F-35B down.

[2805662]

The USMC F-35B has crashed in the US. Status of pilot unknown.

[newt]

An expensive day at the office!

[treadigraph]

https://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/community/beaufort-news/article219182290.html

Hope the reports of a safe ejection are correct.

[NWSRG]

https://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/community/beaufort-news/article219182290.html

Hope the reports of a safe ejection are correct.

Indeed, The F35 seemed to have turned a corner recently...hopefully this is only a blip. With any military frame it was bound to happen. And hopefully positive news about the pilot soon.

[Engines]

Also hoping the reports of a successful ejection are correct.

Best regards to all those who have to use the Martin Baker option - and to this pilot today.

Engines

[MightyGem]

Update:
The pilot ejected safely, but was being evaluated for injuries, according to Capt. Bob Bromage, spokesperson for the sheriff’s office.
https://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/community/beaufort-news/article219182290.html

[Training Risky]

I was hoping the thread title was referring to today’s successful landing-on of a Lightning on the CVF...!

[fdr]

I was hoping the thread title was referring to today’s successful landing-on of a Lightning on the CVF...!


Pilot ejected, undergoing medical examination but in one piece.

[fdr]

F-35 crashes for the first time in the jet’s 17-year history, pilot ejects safely

By Paul Sonne (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/paul-sonne/)

September 28 at 3:35 PM

The U.S. military suffered its first crash of an F-35 aircraft in the 17 year history of the high-profile fighter jet program, the same day the Pentagon announced it had struck a deal with defense contractor Lockheed Martin to drive down costs for the next batch of planes to a historical low.

The crash of the Marine Corps variant of the F-35, known as the F-35B Lightning II, occurred Friday at 11:45 a.m. outside Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort in South Carolina, according to the Marine Corps. The service did not give a suspected cause for the crash, saying the incident remained under investigation.

“The U.S. Marine pilot safely ejected from the single-seat aircraft and is currently being evaluated by medical personnel,” the Marines said in a statement. “There were no civilian injuries.”

The aircraft, which cost more than $100 million, belonged to Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501, which trains Marine pilots for combat with the F-35.

In the past, F-35 jets have made emergency landings, experienced in-flight incidents, including oxygen deprivation among crews, and suffered from engine fires and other failures on the ground. But this is the first time the military has suffered a full-blown crash of an F-35 involving the ejection of a pilot.

A U.S. military official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation remained underway, said the Marine Corps initially classified the crash as a Class A mishap, which is defined as an incident resulting in the complete destruction of the plane, more than $2 million in damage or the fatality or permanent total disability of the crew.

The Pentagon’s deal with Lockheed Martin for 141 fighter jets comes amid persistent controversy over a weapons program that has become the most expensive the Defense Department has ever undertaken.

The most common variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, known as the F-35A, dropped below $90 million per unit for the first time, to $89 million, a 5.4 percent decrease from the previous lot. The price per unit for the Marine Corps and Navy versions dropped to $115 million and $108 million, respectively.

President Trump has pushed Lockheed Martin for lower costs and taken credit for hundreds of millions of dollars in savings, though the F-35 unit price was projected to decrease as the fighter jet transitioned from its development phase into production.

The Pentagon has attributed an increase in aviation accidents to a mix of causes, including years of stopgap funding from Congress, aging equipment, strained maintenance crews and reduced flying hours for pilots.

An investigation by the Military Times (https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/04/08/marine-corps-aviation-mishaps-on-the-rise-up-80-percent/) earlier this year found that Marine Corps aviation mishaps had jumped 80 percent over the last five years, an increase that came alongside similar trends in the Navy (https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/04/08/navys-spike-in-aviation-mishaps-is-the-militarys-worst-up-82-percent/) and Air Force (https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/04/08/air-force-aviation-accidents-reach-seven-year-high-as-low-level-mishaps-soar/).

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has vowed to sort out the issues using additional funding the Pentagon has received in the coming year’s $716 billion defense budget. Still, U.S. military officials have cautioned the incidents are the result of a range of issues that will take time to fix.

On Friday, the Marines said they were working with authorities in South Carolina to secure the crash site and guarantee the safety of all personnel in the surrounding area. The service did not give any details about the pilot or what happened ahead of the crash.

[glad rag]

F-35 crashes for the first time in the jet’s 17-year history, pilot ejects safely

By Paul Sonne (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/paul-sonne/)

September 28 at 3:35 PM

The U.S. military suffered its first crash of an F-35 aircraft in the 17 year history of the high-profile fighter jet program, the same day the Pentagon announced it had struck a deal with defense contractor Lockheed Martin to drive down costs for the next batch of planes to a historical low.

The crash of the Marine Corps variant of the F-35, known as the F-35B Lightning II, occurred Friday at 11:45 a.m. outside Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort in South Carolina, according to the Marine Corps. The service did not give a suspected cause for the crash, saying the incident remained under investigation.

“The U.S. Marine pilot safely ejected from the single-seat aircraft and is currently being evaluated by medical personnel,” the Marines said in a statement. “There were no civilian injuries.”

The aircraft, which cost more than $100 million, belonged to Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501, which trains Marine pilots for combat with the F-35.

In the past, F-35 jets have made emergency landings, experienced in-flight incidents, including oxygen deprivation among crews, and suffered from engine fires and other failures on the ground. But this is the first time the military has suffered a full-blown crash of an F-35 involving the ejection of a pilot.

A U.S. military official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation remained underway, said the Marine Corps initially classified the crash as a Class A mishap, which is defined as an incident resulting in the complete destruction of the plane, more than $2 million in damage or the fatality or permanent total disability of the crew.

The Pentagon’s deal with Lockheed Martin for 141 fighter jets comes amid persistent controversy over a weapons program that has become the most expensive the Defense Department has ever undertaken.

The most common variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, known as the F-35A, dropped below $90 million per unit for the first time, to $89 million, a 5.4 percent decrease from the previous lot. The price per unit for the Marine Corps and Navy versions dropped to $115 million and $108 million, respectively.

President Trump has pushed Lockheed Martin for lower costs and taken credit for hundreds of millions of dollars in savings, though the F-35 unit price was projected to decrease as the fighter jet transitioned from its development phase into production.

The Pentagon has attributed an increase in aviation accidents to a mix of causes, including years of stopgap funding from Congress, aging equipment, strained maintenance crews and reduced flying hours for pilots.

An investigation by the Military Times (https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/04/08/marine-corps-aviation-mishaps-on-the-rise-up-80-percent/) earlier this year found that Marine Corps aviation mishaps had jumped 80 percent over the last five years, an increase that came alongside similar trends in the Navy (https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/04/08/navys-spike-in-aviation-mishaps-is-the-militarys-worst-up-82-percent/) and Air Force (https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/04/08/air-force-aviation-accidents-reach-seven-year-high-as-low-level-mishaps-soar/).

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has vowed to sort out the issues using additional funding the Pentagon has received in the coming year’s $716 billion defense budget. Still, U.S. military officials have cautioned the incidents are the result of a range of issues that will take time to fix.

On Friday, the Marines said they were working with authorities in South Carolina to secure the crash site and guarantee the safety of all personnel in the surrounding area. The service did not give any details about the pilot or what happened ahead of the crash.

Initially, the Marine Corps was developing its own aircraft to replace the AV-8B Harrier, but in 1994, Congress mandated that the Marine effort be merged with the Air Force/Navy program in order to avoid the higher costs of developing, procuring, and operating and supporting three separate tactical aircraft designs to meet the services’ similar, but not identical, operational needs.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/450x359/450px_x_35_c9749e840d1403fef483956e61a600cba1a46d34.jpg
^^^
JSF


So where does 18 +6 = 17?


Hopefully the AAES has operated without detriment to the pilot.

Marham jets grounded yet?


"who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation remained underway"

Quite sinister......unauthorised or just telling porkies ?

[orca]

I would be amazed (but accept that I have been amazed before) if someone making an authorised public statement insisted upon anonymity.

Best to the boy or girl with the stiff neck.

[LowObservable]

A U.S. military official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation remained underway, said the Marine Corps initially classified the crash as a Class A mishap, which is defined as an incident resulting in the complete destruction of the plane, more than $2 million in damage or the fatality or permanent total disability of the crew.

We're in trouble when flacks demand anonymity when stating the bleeding obvious.

[SASless]

Let's hope it was not Pilot Error....otherwise that Gyrene has just enlisted for Life if he has to reimburse the Guvmint for the loss.

[dook]

Best regards to all those who have to use the Martin Baker option - and to this pilot today.

I have, but don't the Americans use Aces seats.

[Finningley Boy]

Is it only the B variant which has been beset with trouble? If so, I wonder if the RAF will feel more compelled to buy 90 F-35As to complete the order and at a cheaper unit cost!

FB

[ORAC]

I have, but don't the Americans use Aces seats. No, all 3 models of the F-35 use a MB seat - though there is a continuous and ongoing campaign by certain parties both within the DoD and US industry get the F-35A to switch over to a modified ACES seat.

The modifications done to the MB seat to remove the pilot weight restrictions and neck injury issues should have put those to rest - but I wouldn’t bank on it.

[Harley Quinn]

Is it only the B variant which has been beset with trouble? If so, I wonder if the RAF will feel more compelled to buy 90 F-35As to complete the order and at a cheaper unit cost!

FB
You know what caused the loss of this aircraft then?

Please do tell us.

[Finningley Boy]

You know what caused the loss of this aircraft then?

Please do tell us.

I've no idea I'm sure you'll be utterly surprised to hear. I simply asked if there was a trend affecting the B and not the other two, it could be a common fault or it could be simple bad luck! That's the extent of my technical knowledge, but you sound like you have far greater insight! Could it be that there is a problem, yet to be determined, affecting the drive shaft for the great rotating dustbin which hoovers up internal capacity and re-shapes the airframe? I don't know.

FB

[FODPlod]

Is it only the B variant which has been beset with trouble? If so, I wonder if the RAF will feel more compelled to buy 90 F-35As to complete the order and at a cheaper unit cost!

FB

F-35As couldn't operate from QNLZ and PWLS so hardly a starter.

I've no idea I'm sure you'll be utterly surprised to hear. I simply asked if there was a trend affecting the B and not the other two, it could be a common fault or it could be simple bad luck! That's the extent of my technical knowledge, but you sound like you have far greater insight! Could it be that there is a problem, yet to be determined, affecting the drive shaft for the great rotating dustbin which hoovers up internal capacity and re-shapes the airframe? I don't know.

FB
Over 320 F-35s have been built to date. So far, they have clocked up more than 130,000 flying hours. One F-35B has now crashed.

F-35B is certainly the most complex version but it seems somewhat premature to ask whether a single crash constitutes being "beset with trouble" or signifies "a trend", especially as we won't know the cause of the crash until it is reported.

To put the F-35B accident rate in perspective, 337 Harrier AV-8Bs have been built and this is its crash record according to Wikipedia:

List of Harrier Jump Jet family losses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family_losses)
McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II - Accidents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II#Accidents)
Accidents

During its service with the USMC, the Harrier has had an accident rate three times that of the Corps' F/A-18s. As of July 2013, approximately 110 aircraft have been damaged beyond repair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_loss) since the type entered service in 1985,[163] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II#cite_note-167) the first accident occurring in March that year.[164] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II#cite_note-168) The AV-8 was dubbed a "widow maker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widow_maker_(disambiguation)#Vehicles_and_weaponry)" by some in the military.[100] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II#cite_note-LATimes-104) [165] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II#cite_note-NPR-169) The Los Angeles Times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Times) reported in 2003 that the Harrier family had the highest rate of major accidents among military aircraft in service at that time, with 148 accidents and 45 people killed.[166] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II#cite_note-LATimes2-170) However, Lon Nordeen notes that several other USMC single-engine strike aircraft, like the A-4 Skyhawk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-4_Skyhawk) and A-7 Corsair II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTV_A-7_Corsair_II), had greater accident rates.[167] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II#cite_note-Nordeen_155-171)

Accidents have in particular been connected to the proportionate amount of time the aircraft spends taking off and landing, which are the most critical phases in flight.[100] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II#cite_note-LATimes-104) Further analysis shows that US Marine senior officers never understood the uniqueness of the aircraft, that the Harrier design was more complex, like that of helicopters. Cutbacks in senior maintenance personnel and pilot mistakes had a disastrous effect on the safety of the American-operated AV-8B, which gained it a negative reputation in the US press that was not deserved.[169] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II#cite_note-173)

By all accounts, the F-35B is a comparative doddle to land and take off. I'm just relieved that the pilot of the crashed aircraft appears to be unharmed.

[glad rag]

Fod. I think we can all agree that the Harrier wouldn't get off the drawing boards today..

Let's wait and see what the jets capabilities are after the 2023 deliveries commence [providing there are no more slippage to the program ] and see if the RAF decide to drop the B for the longer ranged and vastly more capable A...

[Harley Quinn]

I've no idea I'm sure you'll be utterly surprised to hear. I simply asked if there was a trend affecting the B and not the other two, it could be a common fault or it could be simple bad luck! That's the extent of my technical knowledge, but you sound like you have far greater insight! Could it be that there is a problem, yet to be determined, affecting the drive shaft for the great rotating dustbin which hoovers up internal capacity and re-shapes the airframe? I don't know.

FB
I certainly know no more than what's in the public domain but you seem to be pointing directly to the lift fan. Nowhere in any of the press reports have I seen mention of lift fan issues

[Engines]

I've no idea I'm sure you'll be utterly surprised to hear. I simply asked if there was a trend affecting the B and not the other two, it could be a common fault or it could be simple bad luck! That's the extent of my technical knowledge, but you sound like you have far greater insight! Could it be that there is a problem, yet to be determined, affecting the drive shaft for the great rotating dustbin which hoovers up internal capacity and re-shapes the airframe? I don't know.

FB
Finningley,

May I offer the following observations?

Yes, it's quite possible that there is a problem with the drive shaft. Even after the (literally) tens of thousands of hours of test rig work, full scale tests, testing of actual production hardware spanning tens of thousands of operating cycles, yes, it's possible that there is a problem with the lift fan drive shaft. Or not. Or there may be a problem with the huge 'dustbin' at the aft end of the aircraft that burns highly flammable fuel and runs at incredibly high speed. Or not. The lift fan certainly does occupy internal capacity. And yes, it reshapes the airframe. A bit like the weapons bays, and almost every other bit of equipment in the aircraft of whatever variant. But if you have a requirement for a STOVL capability, you need a powered lift system. This will impact the design. It's called a design trade off.

This is the first F-35 lost, after nearly 12 years and well over 100,000 flying hours. That's not a bad achievement, and British engineers (and pilots) have played a huge part in it. Might be nice, once in a while, to acknowledge that.

Once again, sincere best regards to the pilot, I hope that the excellent UK sourced Martin Baker seat has done its job, as MB seats have invariably done for many years. And best regards to all those on the programme who will now be working flat out to find out what caused this crash.

Engines

[Finningley Boy]

FOD Plod,

My understanding is that any F-35As wouldn't be for the aircraft carriers. I'm sure that it would be folly to buy 138 F-35Bs just so that both carriers can set sail with a deck crowded with F-35Bs. For two carriers, 48 I'm sure would be enough to ensure that as likely only one would be on task at any time, a full compliment was on board. My understanding is the A version has a better performance can carry more fuel and ordnance.

Harley Quinn,


I think you're reading more into my comments than is actually there, I simply mentioned the lift fan as I do believe it is an unnecessary loss of space and taxation on everything it can't carry otherwise. It also means more fuel has to be used for the main engine to drive the shaft. I didn't even hint that the lift fan had anything to do with the crash. My simple innocuous question was is there an under lying problem with the F-35B as it appears to be (not is) troubled more than the other two variants. I certainly never even alluded to the cause or suggested there was only a single cause. But if you want a personal opinion on the matter, then yes, I think the F-35B is unduly limited in performance and payload, not because I possess any erudite knowledge but because it stands to reason, for all the obvious reasons, lift fan engine, extra drain on fuel, increased premium on space, additional weight penalty in conventional flight, in which mode it will spend very much most of its time aloft.

Engines

I take your points, many thanks.

FB

[Engines]

Finningley,

Glad I was able to be of help. Perhaps I can offer a little more help.

The basic point is that the F-35B is required to be a STOVL aircraft. This means that it has to pay a range/payload penalty. This was known and understood from the outset, and the original JSF requirement document reflected this in a shorter range requirement and reduced weapons carriage requirements (amongst other things).

The UK is buying a STOVL aircraft because that's what the original UK requirement (NST 6464) was for - a Sea Harrier replacement to operate from RN ships. The UK got its Tier 1 level partnership partly due to its STOVL knowledge and expertise - the US JPO acknowledged that the STOVL variant was technically the most risky and they needed our help. NST6464 morphed into Future Carrier Based Aircraft (FCBA) and on formation of Joint Force Harrier, FCBA was renamed FJCA (Future Joint Combat Aircraft). None of this should obscure the fact that the UK said it wanted a STOVL aircraft and that it what it's getting. What has changed, and I think sometimes isn't clearly spelt out, is that the F-35B is now being required to be a Tornado replacement as well. I can fully understand that some RAF aircrew would see the need for a Tornado replacement as being more important that getting an aircraft to operate from aircraft carriers.

I'll repeat what I have posted many times - to me it would make sense for the UK to formally investigate a revised F-35 buy, replacing 138 F-35Bs with (say) 85 Bs and 65 less expensive As. The two variants could use a largely common training and support system, reducing the additional costs of running the two variants. The As could then come under full operational control of Air Command, with the Bs under Sea Command. Bs could still 'flex' over to land based roles by Sea Command if requested by Air.

For all I know this has already been looked at. Just my thoughts.

Incidentally, the F-35B doesn't need 'more' fuel to drive the lift fan shaft. The main engine operates as per usual, and the shaft extracts around half the power down the shaft to drive the fan. Because the fan is using cold air, the overall lift is developed using less fuel than by other options. When the F-35B does a VL, the main nozzle is actually operating at about half full thrust. Hope this helps.

Best regards as ever to all those working out the future force details,

Engines

[gums]

Salute!

TNX, Engines for good poop'

I, too, think the fan drive shaft could be a factor in Bee emergencies. Depending upon how close to touchdown in landing mode, seems possible you could still revert to conventional flight controls and such. The F-102 I flew a century ago would go ballistic in seconds if the "angle drive shaft" failed. It connected the motor to the hydraulic and electrical system pumps/generators. So Convair added some back up systems to prevent complete loss of control. My trusty Sluf had a RAT for that kinda problem, and my Viper had the EPU whicj ran on hydrazine or bleed air depending if the motor was still running.

I have watched the Stubbies here at Eglin make approaches with all the doors open but not always wind up in a hover as they would on the new Brit carrier or even for a short roll landing on terra firma. So seems an early warning could allow one to land conventionally.

Gums sends...

[SASless]

For two carriers, 48 I'm sure would be enough to ensure that as likely only one would be on task at any time,

What about when both are on task....say the Falklands Redux or something similar?

[Finningley Boy]

What about when both are on task....say the Falklands Redux or something similar?
If both ever have to deploy with a full compliment of 36 F-35s a piece then two carriers plain and simple won't be enough, we're going to need a much bigger defence budget. As it is, we'll have both carriers at sea before we get even just 48 aircraft in total and we can be sure not all of those will be available at once. The rate of production and delivery is planned to be very slow indeed and I can't see that even if we could place 72 F-35s at sea at once, that such a large scale deployment to respond to a resurgent threat to the Falklands, would be at all likely. There seems to be a craven desire in some quarters for all 138 F-35s to be STOVL capable and all therefore able to go on the carriers. This may have been the thinking when the F-35 was seen as a Harrier/Sea Harrier replacement and nothing beyond. But it isn't, it is now the principal replacement for the Tornado GR as well. Any F-35s, which would be operating from land bases, including overseas deployments, would be better off as CTOL variants. As ENGINES has pointed out a mix would be the best solution. An approximate split in the 138 along a 50-50 ratio would mean 69 of each. One more point, if vertical lift and hovering is such a must have ingredient and not simply a patriotic British nod to our heritage in inventing vectored thrust, then surely everyone else; Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Australia, Israel, Italy, USAF and USN would settle for it.

FB

[ORAC]

If both ever have to deploy with a full compliment of 36 F-35s a piece I believe the latest statements from the MoD indicate that the normal complement will now be 24 aircraft rather than 36.

The general consensus would seem to be that the F-35B is the most successful of the three models, both the USMC and RN getting the other services to pay enormous amounts of cash for sub-optimal aircraft so they could get a far more effective platform to replace the Harrier. The USN in the meantime seems to buying new F/A-18s and how many F-35Cs will be bought remains to be seen; whilst the USAF F-35A buy seems to be increasingly caught up in arguments and proposals for either upgrading F-16s, building an F-22/35 hybrid or bringing forward the proposed long range penetrating fighter.

Regards splitting the UK order for F-35Bs would more probably lead to an additional purchase of further upgraded Typhoons rather than any F-35As without probes.

[Davef68]

Salute!
I have watched the Stubbies here at Eglin make approaches with all the doors open but not always wind up in a hover as they would on the new Brit carrier or even for a short roll landing on terra firma. So seems an early warning could allow one to land conventionally.

The Bs at Marham all seem to land with 'everything open' even when doing rolling landings - and the "short rolling vertical landing" is planned to be an operational mode on board the carriers to use less fuel than the traditional VL style

[Engines]

Gums,

Thanks for coming back - I can offer some information on the F-35B lift system that may be of interest to you.

First, it might be of help to outline the way the F-35B achieves 'powered lift' flight. Power is extracted from the main engine by a shaft which drives the lift fan. The lift fan is aligned vertically, so generates a forward pillar of cold gas. The aft 'lift pillar' is generated by using a three Bearing Swivel Module (3BSM) located between the main engine's aft turbine stage and the nozzle. The 3BSM rotates through 90 degrees to generate the aft 'pilar' of hot gas. (By the way, both the 3BSM and the lift fan were designed by Rolls Royce). Both 'pillars' can be controlled in thrust and direction to control the aircraft.

The lift fan drive shaft runs between the first stage of the engine and a clutch/gearbox assembly on the aft side of the lift fan. The shaft is fixed to the LP shaft of the engine and rotates all the time. When going into 'powered lift' mode, the clutch is engaged, the shaft spins up the lift fan, and when the fan has fully spun up to shaft speed, the two are mechanically locked. The clutch is then disengaged. Going from "powered lift' to normal flight is the reverse procedure. 'Powered lift' mode is selected by a switch on the left hand control in the cockpit. This selection initiates the process I've just outlined, plus a lot of other stuff in around 15 seconds. This includes:

Upper lift fan door opens
Lower lift fan doors (2 off) open
Upper auxiliary air intake doors (2 off) open
Aft 3BSM doors (2 off) open
3BSM swivels downwards
Roll post doors, one in each wing lower surface, open and roll post nozzles move downwards to clear wing aperture. (The roll posts are fed by bypass air from the main engine and provide roll control as well as around 2000 pounds of thrust)
Inboard weapons bay doors are partially opened to help control flows of hot and cold gas around the aircraft
All control surfaces are moved to optimise lift system thrust by controlling movement of air around the aircraft.
Aircraft flight control software transitions from normal wing borne control laws to powered lift control laws
Pilot controls change their function from 'wing borne' to 'powered lift' - in powered lift, pilot has no control over aircraft pitch attitude. Right hand 'inceptor' now functions as a vertical rate demand input (fore and aft control movement) and lateral rate input (side to side control movement). Left hand inceptor now functions as a fore and aft rate input using fore and aft motion.


Note - this list is not exhaustive. What (I hope) this lot puts across is that the transition to and from powered lift mode is a seriously complex process, and there are no 'standby' or secondary' drives or options available. The main point is that once you have committed to sucking half the power out of the main engine forwards to the lift fan, you have to stay on two 'pillars' of gas. There are numerous sensors, interlocks, fault detectors and so forth built into the powered lift system, and the F-35B development programme was (quite understandably) driven by the customer to ensure that the pilot would either be prevented from engaging power lift in an unsafe condition, or would be prompted to switch back to wing borne flight as soon as an issue arose. However, sudden failure of the lift fan will cause the aircraft to pitch nose down very quickly, and I believe that the F-35B seat system is equipped with an automatic ejection feature.

The final point I would offer is that the F-35B has a wide powered lift flight envelope, all the way from zero knots to somewhere over 200 knots. The aircraft was required to be able to conduct landings in the powered lift mode all the way from a 'near conventional' to a full vertical recovery. I'm not surprised to hear that Eglin based aircraft are doing a range of rolling landings. For Dave, I am not sure that an RVL uses less fuel than a VL. I am fairly sure that for the Harrier/Sea Harrier, the most fuel efficient way to land was a conventional rolling landing with the nozzles aft (I am sure that a PPruner out there will correct me on this in the likely event that I'm wrong). Basically, the more time you spend not using the wings for lift, the more fuel you use.

The SRVL method for carrier use is driven solely by the Uk's desire to bring back heavier loads at higher temperatures and lower pressures than was called for in the JSF Requirement Document (the JORD). Fuel economy doesn't as far as I know, have anything to do with it. Again, I'm happy to be put right on that.

Hope all this stuff helps, best regards as ever to all the very bright and amazingly hard working Brits who worked with their equally talented US counterparts to make all this stuff work. I'm not sure they always get the credit they deserve.

