< Dutch & Group > The F-35 Pictures: 1 of 7- F-35 BF-01, STOVL 24 Oct 2009 @ Lockheed-Martin, Ft Worth, TX No1.jpg (1/1)

[Rogue]

[Dutch[_3_]]

"Rogue" > wrote in message
.. .

Thanks Rogue you are a very nice man.

[Rogue]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:29:55 -0500, "Dutch"
> wrote:

>
>"Rogue" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>Thanks Rogue you are a very nice man.
>

No problem Dutch. Thanks for posting them, good pictures.

Rogue

[Bob (not my real pseudonym)]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:16:28 -0400, Rogue > wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:29:55 -0500, "Dutch"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rogue" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>>Thanks Rogue you are a very nice man.
>>
>
>No problem Dutch. Thanks for posting them, good pictures.

Also thanks! Good pictures -

But the F-35...? As long as its mother loves it. =^}

[Canuck[_8_]]

"Bob (not my real pseudonym)" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:16:28 -0400, Rogue > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:29:55 -0500, "Dutch"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Rogue" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>
>>>Thanks Rogue you are a very nice man.
>>>
>>
>>No problem Dutch. Thanks for posting them, good pictures.
>
> Also thanks! Good pictures -
>
> But the F-35...? As long as its mother loves it. =^}


It is somewhat ungainly isn't it? I like the F-22 much better.

Nick

[Rogue]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:41:08 -0700, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
> wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:16:28 -0400, Rogue > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:29:55 -0500, "Dutch"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Rogue" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>
>>>Thanks Rogue you are a very nice man.
>>>
>>
>>No problem Dutch. Thanks for posting them, good pictures.
>
>Also thanks! Good pictures -
>
>But the F-35...? As long as its mother loves it. =^}


You're welcome. Mom will love it no matter what.

Rogue

[Rogue]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:40:20 -0500, "Canuck" >
wrote:

>
>"Bob (not my real pseudonym)" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:16:28 -0400, Rogue > wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:29:55 -0500, "Dutch"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Rogue" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>>
>>>>Thanks Rogue you are a very nice man.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No problem Dutch. Thanks for posting them, good pictures.
>>
>> Also thanks! Good pictures -
>>
>> But the F-35...? As long as its mother loves it. =^}
>
>
>It is somewhat ungainly isn't it? I like the F-22 much better.
>
>Nick


Ungainly it may be, but t is better looking than it's rival the X-32.

Rogue

[Rogue]

[Bob (not my real pseudonym)]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:09:31 -0400, Rogue > wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:40:20 -0500, "Canuck" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bob (not my real pseudonym)" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:16:28 -0400, Rogue > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:29:55 -0500, "Dutch"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Rogue" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks Rogue you are a very nice man.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No problem Dutch. Thanks for posting them, good pictures.
>>>
>>> Also thanks! Good pictures -
>>>
>>> But the F-35...? As long as its mother loves it. =^}
>>
>>
>>It is somewhat ungainly isn't it? I like the F-22 much better.
>>
>>Nick
>
>
>Ungainly it may be, but t is better looking than it's rival the X-32.

The same can be said about the posteriors of most creatures on the
planet...

I do still think the X-32 would've made a fine litter box scoop for
my cat.

[Canuck[_8_]]

>>Ungainly it may be, but t is better looking than it's rival the X-32.
>
> The same can be said about the posteriors of most creatures on the
> planet...
>
> I do still think the X-32 would've made a fine litter box scoop for
> my cat.

This gave me a good laugh. Neither one of these aircraft is a raving beauty.
I guess these days it is possible to make just about anything fly with
advanced computer controls and software. I guess if it looks right, it flies
right is becoming very old school.

Nick

[Canuck[_8_]]

>>Ungainly it may be, but t is better looking than it's rival the X-32.
>
> The same can be said about the posteriors of most creatures on the
> planet...
>
> I do still think the X-32 would've made a fine litter box scoop for
> my cat.

This gave me a good laugh. Neither one of these aircraft is a raving beauty.
I guess these days it is possible to make just about anything fly with
advanced computer controls and software. I guess if it looks right, it flies
right is becoming very old school.

Nick

[T.L. Davis]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:48:10 -0500, "Canuck" >
wrote:

>>>Ungainly it may be, but t is better looking than it's rival the X-32.
>>
>> The same can be said about the posteriors of most creatures on the
>> planet...
>>
>> I do still think the X-32 would've made a fine litter box scoop for
>> my cat.
>
>This gave me a good laugh. Neither one of these aircraft is a raving beauty.
>I guess these days it is possible to make just about anything fly with
>advanced computer controls and software. I guess if it looks right, it flies
>right is becoming very old school.
>
>Nick

Take a look at the X-32 from the top. It looks right. Problem was the
design of the front intake had to be that large for vertical takeoff,
not for normal carrier operations.

Typical Pentagon thinking. An airplane for all services, for all
applications. It won't work now, and never has.

Take a look at the F-8 and A-7. Not very pretty. Very successful
aircraft.

[Richard[_8_]]

On 11/3/2011 5:53 PM, T.L. Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:48:10 -0500, >
> wrote:
>
>>>> Ungainly it may be, but t is better looking than it's rival the X-32.
>>>
>>> The same can be said about the posteriors of most creatures on the
>>> planet...
>>>
>>> I do still think the X-32 would've made a fine litter box scoop for
>>> my cat.
>>
>> This gave me a good laugh. Neither one of these aircraft is a raving beauty.
>> I guess these days it is possible to make just about anything fly with
>> advanced computer controls and software. I guess if it looks right, it flies
>> right is becoming very old school.
>>
>> Nick
>
> Take a look at the X-32 from the top. It looks right. Problem was the
> design of the front intake had to be that large for vertical takeoff,
> not for normal carrier operations.
>
> Typical Pentagon thinking. An airplane for all services, for all
> applications. It won't work now, and never has.
>
> Take a look at the F-8 and A-7. Not very pretty. Very successful
> aircraft.

Whatchu talkin 'bout boy?

F8s are gorgeous!