F-35 Variants (FS9, FSX and P3Dv4)

[John Young]

I slice planes and then extrude downwards rather than using Booleans if I can Foxbat, but sometimes the shape, like the serrated edges on some doors on the F-35 make that more difficult than using a Boolean shape to cut out. Booleans just need a lot of work to re-align and weld vertices or the mesh smoothness just gets shot to pot. I can't remember ever getting a Gmax shutdown error though. I do have 54 backups for this model so far. I normally only reach about 20.

I'd much appreciate your list of what to do and what not.

On the subject of the Norwegian F-35's, I have the detail of the brake chute to include with the "A" model. Needed I think, on your icy runways.

John

[Makadocias]

Really great project John! Although I agree the plane looks dreadfull you mastered it down as art! We owe you so much gratitude for all your great work!!!

[Stingray15]

Looking good!
But why so many weapons under the wings? I believe it will be only very special circumstances they will disrupt the stealth capabilities like that.

"Go clean B)"

[John Young]

Because people will ask for the external load and it's better to plan ahead for that and incorporate it on the texture sheet. The load-out will be an alternative model from the clean one, so there's no compulsion to use it.

[Firebird]

One thing I didn't realise, until I did a bit of research for John, was that the standard A-A armament for the F-35 was going to be 4x AIM-132s carried internally. The RN did some testing and requested that it be switched to 2x AIM-132s internally and 2x externally on stealthy wing pylons. I read that the F-35 standard was switched to this. Whether or not this part is fact I do not know.

Why the RN requested this I have not found but I wonder if it is to do with CG, as was the case with the British F-4s. Pure speculation on my part though.

My point here is that the standard armed F-35 is not going to be like the armed F-22s.

[Foxbat]

I slice planes and then extrude downwards rather than using Booleans if I can Foxbat, but sometimes the shape, like the serrated edges on some doors on the F-35 make that more difficult than using a Boolean shape to cut out. Booleans just need a lot of work to re-align and weld vertices or the mesh smoothness just gets shot to pot. I can't remember ever getting a Gmax shutdown error though. I do have 54 backups for this model so far. I normally only reach about 20.

I'd much appreciate your list of what to do and what not.

On the subject of the Norwegian F-35's, I have the detail of the brake chute to include with the "A" model. Needed I think, on your icy runways.

John

I'll get back to you regarding the collection of tips (need to translate first). We also now know our first F-35's are landing at ENOL probably Thursday, so I will wait until I also can include a few camera shots of the actual bugger. BTW ENOL was just extended 300 meters, and is now about 3000 meters (just updated my AoN afcad regarding this).

[John Young]

No hurry with the tips. Let me know if the Norwegian aircraft are arriving with the brake chutes fitted - large bulge between the tail fins, if the chutes are not actually deployed.

John

[VulcanDriver]

One thing I didn't realise, until I did a bit of research for John, was that the standard A-A armament for the F-35 was going to be 4x AIM-132s carried internally. The RN did some testing and requested that it be switched to 2x AIM-132s internally and 2x externally on stealthy wing pylons. I read that the F-35 standard was switched to this. Whether or not this part is fact I do not know.

Why the RN requested this I have not found but I wonder if it is to do with CG, as was the case with the British F-4s. Pure speculation on my part though.

My point here is that the standard armed F-35 is not going to be like the armed F-22s.

The RAF found that their standard 2000lb bomb couldn't fit in the weapons bay. Not sure if this ever resolved or if it will wing mounted

[Firebird]

As I understand it the chute pods are removeable. The mount point there is in effect a pylon mount point.

From what I read the plumbing is there for every F-35A but you have to choose whether you want the chute or not during build as a rib at the back around the engine must be made in a stronger alloy than the one normally used, with more titanium.

So choosing the option later will not be cheap or quick to fit.

[Firebird]

The RAF found that their standard 2000lb bomb couldn't fit in the weapons bay. Not sure if this ever resolved or if it will wing mounted

Yes you are correct. They can in the A and C versions but not the B.

