GreyGhost Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Well, I don't think Lightning II is all that bad, sure they could have done better but it's not that bad really ... Navy/Marine folk never really referred to the Phantom as "Rhino", that was more of a USAF moniker ... Gregg Link to post Share on other sites
Tomcat Fanatic Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 I don't see what is so bad about calling it the Lightning II? The Lightning was Kelly Johnson's first job with Lockheed. And personally I rather like the P-38. Link to post Share on other sites
BAM'n'IVM Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Terriffic pic - thanks for finding that but... What is with this current trend of slapping the national insignia on the aircraft where it looks like it's tattooed on the plane's butt? They've done this with the F-22 also. Both aircraft have plenty of room for the star-and-bars on the forward fuselage where the F-15 wears 'em...it just looks odd to me. Link to post Share on other sites
Keith Diamond Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Terriffic pic - thanks for finding that but...What is with this current trend of slapping the national insignia on the aircraft where it looks like it's tattooed on the plane's butt? They've done this with the F-22 also. Both aircraft have plenty of room for the star-and-bars on the forward fuselage where the F-15 wears 'em...it just looks odd to me. Yeah, it looks just wrong right there. It would be more appropriate and very F-16ish if they move it to the upper fuselage, forward of the tails. Link to post Share on other sites
Randy Wise Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 I don't see the logic in re-hashing old aircraft names. When you say "Lighting" to me I think of a twin boom dual prop in-line engine fighter that shot down Yamamoto and caused hazoc over Italy. When I think of "Corsair" images of a bent wing bird come to mind. The Corsair Jet? That's an A-7 to me, not a Corsair. Mention Thunderbolt and I think of a "Jug" not an A-10. That seems to be commonplace around people who know their aircraft. You'd think that the manufacturers woudl know that too. I wonder if the Navy will stick to Lighting II or give it another name? By the way, we start production of the outer folding wing sections in one year's time. The Navy has bumped up their production order; great for business. Randy Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Don't forget the F-4 Phantom was also the second aircraft to bear the name hence the II ... Some become more famous than the previous name bearer ... Gregg Link to post Share on other sites
Cloggy Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Don't forget the F-4 Phantom was also the second aircraft to bear the name hence the II ... Some become more famous than the previous name bearer ... Good point - same with the Corsair; the F4-U and the SLUF. Also, there have already been two Lightnings - the Lockheed and the English Electric, so maybe the F-35 should really be Lighning III ? ;) Link to post Share on other sites
svaz Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Or, based on the engine configuration, call it the "Freestyle II" :D I like it. Link to post Share on other sites
Chappie Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 Sigh. I've been a bit of an F-35-hater simply because it is the replacement of my beloved F-16. But, I hate to say that the more pictures I see the more I'm starting to like it. My 20th year in the ANG is 2013, wonder if there is any chance of getting them at Andrews before I retire? Chappie Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Barr Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 What is with this current trend of slapping the national insignia on the aircraft where it looks like it's tattooed on the plane's butt? Well if you placed in anywhere else you would be giving up all that highly visible NASCAR type sponsorship space Regards Jim Barr Link to post Share on other sites
Randy Wise Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 Sigh. I've been a bit of an F-35-hater simply because it is the replacement of my beloved F-16. That is a smack in the face Chappie. I like the F-16 as well. Not as much as the Tomcat, but I can relate because I don't care for the Hornet. But at least with the F-35, it has a look that will eventually appeal. The Hornet, well.... that's another story. Randy Link to post Share on other sites
P-38 guy Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 Good point - same with the Corsair; the F4-U and the SLUF. Also, there have already been two Lightnings - the Lockheed and the English Electric, so maybe the F-35 should really be Lighning III ? B) No, there not putting them together. This is the second time for the name in the U.S. and will be the second time in the UK for the name so they went with Lightning II. HTH Mike Link to post Share on other sites
Les / Creative Edge Photo Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 No, there not putting them together. This is the second time for the name in the U.S. and will be the second time in the UK for the name so they went with Lightning II.HTH Mike The Brits used P-38s for a while too so this is their third Lightning. No matter how many numerals one puts behind it, the name sucks for the F-35. Link to post Share on other sites
Josh1971 Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 So is that big giant antenna up from going to be gone for the production version? jb Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 Well if you placed in anywhere else you would be giving up all that highly visible NASCAR type sponsorship space :D Regards Jim Barr My thoughts exactly, Jim - I was trying to find a delicate way of putting it but I like your version! :D My take on the name: Lightning never strikes the same place twice. B) Link to post Share on other sites
P-38 guy Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 The Brits used P-38s for a while too so this is their third Lightning.No matter how many numerals one puts behind it, the name sucks for the F-35. Not true. Only 3 Lightning I's went to the UK and there was never any offical acceptance of the type by the RAF or the Ministry of Supply. All 3 were return to the USAAF by July 10 1943. Mike Link to post Share on other sites
LanceB Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 (edited) Good point - same with the Corsair; the F4-U and the SLUF. There have been FOUR Corsairs: The O2U, the O3U (which Vought apparently itself refered to as the "Corsair II" as the O2U was the first "Corsair"), the F4U and the A-7. So the SLUF should actually be the "Corsair IV". Edited December 11, 2006 by LanceB Link to post Share on other sites
g0_command0 Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 It didnt fly today, just did a high speed taxi. Link to post Share on other sites
kitnut617 Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 (edited) Not true. Only 3 Lightning I's went to the UK and there was never any offical acceptance of the type by the RAF or the Ministry of Supply. All 3 were return to the USAAF by July 10 1943.Mike And to be correct it was the Brits that called it the Lightning just as they called the P-51 a Mustang. And that's because the RAF didn't use designations like P-38 or P-51, they used names. Edited December 12, 2006 by kitnut617 Link to post Share on other sites
P-38 guy Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 And to be correct it was the Brits that called it the Lightning just as they called the P-51 a Mustang. And that's because the RAF didn't use designations like P-38 or P-51, they used names. They do pick some good names. Mike Link to post Share on other sites
///Mflossin Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 It didnt fly today, just did a high speed taxi. I wasn't aware of the high speed run. Last I heard it was a low speed (10 knot) taxi. Link to post Share on other sites
Aggressor Supporter Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Great! I looks good even rolling around on the ground, can't wait to see it in the air. Here's hoping in a couple of days. <_< Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Test card(s) have 30, 60, 85 and 110 kt taxi tests that must be completed before first flight. 30 and 60 are done, 85 is scheduled for Tuesday the 12th. Link to post Share on other sites
Aggressor Supporter Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Test card(s) have 30, 60, 85 and 110 kt taxi tests that must be completed before first flight. 30 and 60 are done, 85 is scheduled for Tuesday the 12th. Two completed equals: <_< Need two more bananas..... Link to post Share on other sites
Aggressor Supporter Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Seems like all four taxi tests is now finished! http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061212/datu049.html?.v=53 Now all four bananas can be shown. Now waiting for first flight..... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts