability compared to the F-16, it means that the F-35 will be a handful in a dogfight after you factor in the improved acceleration.

47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 13275 times:

BUT IT IS 16NM SHORT OF ITS RANGE GOALS CANCEL IT NOW!


lol, joking at the expense of all the F-35 haters. (16nm iirc, dont quote me on it)

So, Legacy Hornet maneuverability, double the range, stealth, and bleeding edge avionics... over priced, but the best thing on the block in its class.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 13166 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 1):
So, Legacy Hornet maneuverability, double the range, stealth, and bleeding edge avionics... over priced, but the best thing on the block in its class.

And a 100 percent loss of the airplane and probably the pilot, when one engine is out in contrast to the F18...

Just imagine an engine loss during take-off by catapult on a carrier...
I really never understood why, besides the cost savings, the navy opted for a single engine aircraft type.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 13106 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
And according to an USMC test pilot with the F-35 programme, the flight performance envelope is similar to the legacy F/A-18, but better in acceleration.

According to the latest AIR International, British test pilot Bill (?) Wilson, "manoeverability comparable to F-16, acceleration on t/o and climb out very good". I'm at work right now so I'll have to check and get you a fair use quote. There has long been a suspicion that the F-35 wouldn't manoevre all that well, presumably due to high wing loading.

The issue is on the stands now, has a 48 pg insert on the F-35. Looks great, if you believe all the stuff that amounts to advertising, since it comes mainly from compromised sources (i.e., they work for those that make the a/c or systems).



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2006 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 13075 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 2):
I really never understood why, besides the cost savings, the navy opted for a single engine aircraft type.

   Well, the Navy have been flying single engine fighters for a long time before they got into the twin.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 2):

Just imagine an engine loss during take-off by catapult on a carrier...

Just imagine trying to land back on to a carrier with one engine (for a twin that is). Have this ever been done?

bikerthai

[Edited 2011-05-18 06:27:28]


Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2090 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12917 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 4):
Just imagine trying to land back on to a carrier with one engine (for a twin that is). Have this ever been done?

See that's what I've asked several times over the years on here and never got a good answer. My question wasn't so much about returning to the carrier but more general as in how many times has that 2nd engine really saved the day?



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6633 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12901 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 1):
BUT IT IS 16NM SHORT OF ITS RANGE GOALS CANCEL IT NOW!

Wasn't the original spec 100NM more, so in effect it's 116NM less than originally claimed, now it's 16NM less than the figure which they revised downwards.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3211 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12874 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 6):
Quoting Oroka (Reply 1):
BUT IT IS 16NM SHORT OF ITS RANGE GOALS
Wasn't the original spec 100NM more,



Oroka has the post noted "iirc" well you didn't, the actual short fall is 106NM..

while that article is an impressive piece, have you ever heard a test pilot say otherwise?...


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12860 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 6):
Quoting Oroka (Reply 1):
BUT IT IS 16NM SHORT OF ITS RANGE GOALS CANCEL IT NOW!

Wasn't the original spec 100NM more, so in effect it's 116NM less than originally claimed, now it's 16NM less than the figure which they revised downwards.

It's all about how the requirement is phrased, and what "allowances" there are.  
Quoting kanban (Reply 7):
while that article is an impressive piece, have you ever heard a test pilot say otherwise?...


Indeed. When you're flying the newest, shiniest, and most expensive jet ever, it's obviously the best. Especially if you want to keep your job.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 12684 times:

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 5):
See that's what I've asked several times over the years on here and never got a good answer. My question wasn't so much about returning to the carrier but more general as in how many times has that 2nd engine really saved the day?

I really do not know if a landing on a carrier with one remaining engine is possible, but i know that with no engine remaining it is not...

With one engine still running the crew has a much higher chance to save their owns and the airplane.
This happened in germany several times with tornados and phantoms.

If the carrier is near a coast for example, an airfield could be used for landing with one engine instead of the carrier.
And if not, everybody would have much more time to organize a safe rescue of the crew if they decide to leave the airplane.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2006 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12633 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 9):
With one engine still running the crew has a much higher chance to save their owns and the airplane.

I would contend that with one engine on a two engine jet, the pilot would have a better chance to save him/herself by ejecting near the carrier and get picked up by the helicopter than by trying to land at greater risk of hitting the carrier, killing himself and endangering those on the carrier.

With the one engine, it would give the pilot a better chance to get back to the carrier . . . I give you that.

For countries like Canada and Australia where the distance between airports are great, two engines are always a plus.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 12570 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 10):
For countries like Canada and Australia where the distance between airports are great, two engines are always a plus.

Can't speak for Australia, but for Canada, two engines aren't such a necessity as people make it out to be. All this non sense about "patrolling the vast arctic without available runways" is utter garbage. I'm not getting into specifics, but up north our jets never get too far from the shore, be it Alaska, Yukon or Nunavut. They don't fly around wasting gas, tracking bird migrations. We have NORAD and radar sites for first detection. Even with 30 year old engine technology, 99.9% of the time a complete engine failure is not going to happen.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 12478 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 11):
99.9% of the time a complete engine failure is not going to happen.

And if there is a failure, there is a good chance that it is something that effects both engines.



Back to the 16nm thing. Original range was 690nm, revised required range is 590nm, current estimated range is 584nm, so I was wrong, the difference is 6nm (regardless of what the original range requirements were, 590 is the current requirement). The Super Hornet is advertised as 500nm WITH 3 external tanks (not sure what the new CFTs will add), but imagine what the F-35 will do with drop tanks when stealth is not needed (can we skip the OMG crap slung under the wings kills the stealth comments?)


User currently offlineB595 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2009, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 12433 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 4):
Just imagine trying to land back on to a carrier with one engine (for a twin that is). Have this ever been done?

Actually, a single-engine carrier landing was successfully performed just a month ago:

"The pilot was able to land with one engine before the Hornet became engulfed in flame, the Navy said in a news release."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...another-f-18-catches-fire-carrier/

Granted, the F18 engines are very close to the longitudinal axis, which probably makes single-engine flying easier.


User currently offlinearniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 12330 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 11):
Can't speak for Australia, but for Canada, two engines aren't such a necessity as people make it out to be.

Not that I don't think that the JSF will be a fine state of the art program which could work great for the the Canadian Air Command, but wasn't having 2 engines one of the demands in the NFA program that ultimately lead to the selection of the CF18 ?
I clearly remind reading this in an article about our (B/NL/NO/DK) selection process that lead to the 4 nations going for the F16 while the main reason the Canadians went for F17 -> F18 was exactly the 2 engines setup.

Something to do with their horrible experience which lead to the loss of more than 100 CF104, considerably more than contempory frames like the F5 and the Voodoo.



[edit post]
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5609 posts, RR: 45
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 12260 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Have been thinking about the single V twin economics for a while now.
For the purposes of the argument I am going to leave crew ejection/survival out of the discussion(not saying it is not important, it most certainly is).

Looking at attrition rates, how does the F/A-18A-D compare to the F-16?
I accept there are different operating environments.

-Would a carrier based F-16 suffer greater losses in service than Hornets?

-Would USAF operated F/A-18 be a more survivable or recoverable platform than F-16?

The big question I guess is, does, over the life time of a large fleet--many hundreds in the case of the USA , hundred or so in the case of AUS or CAN, the aquisition/mx/operating cost of a twin engined platform outweigh the attrition costs of a similar single engined platform?



