Jets are 'too heavy to take off'

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, May 16, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3718567.stm

    What should concern you Darling is , is this is the empty weight of the hairyplane? Add fuel and warload to your equation , and you're going to need a bigger boat for STOL ain't you?

    Or a bigger engine. errrrrrrrrr wait 8O
     
  2. They've been letting JP do the sums again....
     
  3. Ah yes, the press proving they know nothing about aviation again ... Don't get excited about the story, it's old news in aviation circles and hardly unexpected - every aircraft ever built goes through an overweight phase during design.

    In any case JSF is nor supposed to take off vertically - that's why they put a long flat bit on the carrier with a ramp at the end. It will land vertically though.

    The time to worry is when they start to talk about it not meeting payload/range/short field performance targets.
     
  4. I t might land with a bit of a bump though and go through the sub-standard platrorm...
    what joy land then straight to the officers bar for PIMS oclock without having to leave the driving seat
     
  5. That is as maybe, but instead of leaving the choice of a Catapault as a later refit, they had better build it in at the start and it will be still cheaper than at a later date and we have not ended up with egg on our face.

    Parsimonous bean counters always cost us more in the short term :evil: