| Revision as of 21:46, 18 July 2011 editDave1185 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,447 editsm commented← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:59, 19 July 2011 edit undoHcobb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers14,752 edits →Mach Numbers and Spare Tires: 4-wheel tricycle arrangement.Next edit → | ||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
| :::::Can he tell the difference between a jar of black eye pea from that of the mexican jumping bean? We'll see. --<small>] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:black">]</span></sup></small> 21:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC) | :::::Can he tell the difference between a jar of black eye pea from that of the mexican jumping bean? We'll see. --<small>] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:black">]</span></sup></small> 21:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| The current article is incorrect. The spare tire is just as useful for takeoffs and landings on aircraft carriers. ] (]) 02:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == More criticism of Lockheed and the F-35 from John McCain et al == | == More criticism of Lockheed and the F-35 from John McCain et al == | ||
Revision as of 02:59, 19 July 2011
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II at the Reference desk. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 17, 2006. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Airshow
The F-35 isn't a dedicated airshow aircraft like the Eurofighter or F-22 so let's leave off on this until an actual event and date is mentioned by a RS please.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/04/f-35s-1st-air-show-appearance.html
Hcobb (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds right. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Going Up!
No, not the aircraft (that would depend on it actually flying), but instead...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/12/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSTRE74B2EM20110512 The cost of new weapons usually goes down as manufacturing matures, but Lockheed submitted a bid that was about $7 million higher per plane than in the last contract, sources familiar with the program told Reuters last week.
But at least the performance is going down.
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2011/05/f-35_sar.html
Combat radius for model:
- F-35A 584nm
- F-35B 469nm
- F-35C 615nm
Hcobb (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Mach Numbers and Spare Tires
The Mach number is wrong. If the F-35 has a maximum speed of 1935 kph, then, provided it flies at high altitude, the Mach number is ~1.8 cause the divisor ist not ~1200 kph, but ~1060 kph. This bad conversion can be found in all data sheets.--109.91.72.35 (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Its the max speed is Mach 1.6+. It reached Mach 1.67 in some testing a couple years ago. The associated speeds (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) per a JSF reference appear to be be at medium altitude (approx. 16,000 ft). The speeds may be inaccurate for the altitude used. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Mach 1.6 at 16,000 ft = (~ 4.876 m) is not a bad value, why do they critize the "low" speed of the F-35. There are only a few aircraft that are as fast as Mach 1.6 at that relatively low altitude.--109.91.72.35 (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- The aircraft that reached 1.6 was not a production version. Hcobb (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- And that means...? Nothing. Kind of like the "spare tire" comment and misleading edit. - BilCat (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- @Hcobb, I've had enough nonsense from you on this article page, if you don't know anything then the least you could do is ask someone here instead of making such embarrassing and/or laughable edit. IDK, maybe you need a fourth wheel for the Harrier jumpjet but this article is about the F-35! And please, stop all your misleading/nonsensical explanations in your edit summaries (this is something very visible on all the article pages you've edited on) because your behaviour is making me very close to wringing you to WP:RFC/U. Take heed. --Dave 12:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- In case anyone is wondering where that "spare tire" is located, see this photo and explanation. - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Can he tell the difference between a jar of black eye pea from that of the mexican jumping bean? We'll see. --Dave 21:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The current article is incorrect. The spare tire is just as useful for takeoffs and landings on aircraft carriers. Hcobb (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
More criticism of Lockheed and the F-35 from John McCain et al
- Early F-35 costs increase $771M, Lockheed says
- McCain: JSF Has Racked Up $771 Million In Overruns - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Someone ought to check McCain's off-shore accounts for deposits from Boeing. :) - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II as a replacement for the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit
Please contribute to the discourse in the talk page of the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit. This is the statement in question that was cited: "The F-35 could be thrust into the spotlight if the planners judge that the B-2 reaches a point where it is no longer able to penetrate enemy air defenses—especially in daytime. The B-2 does not carry standoff weapons, noted Alston. Threats that keep a B-2 from performing direct nuclear attacks could, in effect, hand that mission, too, to the F-35." Other sources also deal with the replacement of the B-2 as being radically different than the present aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC).
Categories:- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class aviation articles
- B-Class aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aviation articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- B-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- B-Class weaponry articles
- Weaponry task force articles
- B-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- B-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press