Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Like the F-35, Pinto had a disturbing habit of burning at inconvenient times.

A "trend" of one.

However, unlike the F-35, the Pinto was cheap and Ford delivered it on time.

Tomcat was way betterer

f14-history-f14a-cartoon.jpg

F-35 is so sissy its "fire" didn't even warrant an ejection.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

A "trend" of one.

Tomcat was way betterer

Which means that nearly 1% of all F-35's have self-combusted, as opposed to much less for the Pinto fleet. Absolutely scandalous. "Unsafe at any Mach" will be the title of the book I plan to write on this subject.

I do agree that nothing comes close to the beloved Tomcat (RIP baby). It excelled in every category, as did those awesome Pratt TF-30's. Truly set the standard for dependability.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

One other minor difference...The Pinto was blamed for at least 27 deaths due to the faulty gas tank design.

Far superior to JSF in that regard, huh?

Don't believe what you read in the mainstream media. If you look at the number of cars produced vrs incidents, I would say that the Pinto has far less of a chance of bursting into flames than an F-35.

A lovely car, truly a classic from the 70's. I'm thinking that Ford is about due to release the Pinto II. They can paint it up in F-35 colors and it would sell like hotcakes. Maybe give it a flame job to really add to the F-35 package.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't believe what you read in the mainstream media. If you look at the number of cars produced vrs incidents, I would say that the Pinto has far less of a chance of bursting into flames than an F-35.

This might be why we typically compare airplanes to airplanes and cars to cars. Even comparing warplanes to airliners is difficult.

Pak-fa with 20 percent of its fleet catching fire must look really bad. yikes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be why we typically compare airplanes to airplanes and cars to cars. Even comparing warplanes to airliners is difficult.

Pak-fa with 20 percent of its fleet catching fire must look really bad. yikes.

Why be logical on a forum like this? You have to admit, you won't see stimulating discussion like the above on real forums dedicated to the subject.

Anyway, when I write my expose' "Unsafe at Any Mach", it will be an E-book. Howzabout providing some of your cool .GIF's for the project? Put that talent to work for a good cause. If the book sells, the next project would be a collection of creepy, yet still sexy female GIF's.

You in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One other minor difference...The Pinto was blamed for at least 27 deaths due to the faulty gas tank design.

Far superior to JSF in that regard, huh?

The program's still young. We'll follow the media's tasteful, classy example, and wait with bated breath.

If the book sells, the next project would be a collection of creepy, yet still sexy female GIF's.

Can we go for sexy, yet still creepy? I really do feel the focus should be on the sexy... For marketing's sake.

Edited for spelling.

Edited by Horrido
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why be logical on a forum like this? You have to admit, you won't see stimulating discussion like the above on real forums dedicated to the subject.

If you want to see some real bitter vitriol Pilots Rumor Network is where its at.

Anyway, when I write my expose' "Unsafe at Any Mach", it will be an E-book. Howzabout providing some of your cool .GIF's for the project? Put that talent to work for a good cause.

I would if there weren't so many others bashing the F-35 electronically for free. I'll never be David Axe unless they invent A machine that stops brain development at a 6th grade level. or Stupid Pills.

I would link to his latest story but I don't want to give him the clicks. Hoping he cracks puberty soon, though. Good Luck David!

If the book sells, the next project would be a collection of creepy, yet still sexy female GIF's.

You in?

I wonder about us. I really do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The program's still young. We'll follow the media's tasteful, classy example, and wait with baited breath.

There are people out there that are genuinely disappointed the F-35 hasn't killed a pilot yet. seriously.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the choice been an air show promoter and the official DoD announcement, and a three hour flight time between borescopes...

Maybe the Atlantic is shorter to cross now? Or we have in flight borescope technology? Oh, wait, that comes out in 3F.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the rules of the flight resumption, the F-35s are limited to a maximum speed of Mach 0.9 and 18 degrees of angle of attack. They can go from minus 1 G to a 3 G’s,

So under the new restrictions, the F-35 has roughly the same performance as a 737. Would have made for a pretty lame airshow routine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the rules of the flight resumption, the F-35s are limited to a maximum speed of Mach 0.9 and 18 degrees of angle of attack. They can go from minus 1 G to a 3 G’s,

So under the new restrictions, the F-35 has roughly the same performance as a 737. Would have made for a pretty lame airshow routine.

Its all about the hover in this case,anyway. IIRC the Yuma demo didn't exceed those parameters either. I know I know, a 16 ton hovering stealth fighter jet isn't that exciting but hopefully the crowd would have played along. :whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...