Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's  
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 13720 times:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Some of the important notes:

Quote:
At that time, Griffith had taken one of the initial F-35A test aircraft to 583 KCAS (exceeding Mach 1.2). Now, as the pace of testing continues to accelerate despite earlier delays caused by an inflight dual generator failure, and problems with the integrated power package (IPP), the jet has been flown to Mach 1.61.
Quote:

The aircraft has also been flown to 9.9g – which is 0.9g beyond the operational limits.

On the stealth signature:

Quote:
The aircraft “is meeting or exceeding the low observable requirements, so we know we have a stealthy aircraft which is fantastic.”

It sounds like the F-35 can be pushed pretty hard in terms of performance. It seems like the claims that F-35 won't be able to exceed Mach 1.5 (i.e. from Sweetman) are shot to pieces.

68 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 13663 times:

But can she hang inverted with a Mig-28 in a four G negative dive?


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4524 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 13626 times:

Yes, it's very slow, by any standard, at least it's incredibly expensive though..


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 13435 times:

The US tends to understate military capability. The F-22 was often quoted at M1.6 supercruise, but was hitting M1.78 when tested.
The Janes figures often quoted tended to use those understated figures while using somewhat optimistic numbers for certain other nations hardware.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineAutothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1596 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 13431 times:

Just as comparison:

The Typhoon has reached during "real-life" tests 10,6G. It can be sustained for indefinte periods even the pilot can give speak commands through the anti G suite dragonfly.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums....php?124670-EF-Typhoon-News/page71

A Rafale pilot has flown the plane over a time of 2min at 10G.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2264 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 13416 times:

Auto, I think it's safe to say no American made aircraft will ever meet or exceed the performance of European aircraft or that of their European pilots. Why these Yanks even try is beyond me.

User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 13371 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The aircraft has also been flown to 9.9g – which is 0.9g beyond the operational limits

I think given the maturity of the program this detail is worth mentioning...

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 4):
The Typhoon has reached during "real-life" tests 10,6G

9g is the usual manoeuvre limit set for combat aircrafts, probably based on the rationale that the human body can not sustain very much in practical terms. That said the actual structure is sized against a load of 9G times an ultimate factor which in civil aviation is 1.5, and may even be greater in military aviation, which means that the structure of any combat aircraft is in principle capable of withstanding loads of about 13-14G.

I remember reading in article where a pilot from the agressor squadron in Miramar pulled its F21 to 13G to avoid a collision with an F14. I know you would probably want a source but I don't have it. Just saying that this kind of event happens more often than one thinks.



Stephane
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13297 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Some of the important notes:

Quote:
At that time, Griffith had taken one of the initial F-35A test aircraft to 583 KCAS (exceeding Mach 1.2). Now, as the pace of testing continues to accelerate despite earlier delays caused by an inflight dual generator failure, and problems with the integrated power package (IPP), the jet has been flown to Mach 1.61.
Quote:

The aircraft has also been flown to 9.9g – which is 0.9g beyond the operational limits.

On the stealth signature:

Quote:
The aircraft “is meeting or exceeding the low observable requirements, so we know we have a stealthy aircraft which is fantastic.”

It sounds like the F-35 can be pushed pretty hard in terms of performance. It seems like the claims that F-35 won't be able to exceed Mach 1.5 (i.e. from Sweetman) are shot to pieces.

All that said, many many problems exist in the F-35 program and are significant enough that DoD itself has recommended a reduction in the LRIP rate. Some of the problems are identified as "major". One of the majors is classified and I would guess (and it is a guess) that it relates to stealth. High angle of attack buffet, the helmet system, and "mission systems" are also identified as major.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ling-early-f-35-production-365933/



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 13282 times:

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 4):
A Rafale pilot has flown the plane over a time of 2min at 10G.


eek!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_Coaster

Quote:

The Euthanasia Coaster is an art concept for a steel roller coaster designed to kill its passengers...The ride's seven inversions would inflict 10 g on its passengers for 60 seconds

I know the Rafale pilot is used to the effects of g, and probably trained for this demonstrator mission specifically, and is wearing a g suit but...blimey!


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4839 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 13237 times:




Quoting flagon (Reply 6):
I remember reading in article where a pilot from the agressor squadron in Miramar pulled its F21 to 13G to avoid a collision with an F14.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thomas P. McManus
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tyler Rogoway - Hangar Seventy One Aviation Photo Works


It would be very enlightening to see the Kfir doing that.....

http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...cts/kfir-jet/images/2-kfir-jet.jpg



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineAutothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1596 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 13235 times:

Quoting flagon (Reply 6):
9g is the usual manoeuvre limit set for combat aircrafts, probably based on the rationale that the human body can not sustain very much in practical terms.

