F35 C first deck landing
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe 'Engines' has answered the canopy question here:
KenV,
It's down to canopy strength, and the F-35 requiring a greater level of bird-strike protection than either the F-16 or F-22. Don't forget, the F-35 has no HUD to protect the pilot's face....
It's down to canopy strength, and the F-35 requiring a greater level of bird-strike protection than either the F-16 or F-22. Don't forget, the F-35 has no HUD to protect the pilot's face....
Last edited by melmothtw; 11th Nov 2014 at 18:25.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the figures vary between variants. Best figures I can find (2012 DOT&E report) give the following for sustained G:
F-35A - 4.6
F-35B - 4.5
F-35C - 5
Note that the F-35C figure may be achieved at a lower speed than for the B and the A. (My error on sustained g in earlier post - sincere apologies).
F-35A - 4.6
F-35B - 4.5
F-35C - 5
Note that the F-35C figure may be achieved at a lower speed than for the B and the A. (My error on sustained g in earlier post - sincere apologies).
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's down to canopy strength, and the F-35 requiring a greater level of bird-strike protection than either the F-16 or F-22. Don't forget, the F-35 has no HUD to protect the pilot's face....
And I had no idea that the HUD counted toward bird strike protection. The HUD seems like an awfully flimsy piece of hardware to provide bird strike protection. If anything I would have thought a HUD would makes things worse. Thanks for the clarification.
That's what I've been told by others KenV. Unlike yourself, I'm not (former) aircrew, and so would be interested to hear your take on why you feel the F-35 needs the rail whereas the F-16 and F-22 don't. It is a subject that has cropped up on several F-35 discussions.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
There is probably a November FAST Facts meanwhile here is Oct 2014 for amongst other things the G in it:
https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/d...ober_2014).pdf (62Kb)
Max g-rating
A 9.0
B 7.0
C 7.5
https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/d...ober_2014).pdf (62Kb)
Max g-rating
A 9.0
B 7.0
C 7.5
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spaz,
Good post. Thanks - I was quoting sustained G as I felt that it was the more relevant parameter.
Melmoth - F-35C underwing stores capacity is the same as the A model. The outboard folding panels have the 'AIM-9X/AMRAAM only' hard point, which is mounted furthest outboard on the fixed wing A and B.
Yes, I've posted before on the canopy, the key reason for the bow is to achieve much more demanding birdstrike requirements than this applied to F-16 and F-22. The outer shell of the canopy is actually a one piece item, with an internal second piece fitted under the front. The bow supports the aft end of this inner piece.
The location of the bow was reviewed a number of times, with many pilots from all the customer nations taking part in examinations of mock ups, simulator sessions, etc. I do remember that there was a lot of work done to check that the pilot had a good view of the extended probe, as well as special checks for canopy view during carrier landings and STOVL recoveries. All in all, it was a very demanding job for the team, but the customers all went away satisfied.
The front hinged canopy design was driven by a number of issues, including the close location of the F-35B lift fan, signature management, and also the use of MDC to clear the canopy away from the ejection seat (another US first) to meet STOVL ejection times.
Hope this sort of stuff helps
Engines
Good post. Thanks - I was quoting sustained G as I felt that it was the more relevant parameter.
Melmoth - F-35C underwing stores capacity is the same as the A model. The outboard folding panels have the 'AIM-9X/AMRAAM only' hard point, which is mounted furthest outboard on the fixed wing A and B.
Yes, I've posted before on the canopy, the key reason for the bow is to achieve much more demanding birdstrike requirements than this applied to F-16 and F-22. The outer shell of the canopy is actually a one piece item, with an internal second piece fitted under the front. The bow supports the aft end of this inner piece.
The location of the bow was reviewed a number of times, with many pilots from all the customer nations taking part in examinations of mock ups, simulator sessions, etc. I do remember that there was a lot of work done to check that the pilot had a good view of the extended probe, as well as special checks for canopy view during carrier landings and STOVL recoveries. All in all, it was a very demanding job for the team, but the customers all went away satisfied.
The front hinged canopy design was driven by a number of issues, including the close location of the F-35B lift fan, signature management, and also the use of MDC to clear the canopy away from the ejection seat (another US first) to meet STOVL ejection times.
Hope this sort of stuff helps
Engines
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In respect to the G-ratings of the F-35, it would do well to remember the lesson of the F-16: the LWF program called for a structural life of 4,000 flight hours, capable of achieving 7.33 g with 80% internal fuel; GD's engineers decided to design the F-16's airframe life for 8,000 hours and for 9-g maneuvers on full internal fuel.
The F/A-18A/B/C/D, as well as the F/A-18E/F are designed to a 7.5G limit - almost identical to the F-35C. The AV-8B is also a 7.5G limit aircraft.
So the F-35C slightly exceeds the USAF specification for the F-16, the F-35B is just about the same or just a hair worse (I seem to remember the F-35 specification is with full fuel, though I might not remember correctly), and the F-35A matches the "excessive" rating that GD decided to build the F-16 to.
The F-35 is designed for a 8,000 hour airframe life - the recent flap over cracks in test F-35B bulkheads occurred in the "second life" portion of the tests, at 9,480 hours - the bulkhead was to be redesigned because the services want a +100% design reserve (16,000 hours before airframe failure).
The F/A-18A/B/C/D, as well as the F/A-18E/F are designed to a 7.5G limit - almost identical to the F-35C. The AV-8B is also a 7.5G limit aircraft.
So the F-35C slightly exceeds the USAF specification for the F-16, the F-35B is just about the same or just a hair worse (I seem to remember the F-35 specification is with full fuel, though I might not remember correctly), and the F-35A matches the "excessive" rating that GD decided to build the F-16 to.
The F-35 is designed for a 8,000 hour airframe life - the recent flap over cracks in test F-35B bulkheads occurred in the "second life" portion of the tests, at 9,480 hours - the bulkhead was to be redesigned because the services want a +100% design reserve (16,000 hours before airframe failure).
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
BEFORE the NIMITZ there was SHAKE RATTLE & ROLL and STRUCTURAL SURVEY (for new aircraft) for the F-35C at NAS Patuxent River (all of which are ongoing, as the need arises, for various weapons and any changes). This video is from the recent Sept HOOK14 series.
MAGIC CARPET is mentioned (for the Super Hornet Family) with connections to the IDLC on the F-35C. Look for that Magic video on the same Youtube page.
MAGIC CARPET is mentioned (for the Super Hornet Family) with connections to the IDLC on the F-35C. Look for that Magic video on the same Youtube page.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's what I've been told by others KenV. Unlike yourself, I'm not (former) aircrew, and so would be interested to hear your take on why you feel the F-35 needs the rail whereas the F-16 and F-22 don't. It is a subject that has cropped up on several F-35 discussions
I've had a number of discussions with F-16 drivers and many of them really like the lack of a canopy bow. They say the unobstructed canopy gives them greater visibility, especially in the pattern. But folks with experience in fighters with canopy bows like the fact that the canopy bow provides a place to install rear view mirrors. They argue that under heavy G maneuvering it's hard to physically turn around to "check six" and the mirrors provide better situational awareness. My only experience is with aircraft with canopy bows.
The F-35 canopy seems odd to me. It is a one-piece canopy, yet it has a canopy bow. The other aircraft that have a canopy bow have two-piece canopies and the bow provides the interface/connection between the two pieces.
Another thing about the F-35 canopy that I think is odd is that it does not seem to bulge outward above the canopy side rails. The Eagle, Falcon, and Hornet canopies bulge out above the rails which gives the flight crew great downward visibility with wings level. The fuselage shape aft of the canopy also seems to restrict rearward visibility on the F-35. For whatever reason, they went away from a "bubble" canopy. Pilot visibility requirements must have been very different for the F-35 than the Eagle, Falcon, and Hornet and even the Typhoon, and Rafale. The guys who drew up those requirements must have a LOT of faith in the F-35's sensors and helmet displays and so reduced what the Mark 1 Mod 0 eyeball can see. It's an interesting trade.
Last edited by KenV; 12th Nov 2014 at 17:04.
Sadly, the Daily Mail style headlines kind of detract from the objectivity of your FAST Facts article, Spaz.
The F-35 is the MOST capable
It's ON TRACK
And it's COST EFFECTIVE
How about a source that discusses the solutions, the current issues and the state of play as well as the manufacturer's bullet points? You know, stuff we would like to read about to get a feel for what is actually happening in the program. I don't think it takes a genius to see the obvious flaws in those headlines from October.
And I'm not seeing their statement of g limits or sustained g.