Engines

[Vzlet]

To illustrate the post from Engines:
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x450/41491838384_329b968f2f_c_73adc05f3df3c5d824a2fb2b50e0fdbef4c 1f1f7.jpg
From "MCAS Cherry Point, May 2018 (https://flic.kr/s/aHskyiDmTH)"


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x534/42055760642_ee3fa70b02_c_9811ebb3463bb36f68dfa002ee1076ff0c3 88409.jpg
From "MCAS Cherry Point, May 2018 (https://flic.kr/s/aHskyiDmTH)"

[Engines]

ORAC, FB,

I thought it might be helpful to other readers of this thread if I responded to your posts. As ever, please feel free to tell me if it's not. I do confess to being a little confused by the assertion that the 'general consensus' is that the F-35B is the 'most successful of the three models', apparently on the grounds that 'the USMC and RN (are) getting the other services to pay enormous amounts of cash for sub-optimal aircraft so they could get a far more effective platform to replace the Harrier'. It's hard to know where to start in responding to this, but my points of fact would be as follows:

The three F-35 variants arose from the Joint Strike Fighter programme, which was jointly funded by the USAF, USN and the UK MoD. The aim of the programme was to develop a family of three aircraft to replace a number of legacy aircraft that were becoming expensive to support. The JSF programme was bounded by a key restriction - the aircraft had to be single engined and single pilot. This was a DoD response to to massive cost overruns and failures of a number of USAF and USN tactical aircraft programmes over the preceding 15 years or so. The USAF and the USN (note that the USMC's budget is managed by the USN within DoD) joined the programme on the basis that developing a family of three aircraft would be cheaper than trying to develop three wholly different aircraft. Here in 2018, it's clear to all that the JSF/F-35 programme has experienced significant overruns in both cost and schedule. But to characterise the programme as the USMC and RN getting the other services (which I suppose means the USAF and the RAF) to 'pay for a 'Harrier Replacement' is, in my respectful view, a bit off the mark.

I would also question the assertion that the F-35B is a 'sub-optimal' aircraft. Yes, it has less range and payload than the F-35A. But by design, not by being 'worse'. To repeat, if you want a STOVL aircraft, you suffer a penalty. (Incidentally, the F-35C, as a 'cat and trap' design, suffers penalties as well, including maximum speed, acceleration and turn performance). If you mean that the F-35A and F-35C are 'sub-optimal', that rather begs the question of 'sub-optimal compared to what?'. Possibly to large twin engined, twin seat aircraft. Which were probably unaffordable (my view again). Rafale? Gripen?

It's useful to remember that the UK got into JSF because the MoD had endorsed the RN's requirement for a Sea Harrier replacement (NST 6464). That formed the basis for our entry into the JSF programme via what was titled 'The UK STOVL MoU'. That was FCBA. On the arrival of Joint Force Harrier, the UK's requirement was rebadged as FJCA, and the aim expanded to replace both the Sea Harrier and Harrier GR7/9 fleets. I believe that this was the basis for the development of the UK's '138' figure. (others may correct me). So to be clear - the UK's involvement in the JSF was for an RN/RAF Harrier replacement. Nobody was 'getting the RAF' to pay for 'their' aircraft, unless one assumes that all military aircraft development funds within the MoD 'belong' to the RAF. Personally, I don't.

The adoption of the F-35B as the 'Tornado replacement' was (in my personal view, happy to be told I'm wrong) a result of the MoD realising that the UK's defence budget could not afford another military aircraft procurement programme in the same timeframe as JSF. The MoD and the RAF had spent a lot of time and money on what were (in my opinion) non-starters such as a UK designed and built 1000 mile range stealth bomber, and the various FOAS studies. Moreover, by this time, Eurofighter/Typhoon was suffering massive cost and schedule overruns (not as widely reported as the issues with JSF/F-35, but that's the UK media and defence issues for you) which were threatening to overwhelm the MoD's procurement budget. Back in the late 1990s, I worked for a while for a truly exceptional MoD senior civil servant. He had briefing charts that clearly set out his view of the future for the RAF's combat aircraft fleet. That future was Typhoon to replace Tornado F3 and JSF to replace Tornado GR. How right he was.

As to USAF and USN F-35 buys, I've seen nothing to indicate that they are moving away from their stated acquisition plans. The USN has always planned to use F/A-18s for as long as they were combat capable, and buy new Super Hornets if the F-35 programme slipped. I've seen nothing from the USAF that shows any desire to build any more F-16s, and no news of any major F-15/F-16 life extension programmes. In my view (and only in my view), talk of an F-22/F-35 'hybrid' is speculative at best. While I worked at Fort Worth, I heard many Americans say openly that whatever they were going to do on F-35 'they sure as hell wouldn't do it like they did it on the legacy aircraft' - 'legacy' meant the F-22. The USAF's new 'long range fighter' is years away, and I am sure that wise heads in the DoD are dusting off their parametric studies to get a handle on the likely cost of a large, highly manoeuvrable,long range, twin engined aircraft.

I suppose what i'm trying to say (in a long winded way) is that trying to characterise the F-35B as a sub-optimal aircraft forced on the RAF by a cunning RN/USMC cabal is not only plain wrong, but a disservice to all those BAeS, RR, MoD, RN and RAF folk who have given their all to this programme and earned the UK much credit within the US service and industry community. I've seen young Brits (including RAF aircrew) absolutely stun US meetings with their calm, polite and utterly professional inputs. They have made a huge difference.

Best regards to all my old friends in the JSF programme, and to the young RN and RAF personnel getting ready to take the F-35B fleet forward.

Engines

[Engines]

Nice post, Vzlet - they make the point perfectly!

Best regards

Engines

[Not_a_boffin]

Two words for Engines.

Bravo Zulu.

[Timelord]

Engines, did we sign up for 138 JCBA / JSF before or after the decision to build the QE class carriers? Ie, was it ever intended for them to operate from Invincible class ships?

( Unusually for prune this is a genuine question, I am not trying to make any points!)

[ORAC]

I would also question the assertion that the F-35B is a 'sub-optimal' aircraft. I didn’t say the F-35B was suboptimal, on the contrary, I said that it is far more effective than the Harrier that it replaces.

What I did say was that was achieved by the other services having to accept suboptimal aircraft for their roles. I think you would agree that, if either had had the option to start with a clean sheet of paper, neither would have accepted the limitTions imposed by weight, size, structure etc which imposed to achieve the, limited, commonality eventually achieved.

I've seen nothing from the USAF that shows any desire to build any more F-16s, and no news of any major F-15/F-16 life extension programmes.

USAF To Keep Upgraded F-16s Till 2048 As Fate Of F-15C In Doubt - The Drive (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9247/usaf-to-keep-upgraded-f-16s-till-2048-as-fate-of-f-15c-in-doubt)

https://insidedefense.com/insider/air-force-issues-rfp-f-16-slep

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/07/30/boeings-new-f-15x-may-replace-an-aging-fleet-of-f-15cd-eagles/

[gums]

Salute!

Yeah, Dave and Engines.

The Stubbies I see here with all the doors open but flying a conventional pattern do not seem to have the nozzles deflected, so there must be one flight control law mode that transitions from "fan engaged" but no nozzle rotation, to full landing/hover.

One day I saw what appeared to be a demo of all three versions, maybe for some high rollers, heh? The Bee was last in line for the overhead pattern.(circuit for you Brits). All the doors open. So I pulled off the road and watched as they all came back and the A and C landed, but the B stopped over the runway and hovered for a few seconds. It then accelerated and did a closed pattern and a short rolling landing. I would estimate it rolled maybe 500 or 600 feet.

I have personally talked with one or more pilots, including the USMC dude that had a lotta influence on the landing mode. He was a Harrier pilot and suggested that with the FBW crapola the plane should have an easier landing mode than the Harrier. Hence, move throttle for fore and aft, and use stick for up/down plus some left right. Rudder for yaw. The USAF pilots flying the sim said it was like cheating to land on a boat!
++++++++++++++++++++++=

All must remember that the aircraft/weapon system must meet the nation's operational requirements to engage in combat. The Harrier was one example that the Brits have used in combat more than once. However, I agree with the proposal for Britain to have a mix of Bees with either the "A" or Cee. Like they did with the Harrier and to some extent the Tornado.

My best wishes for the Motherland's acquisition and employment of a plane from the colonists.

Gums sends...

[Nige321]

Hence, move throttle for fore and aft, and use stick for up/down plus some left right. Rudder for yaw.

Seems un-intuitive to me, I'd have expected throttle to be up-down, stick to be fore-aft.

A bit like... a helicopter!

[Engines]

ORAC,.

Thanks for the response - it's always good to exchange views.

It looks as if the USAF is following the USN path and getting more life out of the F-16 as the F-35 deliveries have slipped. I would note that previous attempts to get more airframe life out of the F-16 fleet have not been a roaring success, and the RFP stuff you kindly supplied indicates a possible max of about 490 F-16s affected. The F-15X is still a proposal from Boeing, no sign of the USAF going there yet.

Yes, I'd absolutely agree that a 'clean sheet of paper' design for a USAF replacement for the F-15 and the F-16 would have been very different to the F-35A. Whether it would have been affordable as a separate programme is another matter. The USAF is just as good at 'gold plating' a requirement as any other Air Force.

I would offer the thought that the F-35 family has a little more commonality than some people think. Avionics and weapons systems are massive cost drivers for combat aircraft, and these systems are (I am led to understand) almost completely common across the three fleets. There are also common items across the main engines, another big cost driver. Ditto many of the aircraft systems components in the fuel, hydraulic, thermal management and electrical systems, as well as life support and escape. Also training and support programmes. And the fact that a single line is assembling and delivering all three variants.

Best regards as ever to the smart people managing the transition from one fleet of aircraft to another.

Engines

[Engines]

Engines, did we sign up for 138 JCBA / JSF before or after the decision to build the QE class carriers? Ie, was it ever intended for them to operate from Invincible class ships?

( Unusually for prune this is a genuine question, I am not trying to make any points!)
Timelord,

Happy to help as best I can. I think that the 138 figure for FCBA was downstream of the decision to go for the carriers. My recollection is that it appeared at the first iteration of the list of the various partners' planned production totals in around 2002 ish. Note that these were never firm orders. The UK was the first customer to significantly alter their buy, slipping their delivery timelines well to the right, to the current dates.

The original NST6464 called for an aircraft that could be operated from the Invincible class ships. By the time the contracts was awarded to LM in October 2001, the JORD (Joint Operational Requirements Document) showed that the UK's ship/aircraft integration requirements had been pared right back to a series of what were essentially place holders. These included:

The aircraft had to be able to launch off an 'Invincible Class' ramp at a specific weight, configuration and take off run
The aircraft had to be 'dimensionally compatible with Invincible class flight deck and hangar layouts'. This meant that an F-35B could be physically parked on the flight or hangar deck. Notably, it didn't have to fit down the lifts

Over the next two to three years, the UK was working hard to find the best way to marry an as yet to be designed F-35B with an as yet to be designed CVF (which became the QE class). This was not at all straightforward. Among the first items that the UK added to their contract were studies into an optimised new ramp design for the CVF and the initial studies into Short Rolling Vertical Landings.

Sadly, most of this work was thrown into confusion in 2010 when the UK changed tack to the F-35C. Even more confusion ensued when they changed back in 2012. It has to be said that the UK's credibility within the US as an informed and reliable customer took a bit of a knock over that period. I think it says a lot for the strength of the relationship at the working level that we managed to rebuild our reputation on the programme.

Best Regards as ever to all those who have done the hard yards on the hard days,

Engines

[melmothtw]

Hence, move throttle for fore and aft, and use stick for up/down plus some left right. Rudder for yaw.

Seems un-intuitive to me, I'd have expected throttle to be up-down, stick to be fore-aft.

A bit like... a helicopter!

In the landing phase it is throttle = up-down and stick = fore-aft (at least that's how I remember it being when I flew the sim at Warton, but standing by to be corrected as it was a while ago now).

[Engines]

Guys,

Thanks for the replies and comments. Hopefully, I can add some useful and occasionally interesting info on the F-35B STOVL flight controls here.

Going back to the start of the programme, the customers were very focussed on reducing through life cost and enhancing safety. The lessons of the USMC AV-8A fleet and the UK's Harrier experience were uppermost in their minds. They were also looking at reducing the pilot's flying workload as much as possible to allow him/her to focus on managing and winning in combat. They also wanted an aircraft that required less pilot training. These desires all came together in looking very hard at how to best control a STOVL aircraft in the transition, takeoff and landing.

These were crystallised out in the JORD in two ways. First, they demanded very good handling characteristics. secondly, they mandated that the flying controls that were operated by hand had to be limited to two 'inceptors'. The led to many studies and trials, and out of these came the F-35B system. I should note the huge contributions made by the BAE STOVL test pilots throughout the early years of the programme - their inputs, suggestions, criticisms and teamwork laid the foundation for what the team has achieved. A special mention should also go to the pioneering VAAC Harrier test bed, designed at Cranfield and put to hard work at Boscombe and also at sea, helping to develop the new STOVL flight control laws. It should be understood that two of the highest risk areas of the F-35 development programme were the integration of the STOVL propulsion system with the airframe, and the development of the STOVL flight control laws and flight control system. Both of these were led and executed by BAE Systems. Personally, I don't think they get anywhere near the amount of credit they are due.

The end result is a 'powered flight mode', which the pilot selects by a single action switch on the left hand 'inceptor'. This initiates the change from fully wing borne flight, and it can be selected over quite a wide speed range. In this mode, as I've posted earlier, the controls change from a 'throttle' (more like an energy demand) and 'stick' (more of a flight path demand) to a 'fore and aft rate' demand via the left hand inceptor, and a vertical rate and lateral rate demand via the right hand inceptor. This was a very controversial decision at the time, but was supported by extensive work in both conventional sims and the vertical motion simulator at NASA Ames, I believe. One aspect of this new flight control system is that the pitch of the aircraft is not controlled by the pilot.

However, the transition from 'normal wing borne' to 'full stop powered lift' is managed via an automated 'blend' programme which, I understand, is mainly driven by aircraft airspeed. So, the excellent pictures Gums posted up very probably (alert - I'm now assuming stuff) show an F-35B in the high speed end of the 'powered lift' mode. The landing gear is still up (this is selected independently from the powered lift mode selection), the lift fan door is in the 30 degree position for higher speeds, and the 3BSM is down at around 10 to 15 degrees or so. All the various doors are opened at this stage, except the inner weapon bay doors that deploy automatically just before touch down. In the powered lift mode, thrust can be moved between the front lift fan and the aft nozzle - it's not a fixed 50/50 spilt. So, in these pics, the lift fan IGVs will have shut down, reducing the power demand from the fan, and allowing more 'grunt' to come out of the rear.

Gums is spot on - the result is that landing the F-35B on the boat is several orders of magnitude easier than it was for the Harrier folk.

Best Regards as ever to our excellent people who continue to bring the jet to the front line. If it wasn't hard it wasn't worth doing....

Engines

[Lonewolf_50]

I suppose what i'm trying to say (in a long winded way) is that trying to characterise the F-35B as a sub-optimal aircraft forced on the RAF by a cunning RN/USMC cabal is not only plain wrong, but a disservice to all those BAeS, RR, MoD, RN and RAF folk who have given their all to this programme and earned the UK much credit within the US service and industry community. I've seen young Brits (including RAF aircrew) absolutely stun US meetings with their calm, polite and utterly professional inputs. They have made a huge difference.

Best regards to all my old friends in the JSF programme, and to the young RN and RAF personnel getting ready to take the F-35B fleet forward.

Engines It is refreshing to see a post from someone who knows what they are talking about, and who was "inside the belly of the beast" for a while. As ever, thanks for your contribution to this thread, and to my improved understanding of the aircraft.

[orca]

The control logic (speaking as someone with sim time only) is very intuitive. Not sure if others think of it like this but if you recall your very first formation teach - throttle did fore and aft, stick did up and down...this is the same.

[gums]

Salute!

Thanks, Orca. I know a few Harrier guys that flew them in the RAF, and they liked the idea of fore/aft and up/down.

I appreciate the Harrier pilots' comments bout using thrust for up and down, but a close friend that had an exchange Harrier tour in the RAF agrees with the Stubbie control law for landing/hover. It also lends itself to good short roll landings on the deck or unimproved runway.

Gums sends...

[safetypee]

Just to add a small but important aspect to the development history outlined by Engines, #42
The VAAC Harrier was operated by Flight Systems Sqn at RAE Bedford (circa 1975-80). Significant credit for a new control inception should go the the RAE scientific team, and particularly test pilot Peter B, before his untimely ‘retirement’ via MB seat across the grass.
My involvement was limited to one very closely supervised flight in conventional mode which concluded that any change would be better than the basic Harrier control system !
During the late 70s, aspects of auto control and autothrust were being explored, and in simulation the essence of new inception modes / operation, vs alternatives for independent nozzle control (Harrier).
I was an impartial (uninformed) sounding block, more for the presentation of the case than the technical merit; unfortunately I lost contact with Peter after 1980.

[orca]

Hi Gums - of course, the ‘battle’ to convince Harrier drivers that the new control logic was better fell initially on stony ears as better and different are hard for some to reconcile.
The argument is to an increasing extent irrelevant though, because making a system worse to appease a dwindling proportion of the target audience would be somewhat daft.
Speaking as the un-elected mouth piece for all those who enjoyed the Pegasus Left Hand Juggle - but were prepared to accept progress - I think the JSF team
have done a brilliant job.
I spoke with a real live F-35 driver just the other day and he said that a Vertical Landing was his ‘night time arrival of choice’ as it was the lowest work load of the bunch.
Even allowing for personal preference that’s not something most Harrier drivers would say.

[gums]

Salute!

There are many things that help interoperability and the biggie for NATO partners with the Viper and Now Stubbie is the motor. The black boxes are not a problem with the logistics path. The hydraulic actuators and such are common.

So except for the Bee VTOL features, looks like we will have lottsa common things in the maintenance and logistics arena. And the avionics hdwe and sftwe seem to apply to all variants, huh?

Gums sends...

[Engines]

Safetypee,

Thank you for adding that important information - I apologise unreservedly for not getting that right the first time. The Bedford team's contribution to the F-35 via the VAAC was simply huge, and I dropped a serious cog there. I offer this apology to anyone else from the RAE team.

As you so rightly say, the work carried out there was vital to the later success of the F-35B STOVL flight controls design and development effort. Sometimes the work of 'boffins' such as the RAE team doesn't get the appreciation and respect it deserves. There's also a regrettably 'Brit' tendency to denigrate our own country's aircraft industry and government research efforts. No one should be above criticism, but some of the rocks thrown at BAES and others are (just in my view) undeserved. I had the privilege to work with a really talented bunch of (mostly fairly young) engineers and aircrew who were handed some of the hardest challenges on the F-35 programme, and met them all, earning the respect of many hard nosed Americans. Might be nice if we gave them a nod every now and then.

Once again, my apologies for failing to do that this time.