Wrong, new anti g suits like the dragon fly G-Multiplus can enable trained pilots to sustain 9g even without pressure breathing and Eurofighter pilots to fly with 10g for a indefinite time.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 13185 times:

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 10):
Quoting flagon (Reply 6):
9g is the usual manoeuvre limit set for combat aircrafts, probably based on the rationale that the human body can not sustain very much in practical terms.

Wrong, new anti g suits like the dragon fly G-Multiplus can enable trained pilots to sustain 9g even without pressure breathing and Eurofighter pilots to fly with 10g for a indefinite time.

That's not wrong, as 9G is the usual load limit against which most of fighters have been designed to so far (Typhoon may be an exception I don't know but that's not the point). This limit, whether it 7G or 9G or whatever it has to be according to the aircraft specifications, is driven by human limitations since structurally speaking there is nothing preventing the plane designer from designing the structure so that it can withstand silly accelerations like 50G, appart from the fact that this would add ridiculous and unecessary amount of weight in the airframe.

I just wanted to point out that when you see an operational limit of 9G or something quoted for a given aircraft, that does not mean it cannot be exceeded in the real life (providing that the pilot can sustain it one way or another via g-suits or seats "a la F-16" maybe) as there is additional structural margin baked into the design via an ultimate factor as mentioned in my previous post.



Stephane
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 12973 times:

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 10):
Wrong, new anti g suits like the dragon fly G-Multiplus can enable trained pilots to sustain 9g even without pressure breathing and Eurofighter pilots to fly with 10g for a indefinite time.

Why it makes the eurofighter the number one choice for airshows.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10035 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12787 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting L-188 (Reply 1):
But can she hang inverted with a Mig-28 in a four G negative dive?

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

  



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinevzlet From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 835 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 12672 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
It seems like the claims that F-35 won't be able to exceed Mach 1.5 (i.e. from Sweetman) are shot to pieces.

Mach 1.5 has indeed been met and exceeded, but not without pain:

"Finally, recent testing at Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, revealed excessive structural heating with the afterburner on for extended periods. Flight tests to speeds up to Mach 1.6 with the afterburner engaged for several minutes generated enough heat to damage the horizontal tail (peeling and bubbling of coating about the size of a fist). There was also some degradation of thermal panels in the engine. While solutions are being evaluated, the program office has established aircraft operations limits, reducing the top speed to Mach 1.0 with afterburner operations limited to 1-2 minutes. In order to get full afterburner performance back in the aircraft, it may be necessary to change the material and or add structure to the tail."

(From page 18 of the F-35 Concurrency Review at http://www.pogo.org/resources/nation...y-quick-look-review-20111129.html)



"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 12634 times:

Quoting vzlet (Reply 14):
Mach 1.5 has indeed been met and exceeded, but not without pain:

Excellent news. They found and issue during flight testing, you know, what they are supposed to do, and will soon have the problem corrected.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 12571 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 15):
Excellent news. They found and issue during flight testing, you know, what they are supposed to do, and will soon have the problem corrected.

When in doubt, rationalize.    This is still a deeply troubled program.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3560 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 12462 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 15):
They found and issue during flight testing

Once again an obvious engineering miscalculation that should have been identified in computer modeling is found in flight test... so how many airframes will require extensive rebuild.

I'ts time to stop production entirely until all the miscalculations are identified, resolved and tested. what good will 60+ birds waiting for rebuild do anybody.


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4839 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12418 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 17):
I'ts time to stop production entirely until all the miscalculations are identified, resolved and tested. what good will 60+ birds waiting for rebuild do anybody.

Apart from price and offset arrangements, could that be the reason why Japan's defense ministry is holding out on making an announcement and confirming its choice?

.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...or-f-x-requirement-reports-365971/

Quote:
"Several major Japanese publications cited sources as saying that Tokyo favoured the F-35A in the 40-aircraft deal, and suggested that the decision will be officially announced on 16 December. The deal is expected to value $8 billion, they said.

Japan's defence ministry declined to confirm when an announcement will be made, adding: 'the government has not yet decided the type of aircraft'."



Of course, the reports did not mention which year.  



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1548 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12419 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 15):
Excellent news. They found and issue during flight testing, you know, what they are supposed to do, and will soon have the problem corrected.

You must be joking. "Several minutes" of afterburner use that may end up forcing you to add *structure* to the tail. You call that a routine oversight?...sigh...

In the words of connies4ever: deeply troubled. The quicker the program is put out of its misery the better for everyone.

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12352 times:

I could easily understand if the programme was troubled by various software and system issues. However the amount of fatigue and crack issues they seem to have to deal with at this stage of the programme still amazes me as nowadays you would expect this kind of things to be a lot more under control, especially with the experience and the lessons learnt from the F22 which I believe uses roughly the same airframe design phylosphy (internal parts metallic, external parts composite wherever possible).
I guess the complexity of the programme does not help, the F35B variant alone with all the moveables everywhere must be quite challenging....



Stephane
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12295 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 17):
Once again an obvious engineering miscalculation
Quoting faro (Reply 19):
You must be joking.

Oh, here we go again, people who think they are smarter or can do a better job than the engineers at Lockheed. There hasn't been ONE single aircraft in production since the beginning of time that hasn't had issues during testing. I guess they should have cancelled the Raptor program when it landed wheels up. Somehow, the anti-jsf fanboi's think the F35 should be PERFECT after the first rivet is installed.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 12230 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 21):
Oh, here we go again, people who think they are smarter or can do a better job than the engineers at Lockheed. There hasn't been ONE single aircraft in production since the beginning of time that hasn't had issues during testing. I guess they should have cancelled the Raptor program when it landed wheels up. Somehow, the anti-jsf fanboi's think the F35 should be PERFECT after the first rivet is installed.

How long since FF ? How many prototype, SDD, and LRIP a/c produced and flying ? And there are still so many issues that the DoD itself is recommending cutting back production so the problems can (possibly) be sorted out. The 'secret' problem we don't know. So, as Rummy would have said, it's an unknown unknown.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 12226 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 22):
And there are still so many issues that the DoD itself is recommending cutting back production so the problems can (possibly) be sorted out

You say this like it's a bad thing.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 12208 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 23):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 22):
And there are still so many issues that the DoD itself is recommending cutting back production so the problems can (possibly) be sorted out

You say this like it's a bad thing.

After this long long period of testing, and now using production a/c, yes, it is a bad thing. It's an indicator that the overall design is possibly not robust, and that the production process is not well controlled, if controlled at all.

This was supposed to be a "super fighter", best in brand, produced by the smartest brains money could buy (money apparently not being an object in this exercise), and using the best computer-aided design and production tools available.

And what is the result to date ? Oh, well, near the afterburner there is evidence of heat damage. Who would have ever thought surfaces near the AB would get hot ? The helmet system not working. High AoA buffet, high AoA ability being touted as one of the a/c's strengths. And of course the "classified" problem - whatever that might be.

Where/when does this end and how much more will civilians, who foot the military bill, be soaked for ? {Apologies for my dangling participle}



