F35 C first deck landing

[Courtney Mil]

Jindabyne,

Not my claims, Sir. Au contraire.

Lone Wolf,

Folk will post wherever their interest is. It's been clear for a very long time that "cancel" isn't in the vocabulary. But that's what the thread was called, for the original question.



Anyway, I recall having the argument about energy manoeuvrability here a long time ago, when JSFfan was here. Do we need to revisit the impact that a 7g limit has on missile kinematics? Let alone the sustained g capability.

[SpazSinbad]

The other very long thread mentioned has many pages as I recall about 'stealth maintainability' and 'how it is measured after repair' onboard.


CM needs to download the indicated with URL [ https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/d...ober_2014).pdf ] 'LM Fast Facts PDF'. And I agree the otherwise 'FACTS' web page is less than useful in a lot of respects.

On page 5 of this thread 'KenV' made statements about maintainability with reference to the engine, with a response from 'Engines'.

Here is a story from print media - not available online I guess:

GRIM REAPERS July 2014 Mark Ayton; AIR International F-35 Special Edition

“...Changing and Handling an F135 Engine
To date, the squadron’s maintenance department has changed one F135 engine on F-35C BuNo 168733/ ‘NJ101’ – the first one delivered from Fort Worth. According to CDR Lookabaugh the process was “much slower” compared to a Hornet or Super Hornet, but not because the maintainers were unfamiliar with the procedure. “Changing an engine [on the F-35C] requires a quite different mindset,” he said. “That’s why you don’t want to do it unless you absolutely need to, because it’s going to take more time than on the legacy platforms.”

Physically, it involves a different way of doing things. “You pull it straight out rather than drop it,” said Lookabaugh. “You have to take panels off to get at the many connections, and you have to remove the tail hook truss. So there are lot of parts that have to come off before you can take the engine out. All you do with a legacy platform is drop the doors and its engine comes straight out.”

The size of the F135 engine, compared to the F404 and F414 power plants used by Hornets and Super Hornets, is “not going to affect us much” according to CDR Luke Kremer, VFA-101’s Safety Officer. He added: “It’s going to make the handler mad, though. He’s the guy who has to park up the jets. Because the F135 is not dropped down, he’s going to have to make more room behind the aircraft to allow for the motor to be pulled out. That means he will have fewer spots to park jets in the hangar bay.”

CDR Lookabaugh explained: “Certain spots are considered dead spots: those where we wouldn’t move the aircraft after we’d started working on it. They will probably be the spots where we will position an aircraft that requires the engine to be removed. This will not impede the flow of traffic moving through the hangar bay. Typically, the handlers do a whole dance of moving aircraft around at night to get the right one down-stairs and others upstairs. Any aircraft stuck in a certain position will impede movement. It will be a challenge, but nothing that hasn’t been overcome before.”

Also, because of its size, handling an F135 engine between the hangar bay and the Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Department will eventually be helped by an engine removal and installation trailer specifically designed [by MARAND, Australia] for the Pratt & Whitney power plant, although engine handling testing has not happened yet....”

[Engines]

Bevo,

Thanks for posting the link - updates and corrects my fading recollections. Yes, the transparency shock wave and the way it interacts with the canopy structure are critical to survival of the whole structure.

It's a tough challenge to meet, and many aircraft have experienced real problems in meeting it. As some of do our best to drive home, advanced aircraft programmes are invariably tough and full of risk. They don't often go to plan, not because people are dim, but because the teams are working to do really hard stuff.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[Courtney Mil]

Spaz,

Thank you. Your link still returns a 404 error, which means the page does not exist or cannot be found. Same as the first time you posted it.

[jindabyne]

CM,

Aah - a total misread on my part. Apologies.

[SpazSinbad]

Tis a pity that LM do not archive the 'Facts of much Fastness' PDFs - so as to avoid this issue. However I can attest (as indicated earlier) that the old has been replaced with the new Nov ed. Probably best to always go here first to see the new edition (top left): https://www.f35.com/media-kit


https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/d...vember2014.pdf

[Mechta]

Regarding the canopy bow; in comparison to the F-16 and F-22 which are bowless, and also land based, could the forces on the F-35 canopy in the event of the aircraft go off the deck and into the water inverted have been a consideration? One would hope the pilot would be able to eject beforehand, but if not, a canopy distorting inwards could make things a lot worse.

[SpazSinbad]

Perhaps this is an 'on glideslope' indication of 'hook to ramp' clearance however we do not know this as the approach may just be a 'test' approach with different parameters used.

