F-35 Ideas and Inspiration

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Correct me if I am wrong.  I suspect the little holes you are referring to at the tail end of each stores pylon is for the pivot point on the drop tanks that can be carried on those four stations.  By pivot point I am referring to the part of the fuel tank that has a device that insures the tank fully pivots away from the airframe when the fuel tanks are jettisoned.  Same devices are used on the F-15, F-4 (with F-15 centerline tank), and the F-18 for good examples of this feature.

[Rickshaw]

So, an optical illusion, hey?  Obviously part of the stealth features? 

[ChernayaAkula]

Correct me if I am wrong.  I suspect the little holes you are referring to at the tail end of each stores pylon is for the pivot point on the drop tanks that can be carried on those four stations.  By pivot point I am referring to the part of the fuel tank that has a device that insures the tank fully pivots away from the airframe when the fuel tanks are jettisoned.  Same devices are used on the F-15, F-4 (with F-15 centerline tank), and the F-18 for good examples of this feature.

My thought as well. 

This drawing seems to confirm that idea.


SOURCE

Although I find it interesting that they didn't go the F-22 route and developed a tank with its own integral pylon that comes off with the tank.
Then again, with all the internal fuel, maybe the thinking is that these tanks will be used for ferry flights only. In case of which developing and  testing (especially separation) such a tank/pylon combo that would leave a clean wing would be a waste of money.

Speaking of F-22 and drop tanks, here's a nice sequence of shots:




SOURCE

[elmayerle]

I think part of it is that the two aircraft use different stores ejection systems and the pneumatic one for the F-35 needs to retain the pylons (pneumatic vs. electro-explosive reduces potential hazards; EED's come with some real concerns about both static electricity and other sources).

[GTX_Admin]

Robert asked me about the F-35 landing gear retraction sequence - I figured others might also be curious so am posting this here:

Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF gears up

Note that the main wheels do twist as they retract:



I also understand that the legs shorten during retraction but perhaps Evan can confirm this.

[kitnut617]

Thanks Greg, and that's really interesting.  The forward diagonal strut points in the other direction to an F-14 or A-6, but the wheel still turns upwards --- hmm!  think about this I will ---- 


Unless the strut folds away above the leg instead of along side the leg --- hmm!  maybe that's how it's done ---

[elmayerle]

I also understand that the legs shorten during retraction but perhaps Evan can confirm this.

Sorry, didn't have much to do with the landing gear.  I was mainly involved with the forward fuselage, especially the equipment bays.

[GTX_Admin]

Don't you just love the low viz RAF markings...

[taiidantomcat]

[kitnut617]

Are there any good photos of the cockpit anywhere, just need to see what colours the cockpit is ---

[GTX_Admin]

Are there any good photos of the cockpit anywhere, just need to see what colours the cockpit is ---

Plenty of photos if you do a Google image search on "F-35 Cockpit" - it is mostly black and grey (almost TIE Fighter like) though as seen here:

[kitnut617]

Thanks Greg, I'll do a search.  The Fujimi kit has 'all' the cockpit flat black and also the instrument panel decals are mostly black too.  I had a thought the tub etc, would have been a grey of some sort which your pic seems to show.

[Diamondback]

Looks like the standard US military cockpit combo of FS's 36231 (standard interior gray) and 17038 ("interior black"/"cockpit black") to my eye... then again, my eye ain't perfect. LOL

[kitnut617]

Looking at my Humbrol 'Colour System' book Diamondback, FS 17038 converts to H21 which is Gloss Black.  The photo of the cockpit doesn't really show gloss black, maybe satin black but I really suspect it's flat black 

[GTX_Admin]

[Diamondback]

OOPS! Said 17038 which is Gloss, was thinking 37031, which is a little more gray than 37038 but even less reflective. Brainfart on my end.

*eats humble pie*

[mrvr6]

i hope it works but its still fugly!

[elmayerle]

Looks nice but won't work as depicted.  Given the way the aircraft breaks down, you need to move the front cockpit and nose forward to allow the second cockpit to be in front of the major break frame between the LM-Fort Worth-built forward section and the Northrop-Grumman-built intake section.  Seriously, though, I'd love to see them do a two-seater but if they go with a single-piece canopy like the single-seater aircraft, the mechanism is really going to be beefy for the longer canopy.

[GTX_Admin]

Yeah, I know.  I didn't actually do the image - I simply found and posted for inspiration.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Reality be damned!  That two seater looks damned good!  :)

[GTX_Admin]

Hmmm…maybe we need to do one using the forthcoming KittyHawk F-35C kit.

[elmayerle]

Yeah, I know.  I didn't actually do the image - I simply found and posted for inspiration.

Oh, I agree and the prelim. concepts I saw while there looked even better.

[taiidantomcat]

Yeah, I know.  I didn't actually do the image - I simply found and posted for inspiration.

Oh, I agree and the prelim. concepts I saw while there looked even better.

You sir, are a cruel tease 

[elmayerle]

Who is also bound, beyond a certain point, by security oaths.  I will point out, though, that the "hump" contours of the F-35B could give you a good start toward the aft cockpit, even if you have a fuel cell in place of the lift fan.  Also, consider the "swoop" of the cockpits of the F-5F as a guide to a suitable configuration that would maintain the chine line.  The two-seater doesn't necessarily need to have the back seat higher (I don't think the Hawk back seat is much higher than the front and the MB.326 is the same way).

[Rickshaw]

Why not simply graft a longer nose on the F-35, in front of the bulkhead.   You'd have your lift-fan and the "hump" would be similar to the F/A-18s.