Iconic Aircraft Aviation Forum

by **Dan4th** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 11:20 am

Something we'll be seeing a LOT of for
the next 30-plus years:

Heck, they could still be in service when
I'm in my NINETIES!!!!!!

Dan4th

by **Saracenman** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 11:44 am

it's a hugely impressive machine, but still not as versatile as the venerable Harrier

sm

by **Dan4th** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 11:54 am

Don't forget: Two Other Versions......

Naval and Air Force....

They will be made in the Thousands!

Danf.

by **Saracenman** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:08 pm

do we know if Murkinland has allowed we Brits access to all the proper avionics and associated software stuff yet? ~x(

shame we didn't classify OUR lift fan as "Need to Know" - sometimes the "Special Relationship" looks like something of a one-way street

sm

by **Dan4th** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:16 pm

I think that all was Tempest in Teapot stuff
and is all smoothed-over now. RAF pilots
give it lots of "Thumbs Upses" so far.....

I guess the capabilities of all three versions
are still being plumbed/measured/evaluated.
Too soon to compare vs Harrier, though....

Display appearances next summer in UK???????

Danf.

by **RLN** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:36 pm

We'll have to get used to it I suppose, but ugly. The VTOL arrangement is far too complicated - give it a few years in the desert, and what is with the prolapsed arse? :ymsick:

by **Xplumberlives** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:20 pm

Dan4th wrote:Heck, they could still be in service when
I'm in my NINETIES!!!!!!Dan4th

Heck they might even be in service over here by the time you reach your nineties! =))

by **Mayfly** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:24 pm

thats very optimistic of you XP

by **Xplumberlives** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:31 pm

Mayfly wrote:thats very optimistic of you XP

I wont be holding my breath, the carriers might still be cancelled and then we would have no reason to replace the LEAPING HEAPS!

by **Saracenman** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:34 pm

the leaping heaps that Whitehall said, in their infinite wisdom, that the RN didn't need - and then went and announced two new carriers and a replacement for the Harrier, AFTER giving them all to the RAF?

sm

by **Mags** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:57 pm

Some good old British music to go with the vid!

by **Mackrick** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 4:54 pm

Won't be in service during my time in the mob me thinks.

by **Pujgnie** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:25 pm

It's Pig ugly that's for sure

. Never have liked it's shape from the outset. That downward Thrust vectoring nozzle reminds me of a Dragonfly laying it's eggs.

Is it not cheaper to upgrade the Typhoon ? (I'm sure if they beefed up the undercarriage and put on an arrestor hook... it would be capable of Carrier deployment)

by **Saracenman** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:36 pm

already had that debate - here

sm

by **Pujgnie** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:40 pm

Saracenman wrote:already had that debate - here

sm

Ta.. thought I had commented on it before

by **Xplumberlives** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:06 pm

Pujgnie wrote:
Saracenman wrote:already had that debate - here
sm

Ta.. thought I had commented on it before

Memory going?

by **Ducati Boy** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:40 pm

Dan4th wrote:Don't forget: Two Other Versions......

Naval and Air Force....

They will be made in the Thousands!

Danf.

Still can't see why you yanks need two engines to do VTOL and go supersonic. Russians tried it it didnt work.

We had it designed in 1963 Hawker P1154, supersonic variant of Kestral/Harrier family. B-)

by **Wedgy** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:15 pm

Impressive, but not very sexy is it?

by **Dan4th** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:26 pm

Well, maybe it's like the girl who's a
little plain but who turns out to be
great in bed and a fantastic, loyal
wife and companion?

Dunno. Too early to tell........

Danf.

by **Saracenman** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:29 pm

yeah but girls like that usually cost shed-loads before you get 'em in the sack to find out, by which point it's too late! =))

sm

by **Dan4th** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:31 pm

Saracenman wrote:by which point it's too late! sm

Fer Whut?

D.

by **Saracenman** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:36 pm

to replace them with a racier, more exciting model

by **Mayfly** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:48 pm

oh SM you do have a lot ot learn :))

by **Dan4th** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:14 am

Saracenman wrote:to replace them with a racier, more exciting MODEL

I concur, Pammy. Not a LICK of SENSE in that boy!!!!!!

:o)

Danf.

Iconic Aircraft Aviation Forum

Get Used To It:::::::::::

Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Re: Get Used To It:::::::::::

Who is online