[MIKE JG]

I want my Lightning II with heated leather seats and at least two USB ports. Is that asking too much from Lockheed-Martin??

[clickclickdoh]

If you don't keep the special white cover on your heated seat, it might burst into flames.

[hschuit]

Making F-35A flight plans for the Dutch air force will be very simple. They plan to have about 15 jets at Leeuwarden AB and 15 at Volkel AB which means no more than 2 - 4 flights per base on a normal day LOL.

[Firebird]

Presumably the OCU/Training Sqn will be in the US then.

[hschuit]

Yes, the last I heard is that there will be a small detachment at Luke AFB for training, similar to the current F-16 training det. at Tucson ANGB.

[VulcanDriver]

The RAF found that their standard 2000lb bomb couldn't fit in the weapons bay. Not sure if this ever resolved or if it will wing mounted

Yes you are correct. They can in the A and C versions but not the B.

Another brilliant buying decision by the MoD! We could have had conventional carriers with the F-35C and the flexibility to buy cheaper conventional carrier jets!

[Firebird]

I believe that the problem was that when the carriers were ordered they assumed that they would save money by not having CTOL equipment installed and get the F-35B, very short sighted. Then they saw the specs and changed to the F-35C, but as the design was completed and metal being cut/forged it would have added something like 30% to the cost to alter the ships so they went back to the F-35B again.

Of course if the ships last as long as they think they will plus add the inevitable life extension of 10 years there had better be a STOVL UAV to replace the F-35B or we will end up with 2x Bulwarks, effectively.

[John Young]

Quite a busy week with the F-35B. I did a lot of re-work of the nose to get a more accurate shape and also set up the aircraft for STOVL performance with the vertical land. Brent has tested that successfully on the short runway at the Yuma Auxilliary Landing Field.

While some testing of the F-35B was going on by Brent and Steve, I thought I would press ahead and work the F-35B into the F-35C. That meant taking out the unwanted cavities and doors of the “B” model, enlarging the wings, fins and horizontal stabilisers, lengthening and squeezing the cockpit, adding the arrestor hook fairing to the tail and building a new more robust nose gear with twin wheels, and of course, animating the folding wings.





If members here could keep an eye out for me please for a piece of information (evidence) I need for an alternative “B” model, that I want to set up for conventional take-off and landing, I'd be grateful. I’m assuming this mode will be used quite regularly in the real world. In the sim world, it would also give users the opportunity to view the “B” model in flight in a traffic window, which cannot capture the model when operating with an animated vertical lift, unless the window is zoomed right out.

The question is this – for a conventional take-off and landing, does the F-35B normally operate with all the lift doors open and the nozzle at about 45 degrees, or are all the doors closed and the nozzle left horizontally. I’ve found only a couple of videos of the “B” model operating conventionally – by the US Marine Corps. In those instances all the doors were open as if performing a vertical land. If you spot anything to confirm or negate that as standard practice, please let me know.

I’m just about ready to start the design of the texture sheet and start the mapping, so hopefully, some colour to show you in the next update.

John

[VulcanDriver]

I believe that the problem was that when the carriers were ordered they assumed that they would save money by not having CTOL equipment installed and get the F-35B, very short sighted. Then they saw the specs and changed to the F-35C, but as the design was completed and metal being cut/forged it would have added something like 30% to the cost to alter the ships so they went back to the F-35B again.

Of course if the ships last as long as they think they will plus add the inevitable life extension of 10 years there had better be a STOVL UAV to replace the F-35B or we will end up with 2x Bulwarks, effectively.

Yes exactly. I watched a programme on the British Army and a General said we now have an army smaller than Oliver Cromwells'! I remember a USMC Colonel saying that in future the British Army could be a Battalion in the Corps. He was joking I think!!

[hawk_sh]

John,

I think there are three take-off modes for the F-35B.

conventional take take-off just like the F-35A: all doors closed, flaps deployed, full afterburner




short take-off: all doors open, nozzle at 45°


vertical take-off