RVLs - and all that...
Not a Boffin:
Happy to respond. RVL shouldn't mean betting all on the brakes, IIRC they were certainly looking at bolters. (BTW, JSF has a pretty comprehensive dual braking system, with BIT) Moreover, at the recovery weights under discussion, the STO run is extremely short. Main issues would be propulsion system spool up time, and power settings on touchdown.
You are absolutely right that there would be an impact on deck space, but CVF has about the same deck area as a Kitty Hawk class CV, and we are talking small air groups here. Deck layout for RVLs is still, I believe, under discussion. I'd personally go for using the angled deck space that CVF already has (paint a second set of lines) and park accordingly, but what do I know? Deck scatter on RVLs? Don't know, but with the flight control system's capabilities, should not be excessive.
Can't say too much about KPPs except to say that IIRC the F-35B is required to meet its VL KPP in the temperatures specified, and it is going to do that. RVLs are quite probably being looked at because the UK wants to land with more stuff on board, or possibly in temperatures/pressures outside the specification.
Here's a point to consider - the F-35B bringback payload is at a level that previous cat and trap aircraft couldn't achieve. And it has to do it at zero knots. JSF STOVL is hard to do and that's why LM are getting the big bucks to do it - but doing it they are.
Regards
Engines
PS: Mr John Farley - any thoughts?
Last edited by Engines; 25th Jun 2007 at 19:44.
Reason: Added PS