F-35C Sea Trials 2014 SET
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lockhe...7648734761507/

This one from 06 Nov 2014 in largest size: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7534/...f7d07c_o_d.jpg

[SpazSinbad]

A4G Slow Motion Catapult Film - HMAS Melbourne - New Strop Catcher

For that one other A-4 person earlier.... Here is the Slo Mo Fillum of A4G catapults with the new Stroppy Catcher c.1971. I hope we can see some relevant slomo for the F-35Cs - an arrest perchance? We see slo mo arrests of 886 - lost overboard later during a storm. The brakeman had a miraculous escape to be picked up by nearby destroyer with minor injuries. 889 was lost earlier - during the first cold catapult with the pilot staying with the aircraft for various reasons - to then stay inside the cockpit (with water pressure equalisation working as designed - because he was able to jettison the canopy before going off the deep end - while he breathed emergency oxygen) and after the propellers passed by, to escape to the surface with inflated Mae West to be picked up by Pedro SAR Helo - OK.

Slo-mo deck ops, HMAS Melbourne - YouTube

[Courtney Mil]

Thank you, Spaz. That one works.

[SpazSinbad]

Top of page 5 of this thread shows the first photo of the two hands on the canopy handles catapult method.


http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post8736212


Looks like that method is confirmed with this second photo.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Courtney Mil

Anyway, I recall having the argument about energy manoeuvrability here a long time ago, when JSFfan was here. Do we need to revisit the impact that a 7g limit has on missile kinematics? Let alone the sustained g capability.

As I don't think physics has changed in the interim, not needed.
Point taken.

One more data point on why the "one size fits all MUST be better" attitudes that led to JSF via our Congress leads to results that can get the teeth to grind.

[KenV]

For that one other A-4 person earlier.... Here is the Slo Mo Fillum of A4G catapults with the new Stroppy Catcher c.1971

As can be seen in the linked movies, the A-4 (the F-4 also) used the old-school launch bridle on the cat, which puts the cat loads into the wing root area of the jet. Very efficient structurally. All modern USN jets use the launch bar integral to the nose gear, which puts the launch loads into the nose gear/nose structure of the jet. Much less efficent structurally with lotsa weight added to the jet. But the launch bar made launch operations much easier and more consistent. And the launch bridle went overboard with each shot, so the boat needed to store LOTS of them onboard. If the boat ever ran out of them, the boat could not launch its jets. So the launch bar made lots of sense, but it was not free. It came at a price.

[KenV]

Top of page 5 of this thread shows the first photo of the two hands on the canopy handles catapult method.

That's fastenating. In the Hornet we put our left hand behind the throttles to make sure the throttles don't inadvertantly slide back during the cat stroke. The throttles must be really different on the F-35.

Engines, can you put some light on this?

[Just This Once...]

Bridle catcher.

[Engines]

Ken,

No, I'm afraid I can't. I know that the idea was to have the right hand off the right hand 'control inceptor', and that the assumption was that the same would go for the left had - but I know about the Hornet rule, and don't know why the F-35C can go 'two hands off'.

(By the way, the photo (thanks Spaz) shows how wide the canopy arch is)

I can say that the F-35 requirements set called for fully automatic takeoffs from land, cat launch and also ski jump, so that may have had something to do with it.

It's a good illustration of just how fundamentally different a cat launch is from normal land based operations - the pilot is really a passenger from the time he completes his checks and signals 'ready' to the flight deck crew until quite some distance off the end of the cat - that places some significant requirements on the aircraft's flight control systems and flight characteristics, more so when you consider the wide range of conditions and launch weights (and catapult power - varies with age) that the aircraft has to accommodate.

Tricky stuff, this naval aviation

Best Regards

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

'KenV' the USN also much earlier than the RAN had strop/bridle catchers. No one ever caught me being stroppy. :-)

[SpazSinbad]

This is the rumour network? No? Rumour has it that in over 100 arrest/cats so far - no bolters. I'll imagine there will be test points for 'unhinged'? if that is the word they use for 'bad passes/approaches'- but - whatever. Here is the wire muncher.

[Rhino power]

Spaz, do we really need eleventy nine thousand images of the fact that the F-35C has finally conducted carrier arrests/overshoots/launches? We get it, it's finally been to the boat, relax...

-RP

[SpazSinbad]

'RP' my little secret? I do not read any crab offerings in other threads except the ones about the RN FAA and of course the greatest of them all 'ERIC'. Perhaps you can skip this thread. Given that earlier there was interest from some (Mechta for example here). 'Mechta' on page one of this thread:


http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post8727799

"A view from a camera looking along the wire at the point of touchdown would be useful.


Given that the original problem appeared to be the wheels squashing the arrester wire flat on the deck, so the hook passed over before the wire could be lifted back into position again by the springs in the deck for a reliable trap, I would like more reassurance that a reliable solution has been found."

And the following contribution is interesting - from 'Mechta': http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post8728378


Perhaps there is only room now for the BAD NEWS BEARS and there might be - such as 'NIGHT FLYING CANCELLED' with sighs of relief from all concerned. :-)