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 12244 times:

As an aside on engine failures its interesing to note that on RAF/RN Harriers I believe the ram turbine which was installed to allow semi-controlled landings in the event of engine failure were removed to save weight and the pilots instructed that they were expected to eject rather than try to save the aircraft in that event. The RAF/RN firmly of the opinion that the pilot was worth more than the aircraft. (maybe that was when the Harriers were old though   )

On the single v twin argument, all the data is there from years back. In each case with the USN a single engined fighter was replaced by a twin engined fighter, it became a basic specification:

A7 replaced by F/A 18
F8 replaced by F4 then F14.

The A7 and F4 would have flown side by side for most of the F4's carrier career, engine related attrition data should be available somewhere.

I think it was universally accepted that a twin has a higher (but nowhere near double) margin of safety than a single in all operations. There are complications in comparing attrition rate, a catastopic failure of the engine (like used to happen with the F14) is likely to damage enough other systems to bring down the aircraft even if it didn't take out the other engine in a close spaced config (F4,F15,F18). With wide spaced engines like the F14 you were left with potentially large asymmetrical thrust depending on the timing of the failure.

IIRC max landing weights of current USN twins are based on single engine wave off requirements rather than just landing stresses so single engine landings are not only feasible but I believe are part of the training regime. (I may be wrong on this or it may have changed but I think I recall single engine recoveries being part and parcel of 'Blue Water' operations, orders to eject rather than recover might be in vogue now). Also I believe climb out after the cat stroke on a single engine was also a big factor in carrier approval.

Again, in the Civil world engine failure rates were studied in depth when the move from 4 engined to 2 engined transatlantic airlines was accepted with the reliability and power available from modern fans proving more than up to the job.

I would expect (hope? especially since they have stupidly canceled the second engine) that the F-35 engines will prove to have reliability beyond the GE engined F16's even.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 12002 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 8):
Indeed. When you're flying the newest, shiniest, and most expensive jet ever, it's obviously the best.


The F-35 is far from the most expensive jet ever?


User currently offlinearniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11914 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 17):
The F-35 is far from the most expensive jet ever?

Maybe not the most expensive but it's starting to get pretty close to it.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Quote:
With Christine Fox of the Pentagon's Cost Accounting and Program Evaluation (CAPE) group telling the committee that its per-aircraft cost estimate for the F-35 has held steady at $95 million ($113 million in FY11 dollars) since 2008, the "sticker shock" factor at the hearing was reserved for the $1 trillion sustainment-cost estimate .

Several of the senators' questions indicated a growing concern (okay, horror) over the estimated sustainment costs, not assuaged by the responses of the CAPE's Fox or GAO's Sullivan. While it should be possible to reduce the cost of repairables and contract support, Fox doubted they could get f-35 sustainment cost "down to legacy' costs. Sullivan labelled sustainment costs the progam's biggest challenge.



[edit post]
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 11867 times:

Quoting arniepie (Reply 14):
Not that I don't think that the JSF will be a fine state of the art program which could work great for the the Canadian Air Command, but wasn't having 2 engines one of the demands in the NFA program that ultimately lead to the selection of the CF18 ?

No. The CF18 turned out to be a better overall performer than the F16, which was its main competitor.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 789 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 11831 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 19):
The CF18 turned out to be a better overall performer than the F16, which was its main competitor.


People forget how much the F-16 has changed over the years. The F-18 had BVR capability and a slew of A2G weapons from the start which was only added or refit to later versions of the F-16.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 12):
Back to the 16nm thing. Original range was 690nm, revised required range is 590nm, current estimated range is 584nm, so I was wrong, the difference is 6nm (regardless of what the original range requirements were, 590 is the current requirement). The Super Hornet is advertised as 500nm WITH 3 external tanks (not sure what the new CFTs will add), but imagine what the F-35 will do with drop tanks when stealth is not needed (can we skip the OMG crap slung under the wings kills the stealth comments?)


Looking at the documents PointBlank linked there are two figures given, threshold and objective. The threshold is the must reach figure and the objective being the optimum.

Overall this is great news for the program! The F-18 is a great WVR fighter and if you combine the F-18 handling with 9G capability higher up the EM scale the F-35A will be a formidable WVR aircraft.


User currently onlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1017 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 11772 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 20):
Quoting Powerslide (Reply 19):
The CF18 turned out to be a better overall performer than the F16, which was its main competitor.


People forget how much the F-16 has changed over the years. The F-18 had BVR capability and a slew of A2G weapons from the start which was only added or refit to later versions of the F-16.

Not Really....

"People Forget" ... That the F-18 (YF-17) lost to the F-16 (YF-16) in the USAF Lightweight Fighter Program in 1974.

So, Basically... They both had access to the same weapons at the same time....

The F-16A/B was introduced in 1978, The F-18A/B in 1983... In 1984 the F-16C/D went into full production with again the same BVR weapons available to the F-18...

Regards



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1551 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 11700 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 21):
Not Really....

"People Forget" ... That the F-18 (YF-17) lost to the F-16 (YF-16) in the USAF Lightweight Fighter Program in 1974.

So, Basically... They both had access to the same weapons at the same time....

The F-16A/B was introduced in 1978, The F-18A/B in 1983... In 1984 the F-16C/D went into full production with again the same BVR weapons available to the F-18...

Regards

Nope.

The decision to go with the CF-18 occurred in 1980. During the selection process, the Air Force was adamant about having BVR missile capability. F/A-18 at the time of the decision had BVR capability right from the start. On the F-16, it was still in the mockup stage.

At the time, the F/A-18 offered the right mix of capabilities, performance, price, and industrial benefits package that made it attractive.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 789 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 11694 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 21):
Not Really....

"People Forget" ... That the F-18 (YF-17) lost to the F-16 (YF-16) in the USAF Lightweight Fighter Program in 1974.

So, Basically... They both had access to the same weapons at the same time....

The F-16A/B was introduced in 1978, The F-18A/B in 1983... In 1984 the F-16C/D went into full production with again the same BVR weapons available to the F-18...

Regards

The CF-18 competition was decided in 1980 with the tender cut-off date of 1st Feb 1978. Blk 15 F-16s which had BVR capabilities and a significantly expanded A2G load weren't coming off the production lines until 1982. Now whether the Canadians were given the option of an AIM-7 equipped F-16 is not immediately clear and I am happy to be proven otherwise but as far each airframe offered for the competition are concerned the F-18 had the greater weapons capabilities.

I agree that by the time the Canadians received their aircraft the F-16 probably had comparable systems and equipment but at tender cut-off this probably wasn't the case. They also had a good history of operating Lockheed aircraft and had a light fighter in the CF-5 already in service but still chose the McDD option.

...Beat me to it PointBlank

[Edited 2011-05-19 21:55:16]

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3320 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 11694 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 21):
"People Forget" ... That the F-18 (YF-17) lost to the F-16 (YF-16) in the USAF Lightweight Fighter Program in 1974.

The F18 is quite a bit different than the YF-17 despite the looks. Nevermind the current "F18" is a new plane with a few old bits left near the cockpit and a F18 look to it.

Truth be told, Does a single person here think that Boeing couldn't deliver F18's with a little better manuverablity, and longer range with ONE HUNDERD MILLION DOLLARS PER FRAME to put into the program? Thats the stupid bit. Might not get your VSTOL varient, but you certainly could replace the 2000+ F35 frames with a "updated" F18 for less money and get superior performance.


25 ThePointblank : You are making the critical mistake most people make in regards to the F-35; you are looking at the F-35 focused on the platform, while in the real w
26 MCIGuy : The F-16 turns better than the C/D Hornet. Combine F-16 maneuverability with L.O. stuff and a powerful radar and it should be quite a jet.[Edited 2011
27 Ozair : Given that the USAF, USN and USMC all agreed that the F-16 would be the baseline and the F-18 the goal they seem to disagree with you. It is also a b
28 Post contains links mffoda : Loren B. Thompson @ the Lexington institute has a funny take on the reporting of the F-35... http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/pe...-billion-on-music-
29 DEVILFISH : Or pour that money on the F-15SE Silent Eagle and integrate all those bleeding edge systems into it.....you not only get a bona fide air superiority
30 ThePointblank : How much would it cost? For the baseline Silent Eagle configuration, Boeing was asking for a price of around $100 million dollars each (sans weapons,
31 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : Remember that giving the F-15SE what the F-35 has means not putting in all the Eagle previously had. And since all those systems have already been de
32 Oroka : Ohhh, dont under estimate how much it would cost to integrate a new avionics and warfare suite into an airframe. Why use a F-15SE then? Why not use a
33 Post contains links ThePointblank : You still have to integrate and test the systems to see if they would work in an older platform. On the F-15SE platform, Boeing hasn't given much in
34 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Not underestimating....just saying it would be much less than if everything were to be developed from scratch. Because this is just a hypothetical ex
35 ThePointblank : Considering what they are planning to roll into F-22 from F-35 is essentially capability that was cut out of F-22 for cost savings (DAS, a helmet mou
36 DEVILFISH : Would be very interesting to see what Boeing would do were the USAF so much as hint they're ordering $10B worth of F-15 Silent Eagles. One still need
37 ThePointblank : The USAF has essentially bet the bank on F-35. The USMC and USN, not so much, but the USAF will never order another Eagle or Falcon ever again. Howev
38 Post contains images MCIGuy : There's a reason the F-16 won the LWF competition despite the F-17's twin engine redundancy.
39 ThePointblank : The F/A-18 is more maneuverable at lower speeds (which is a function of the carrier capability requirement). Not to mention the F/A-18 can sustain hi
40 bikerthai : I thought the reason why the F-22 production was cut short because it was too expensive. And now, the F-35 is heading in the same direction, regardle
41 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : Let's see about that..... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15-specs.htm So much so that they're feverishly concocting a fix.
42 Post contains links ThePointblank : Can F-15 take those weapons and fly supersonic? Nope, it can't due to aerodynamic issues. Ahem: So they are talking about adding a couple pounds of f
43 bikerthai : This is a question for those who actually flew past M1.0. I thought that conventional wisdom recommends that M 1.0 is not a place to be cruising. Too
44 Ozair : In the hornet I never noticed the transition nor felt any buffering but rarely floated around M1.0. I have no idea why the LWF competition decided in
45 arniepie : Sorry to be so nozy but are you saying that you are/where a pilot in the RAAF ? If so, i'm officially jealous.
46 Ozair : Lol, no not a pilot. One of the contracts I completed for defence required me to get a significant number of back-seat hours.
47 MCIGuy : Because it's maneuverability is being compared to legacy fighters. I pointed out earlier that if it's maneuverability is the same as the F-16 combine
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Test Pilots: Military Or Civil? posted Mon Jan 28 2008 16:19:59 by Flighty
Airborne Laser To Test-fire In Flight posted Mon Jan 29 2007 22:44:44 by JakeOrion
F-35 Software To Be At Least 4 Years Late posted Tue Mar 15 2011 10:18:03 by kanban
Canada Commits To F-35 posted Fri Jul 16 2010 02:14:59 by connies4ever
Thunderbirds To Change Up Performance posted Thu Mar 12 2009 10:52:02 by USAir1489
Road Blocks To Israeli F-35 posted Sat Feb 28 2009 10:21:52 by LAXintl
Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08 posted Sat Dec 6 2008 00:23:59 by KC135TopBoom
F-16 Adv. As Alternative To F-35 posted Sun Oct 26 2008 10:27:28 by TexL1649
Putin Selling SU-35 To Libya posted Thu Apr 17 2008 00:30:01 by Beaucaire
Netherlands To Buy Two JSF Test Aircraft posted Sat Mar 1 2008 14:27:26 by DEVILFISH

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format