>Implying this isn't the coolest shit ever https://

>>30551532
>serves no pvrpos
>far too expensive
>no one wants it other than faggots

>>30551532
From what I understand, it can't go into flight from hover.

So what is the point?

>>30551603

>From what I understand, it can't go into flight from hover.

Why not? Just have the nozzle move into flight position.

>>30551532
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-I34dE57lc

>>30551621
It's not a harrier, it's too fat to pull it off. It can do vertical landing though.

>>30551622
Oh, and more than likely the jet's radios were cooked after that and I or one of my fellow avionics techs had to replace them.

>>30551603
>>30551645
>Morons

The standard flight profile for use on the QE class carriers is STORVL.

Going from forward flight, blended into a hover lower than the aircraft's stall speed to glide down (while still moving forward) onto the flight deck.

File: yak36.webm (1MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x360px

>>30551532
>VTOL
>the coolest shit ever
Lol.

>>30551549
>no one wants it other than faggots
I thought the Navy wanted the C model?

>>30551683
You have that shit backward and threw an R into STOVL for some reason.

F35B can take off vertically and move short distances but it can't transition to 'normal' flight from a VTO. It can STOVL with an ~400' takeoff roll and go into normal flight.

Unless you believe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MHwm0mXqls which some do.

>>30551829
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRVL

>>30551622
>>30551532
You really do not appreciate how loud that is unless you have experienced it first hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT-ob_ISOw0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOiq1ivSzzQ

Let's all pretend that the *V-22 is not the ultimate flying machine.

File: LzUqhVD.png (47KB, 359x391px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 359x391px

>>30551532
The sad thing is we have a very long way towards gundam. This is only a airplane. I will not be here in 200 years were a giant flying robot is done.

File: hawker-siddeley-p-1127.jpg (70KB, 1280x922px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1280x922px

>>30551788
>imblying

>>30551603
>>30551645
>>30551829

So I guess this never happened then:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT-ob_ISOw0

>>30552571
the sad part is the fools you called out will just blend back into the anon crowd instead of eating their words like grown ass adults.

>>30552571
>>30552741
Not that I hate the lightning or anything, but it never left hover mode during the entirety of that video. Sooooo ya'll didn't exactly prove that other guy wrong.

File: F35 inlet.png (114KB, 1000x417px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1000x417px

>>30553280

At the end, when it started banking into the turn, it's pretty clear the air inlet for the lift fan closed and the plane transitioned into regular flight.

F-35 can go supersonic after a vertical takeoff, it doesn't do it operationally because it can't have a full gas tank (and thus crap range) when it does that.

Could be used in an emergency where planes VT with a full weapons load and low fuel, then is refueled by a V-22 if runways are really not available.

>>30553280
I don't think hover mode would never let the nose pitch up that high.

>>30553625
Double negative. I don't think it would ever I mean.

>>30553280
I've personally watched it transition twice, I assure you it can be done.

>>30553831
Fuck, we've got the footage of it taking off from and landing on a helo carrier in 2011, this isn't fucking rocket science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGPHGL2gKwI

>>30554824
Thats STO -> conventional flight

The entire thing was VTO -> conventional flight.

>>30551796
UK want 138 F-35Bs.

>>30552571
stayed in hover the whole time and then camera cuts. Thank Micheal Bay.

>>30557132
You're blind.

>>30557141
next vid shows it coming in for the landing. It never goes out of hover. you should learn about angles and perspectives.

>>30557154
You should learn about how the aircraft behaves when using its lift fan.

>>30557083
138 F-35s; they've been saying they're open to the idea of a mixed A and B fleet.

>>30557132
>>30557154
see
>>30553522

You are not very good at this.

>>30557063
And? The X-35 did VTO>Conventional flight>Supersonic first try.

>>30558425
>Here's a totally unrelated video to prove it can do X

>But we were talking about Y

>BUT IT CAN DO X

F-35 vs Typhoon?

>>30558429

X in this case is Vertical Takeoff > Conventional Flight

What is Y?

What's the parts commonality between A, B, and C?

File: F-35 parts commonality.jpg (180KB, 1203x735px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1203x735px

>>30559441

Pretty bad structure wise, very common avionics wise.

>>30559642
Thanks Doc

>>30551854
Yep, I did for four years.

>>30558438
Typhoon is superior in every regard save for "stealth," which is irrelevant in a realistic 1st world vs 1st world scenario.

>>30562045
The Typhoons single advantage is that it can go faster.