@Ghastfire @SweptBackWing14
im no expert, iv'e read accounts from the pilots who said it was great, and the promotions from lockheed, but thats about it.

@goboygo1

Would you be willing to read these comments, then make your verdict on whether the F-35 is good or not?

As we know. Wing loading affects turn rate directly. The lower, the better. Guess what has a higher combat wing loading? The F-35, or: One of the most massive bombers of the Second World War: The B-17!!!

That is right the F-35 has a higher wing loading than the B-17.

F-35: around 135 lbs/square feet
B-17 “Flying Fortress”: around 110 lbs/square feet.

@Ghastfire

@goboygo1
Read these comments. Then tell both of us what you think about the F-35.

And before you say it next.

Maneuverable just means it rolls well. Nothing to do with turn rate.

@Ghastfire

@Ghastfire

“wow... ok, i see your point. although i have seen it fly before, IRL, and it seemed just fine...”

A commercial airliner flies just fine. Maybe then I should try to turnfight an F-16!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The money being poured into it is not their own. It is money from places like Britain and Canada.

Mexican lolypops supposedly have lead in the paint. They are promoted. I recently heard of a company promoting $200 wireless headphones that only work if you hold the phone in your hand the whole time.

You are forgetting they are a company planning to make money. Sure, they got the cost down for their fighter-bomber down to 4 times the best us fighter bomber still in service.

They never said anything about it performing well. All they said is that it has increased computing power.

Their ideal is that close range dogfights will become obsolete. Close rangee dogfights happen all the time. Even in the 21st century. And will happen more in the world they are preparing for: one where enemies have stealth jets.

Nowhere did they claim their jet performs well.

But don’t think I hate Lockheed Martin. They are my favorite company. @Ghastfire

The F-35 VTOL/STOL variant is so expensive that it is more costly than the C-5. A plane massive enough to fit the fuselage of a commercial airliner in it.

@Ghastfire https://www.f35.com/about/life-cycle/production

Hey wait, NO, i just went to their website, and they are PROMOTING it. I don't know what you read, but it says they brought down the cost of the plane 62%, and increased production by more than double. if it was so terrible, why pour money into it anyway?
https://www.f35.com/about/cost

@SweptBackWing14 wow... ok, i see your point. although i have seen it fly before, IRL, and it seemed just fine...

It was a terrible performer. Famous quote:
“It can’t turn, it can’t fight, it can’t run. Have you examined the Lockheed Martin specifications of the F-35. If you do, you will agree with the experts, and all the countries that pulled out of the F-35.

I’ll search up his name later, but the creater of the F-16 Fighting falcon (one of the best rated fighters. One of the highest rated ground attack aircraft. All at < 1/5 the cost of the F-35) is quoted on a Canadian Documentary to have said it is a terrible aircraft that only accomplishes funneling congressional funds into Lockheed Martin.

I used to disagree with this engineer, then I went to Lockheed Martin’s site, read THEIR specs, and realized it sucks

@Ghastfire

f35 was just fine. the VTOL variant was too expensive.

NP!

Thank you @Baldeagle086 and @rexinn

I appreciate the warm welcome back from being inactive.

Thank you @goboygo1
Long time since I have been on.