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
25 ThePointblank : Every past fighter has had issues. The F-15 had buffet problems until the wing tips were raked. The F-22 had software and thermal problems. These issu
26 prebennorholm : I think that few people realize the magnitude of work which goes into developing a modern fighter which really has a performance edge on existing pla
27 HaveBlue : Thank you for a great counterpoint to the naysayers. Any program is going to have its share of difficulties, but all the more so when pushing the edg
28 kanban : Maybe it's the pot calling the kettle black... I have 35 years in the business... if your profile age is correct, I wonder where the "knowledge" come
29 L-188 : Take a look at some of the photos of the F-100. All of them pretty much have heat discoloration on the fuselage forward of the empanage from the engi
30 ThePointblank : Indeed. Finding cracks during testing is normal and is to be expected. If you aren't finding cracks during testing, then you have heavily overbuilt t
31 kanban : some at the envelope extremes yes, those within the "really safe" end of the envelope no... the bulkhead cracking is the latter, not the former. We a
32 Powerslide : Nothing is built perfect the first time. This is why the first F35 off the line didn't go straight into service. This program is no different than an
33 connies4ever : Quite. And none of these a/c were designed using CAD and numerical windtunnels. Edge issues will often bite you and that's what the two tools aforeme
34 GDB : At least there have been no instances of the pilot's O2 supply being lethally deficient, several years AFTER entering service. It's the same with the
35 par13del : Here's the issue I have with this principle being applied wholesale to all new programs. We are supposed to be in the age of computers when complex s
36 kanban : Look nobody is saying items don't crop up in a test program, what I'm saying is some of the problems in this program should not have cropped up.. The
37 L-188 : I think the guys from Saab might disagree
38 Post contains images connies4ever : Got me on that one. I missed it in the list.
39 prebennorholm : Ha ha! And he sure knows what he is talking about. That same Bud Anderson, throughout his professional career, when he didn't fly an A model, then it
40 checksixx : I guess I'm slow in the mornings...since no F-22 has landed wheels up (as far as I know), what is the meaning behind the statement?
41 Post contains links GST : One has in flight testing after computer problems affecting flight controls. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faB5bIdksi8
42 cmf : I think you have unrealistic expectations. Computer designs takes away a lot of uncertainty but not all. They have provided all of that. But then it
43 KC135TopBoom : I guess that is why Europeans bought so many F-86s, F-104s, F-4s, and F-16s? France also bought several F-100s. Also, what is the actual kill ratio o
44 KiwiRob : You can say whatever you like to Powerslide but he's the biggest fanboy I've ever seen, this program could be canned and he would still sing it prais
45 zanl188 : Not to mention the F-8s...
46 474218 : That area you say is "heat discoloration" is in fact titanium. Titanium was used because of the heat produced by the afterburner.
47 GDB : British and French veterans of Suez might disagree - an action (rightly) stopped by US pressure. Then the RN and RAF pilots in 1982, even with aircra
48 Post contains images David L : And let's not forget the UK's contribution to Top Gun (the real thing, not the movie) - "the RN shows the US how to fly to the edge of the envelope".
49 Arniepie : Common, let's put things in perspective here, The kill ratio of both US and European pilots is next to negligible post WWII and Korea, fact is that m
50 faro : I'm really having trouble rationalising this. If the heating problem ends up needing only material changes that should not be too much of an issue. B
51 474218 : There was never a material change! The aft body, that section aft of the fuselage break used for removing and replacing the engine, was titanium on t
52 YTZ : Ummm. Falklands.
53 YTZ : These stats are nice and all and the F-35 has to meet specs. But the truth of the matter is that, if you're getting an F-35 into a turning fight, you'
54 Post contains images HaveBlue : That was probably true until the Blackbird, and the Blackbirds 93% titanium is a record that will almost surely never be broken.
55 474218 : If you mean the SR-71 (it had no official name) I am very familiar with the amount of titanium used. After my four months of Airframe Repair (sheet m
56 faro : I was in fact referring to the F-35; reply 14 that I quote refers to the F-35. Faro
57 Post contains images HaveBlue : I'm pretty sure everyone here knows what I'm referring to when I say Blackbird...
58 Post contains images kanban : A Beatles song .. Right
59 checksixx : Err...no, you're mistaken then...I'm afraid you're confusing a YF-22 with a production F-22. It was simply a prototype. A production F-22 is very dif
60 Arniepie : Wiki is quoting 50 Aircraft lost, including 6 lost MiG29 in air combat, most (not all) of the others destroyed on the ground like in this instance "A
61 Post contains links ThePointblank : More information: it appears that the Pentagon has probably inflated the costs for the structural modifications on existing aircraft by get this: 75%!
62 cmf : Pretty poor article using very poor arguments to make blind followers fight for the cause. "Squeezing the F-35 program like toothpaste makes no sense
63 ThePointblank : Not necessarily, it means development costs are amortized over a larger number of units. The B-2 is the prime example; the per unit cost ballooned, w
64 faro : Agreed but total cost program cost remains the bottom line. A production dollar remains just as weighty as a R&D dollar. By producing more aircra
65 gigneil : That isn't true... at least not in most accepted accounting principals now in use. The methods for accounting each are separate and the R&D can b
66 rheite : Outside of the developement issues which any sort of new gen platform faces, I can tell you that in so far as the USMC is concerned, a replacement for
67 cmf : Absolutely necessarily. Let's say R&D is 1,000. Let's say each unit is 100. Producing 10 will cost you 2,000 meaning 200 per unit. Producing 20 w
68 Post contains links rheite : The F-35B is doing quite well, and other than the procurement questions, is on track. I'd be curious if the heating issues are related to the other va
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's
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...
F-35 Combat Skills: "Between F-16 And F/A-18" posted Thu Mar 5 2009 09:35:55 by AC788
F-16 MACH/IAS Indicator Type And Model Name? posted Tue Feb 3 2009 09:28:04 by Wardialer
F 22 And F 35: Computer Hacked? posted Sun Mar 30 2008 08:09:36 by Mortyman
MiG-35 And Su-47 posted Sun Apr 6 2003 06:08:57 by Charleslp
AirForce 747 Doing Touch And Goes All Day In TUL posted Fri Mar 21 2003 20:27:06 by TechRep
Difference Between Su-35 And Su-37 posted Fri Sep 7 2001 13:31:42 by Gdarm
SpaceX Goes To ISS - COTS2/3 Launch Date posted Fri Dec 9 2011 10:57:55 by ZANL188
GE And Rolls-Royce Give Up On F136 JSF Engine posted Fri Dec 2 2011 07:57:16 by aviationweek
First And Only UK F-35B Rolled Out posted Tue Nov 22 2011 18:42:00 by yanqui67
Air Force One And President Obama At NCE For G-20 posted Tue Nov 1 2011 05:50:21 by MadameConcorde
Difference Between Su-35 And Su-37 posted Fri Sep 7 2001 13:31:42 by Gdarm
AFM: F-35 Can Supercruise posted Sat Nov 3 2012 14:58:39 by ThePointblank
Amazing SR-71 Article (and Photo) posted Fri Oct 12 2012 18:12:26 by 9V-SPJ

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format