Best regards as ever to all those who fought for VAAC, kept it going, and made it deliver,

Engines

[gums]

Salute!

To my fellow aviators in the Motherland, I wonder if you all have seen this good article about the Bee and the QE operations.

My Observations And Questions After Finally Seeing F-35Bs Operate From HMS Queen Elizabeth - The Drive (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23939/my-observations-and-questions-after-finally-seeing-f-35bs-operate-from-hms-queen-elizabeth)

It is also comforting that the colonist Marines have already been over to the island for some joint training. I also understand that the USMC Stubbies will be training on the QE with their coubnterparts in the near future.

In case anyone wonders my connection with the RAF........... one of my instructors in the F-102 back in 1965 was Sqd Ldr Cowley, a Lightning jock and my flight commander. Still have his wife's recipe book, heh heh. Then I had Sqd Ldr Wharmby at Myrtle Beach with my 356th TFS A-7D squad, circa 1973 or 1974. Finally, I worked with many during my last few years as Ops Plans weenie for the 388th TFW Viper outfit.

Gums sends...

[oldmansquipper]

For the unitiated, the B Version is the only one with "auto eject"- that in itself should lead to some interesting investigations.....

I can just see my old DD pounding down the corridor at Strike, demanding to know exactly what went wrong about 5 min after the report came in .......

glad the guy got out...MB doing its job admirably..whatever the reason.

[MightyGem]

Salute!

To my fellow aviators in the Motherland, I wonder if you all have seen this good article about the Bee and the QE operations.

My Observations And Questions After Finally Seeing F-35Bs Operate From HMS Queen Elizabeth - The Drive (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23939/my-observations-and-questions-after-finally-seeing-f-35bs-operate-from-hms-queen-elizabeth)

It is also comforting that the colonist Marines have already been over to the island for some joint training. I also understand that the USMC Stubbies will be training on the QE with their coubnterparts in the near future.

In case anyone wonders my connection with the RAF........... one of my instructors in the F-102 back in 1965 was Sqd Ldr Cowley, a Lightning jock and my flight commander. Still have his wife's recipe book, heh heh. Then I had Sqd Ldr Wharmby at Myrtle Beach with my 356th TFS A-7D squad, circa 1973 or 1974. Finally, I worked with many during my last few years as Ops Plans weenie for the 388th TFW Viper outfit.

Gums sends...
Link not accessible here in the UK. :(

[Kerosene Kraut]

Locked in Germany using some PC too, but works on the iPhone.

[gums]

Salute!

Try the main website

The War Zone | The Drive (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone)

Gums sends....

[Rhino power]

Link not accessible here in the UK. :(

It is on my PC here in the UK, maybe I'm 'special'...

-RP

[sandiego89]

The discussions about what to pull/push to go up or down reminded me of the very contested debates in the MV-22 Osprey program which are chronicled in "The Dream Machine" book by Richard Whittle (a great read). Much of the rotary wing crowd were adamant that the aircraft should have a traditional collective (like the XV-15) where you pull to go up, while the fixed wing folks associated pushing the throttle for more power. The rotary wing crowd, from where most of the early MV-22 pilots would come from after transition from the CH-46 or 53, feared a "collective dyslexia" as their training and muscle memory was used to a collective, and moving a single left hand power lever the wrong way, especially near the ground, could be disastrous. The program director at the time was Colonel Blot (very much a fixed wing guy) and he was adamant for a throttle and ultimately won out. A Thrust Control Lever (push for power) was used- and referred to as the "Blottle" by those in the program- "but not to his face". (Whittle, pp 157-159, 200)

[gums]

Salute!

I think Orca had it nailed about one hand and the other.

Think formation flying and then the carrier deck or soccer field is your flight leader, heh?

I also feel that after a few seconds, when you realize pushing forward on the power lever/doofer/handle moves you forward and pulling it back moves you aft, it becomes clear. The FBW control laws do a lot for you. Lots more than they did for this old fart with the early Vipers.

The Osprey laws are a lot like the Stubbie, according to the flight manual I have. Haven't looked at it for 20 years, but there were many neat control buttons and such for horizontal translation and tilting the rotors and such. And then there's the immense progress with rate and inertial sensors from those old days. Just think of your smart phone orientation features when tilting. And the drones that have come along the last 10 years. Growing up, I saw the RC plane implementation before we had digital comm and separate control surfaces used separate physical frequencies of vibrating reeds. Crude multiplexing, but they worked. By early 70's we multiplexed the signals one a single frequency and used time division and address digital packets. RC helos were a bitch, but by early 2000's the sensors could keep those suckers perfectly stable in front of you without much from you.

Gums sends...

[MightyGem]

It is on my PC here in the UK, maybe I'm 'special'...
You must be. All I get is this:
https://geoscripts.meredith.services/public/html/no-access.html

[Rhino power]

You must be. All I get is this:
https://geoscripts.meredith.services/public/html/no-access.html

Very strange...

-RP

[Lyneham Lad]

You must be. All I get is this:
https://geoscripts.meredith.services/public/html/no-access.html

No problem accessing the article via wi-fi here in sunny Spain. 🇪🇸

[esa-aardvark]

I am in Spain, connected via UK ISP. Connection refused for me.

[MightyGem]

Must be a Safari thing then as it's OK in Firefox.

[PeterGee]

So I see LM are looking at faults with a fuel pipe, and grounded the fleet for 24 - 48 hours for inspections. (Seems QE trials are continuing though) As this is for all variants, can we assume the issue is not F35B specific, or do we need to see which aircraft actually need replacements?

[glad rag]

So I see LM are looking at faults with a fuel pipe, and grounded the fleet for 24 - 48 hours for inspections. (Seems QE trials are continuing though) As this is for all variants, can we assume the issue is not F35B specific, or do we need to see which aircraft actually need replacements?

Unless it is specific to a type, which from the sound of it it isn't, and as the trials are allegedly continuing, then you could propose that it is an generic item for "later" build aircraft...

[RAFEngO74to09]

The problem is common to all variants but it appears that there are known batches of fuel pipes that are OK if the wording in this article is accurate. As the Italians have checked all 10 of their aircraft already we can assume that it is doesn't take long to do the checks and hence why the F-35B / HMS QNLZ trial schedule has not been affected.
U.S. Military, Foreign Operators Ground Their F-35s To Look For Faulty Fuel Tubes - The Drive (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24171/u-s-military-foreign-operators-ground-their-f-35s-to-look-for-faulty-fuel-tubes)