The F-35 is the MOST capable
It's ON TRACK
And it's COST EFFECTIVE
How about a source that discusses the solutions, the current issues and the state of play as well as the manufacturer's bullet points? You know, stuff we would like to read about to get a feel for what is actually happening in the program. I don't think it takes a genius to see the obvious flaws in those headlines from October.
And I'm not seeing their statement of g limits or sustained g.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 12th Nov 2014 at 17:04.
Are we now to have two F-35 bashing threads?
PS: no, it's not cancelled, yes, it's still expensive, yes, it's not IOC yet.
We return you now to our regularly scheduled programming.
Green Knight: thanks for that tidbit on reserve fatigue life requirements.
PS: no, it's not cancelled, yes, it's still expensive, yes, it's not IOC yet.
We return you now to our regularly scheduled programming.
Green Knight: thanks for that tidbit on reserve fatigue life requirements.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The outer shell of the canopy is actually a one piece item, with an internal second piece fitted under the front. The bow supports the aft end of this inner piece.
Secondarily, is there any talk about eventually mounting mirrors on the bow? The videos seem to show no mirrors there now.
LoneWolf,
If directed at me, I am not "bashing". As I have said many times before, I very much want this to work. But I ask questions and I criticise where I see an issue. But sometimes, doing so in the face of acolytes can earn one the lable of a basher.
In the main, I think the "anti" crowd here are not too bad. The well informed here are good. The fanatics have calmed down or departed. We are left with a reasonably interesting debate - polarised though it may be.
If directed at me, I am not "bashing". As I have said many times before, I very much want this to work. But I ask questions and I criticise where I see an issue. But sometimes, doing so in the face of acolytes can earn one the lable of a basher.
In the main, I think the "anti" crowd here are not too bad. The well informed here are good. The fanatics have calmed down or departed. We are left with a reasonably interesting debate - polarised though it may be.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV,
Thanks for coming back - perhaps I can help a bit more.
1. No space between the canopy sections. The two bits are effectively fused - I don 't know how.
2. Reflections/scattering - all extensively tested before the design was ever approved. No issues as far as I know.
3. Yes, that's the idea - thicker section provides the protection, aft section thinner to save weight and facilitate ejection.
4. Haven't seen mirrors yet - quite probably the aircrew will rely on the DAS system which provides a 360 bubble view in the HUD.
On the shape of the canopy, a key driver on F-35 is signature. The canopy effectively continues the shape of the fuselage, and from a signature standpoint, is effectively 'one with the aircraft'. The shaping of the fuselage and the canopy is similar in cross section to the design used by the F-22.
Extensive field of view diagrams were provided to all users early on, and checked on several occasions, all the way from early sim sessions through mockups to actual build. One thing I would say is that the cockpit is very wide, and the cockpit sill is very low. Both of these help with visibility. It's not an F-16 canopy, nor a Typhoon - but pilots I know who have flown the F-35 have told me that the view is Ok.
By the way, 'bubble' canopies provide a great view, but they do add drag. The AV-8B took the concept to what I consider to be an extreme, with a very large 'overhang' and a high canopy, that took around 50 knots off the max speed.
Like you say, all designs involve trades, and the F-35's are complicated by signature and other factors. They're always interesting.
Best regards as ever to those making the choices for real,
Engines
Thanks for coming back - perhaps I can help a bit more.
1. No space between the canopy sections. The two bits are effectively fused - I don 't know how.
2. Reflections/scattering - all extensively tested before the design was ever approved. No issues as far as I know.
3. Yes, that's the idea - thicker section provides the protection, aft section thinner to save weight and facilitate ejection.
4. Haven't seen mirrors yet - quite probably the aircrew will rely on the DAS system which provides a 360 bubble view in the HUD.
On the shape of the canopy, a key driver on F-35 is signature. The canopy effectively continues the shape of the fuselage, and from a signature standpoint, is effectively 'one with the aircraft'. The shaping of the fuselage and the canopy is similar in cross section to the design used by the F-22.
Extensive field of view diagrams were provided to all users early on, and checked on several occasions, all the way from early sim sessions through mockups to actual build. One thing I would say is that the cockpit is very wide, and the cockpit sill is very low. Both of these help with visibility. It's not an F-16 canopy, nor a Typhoon - but pilots I know who have flown the F-35 have told me that the view is Ok.
By the way, 'bubble' canopies provide a great view, but they do add drag. The AV-8B took the concept to what I consider to be an extreme, with a very large 'overhang' and a high canopy, that took around 50 knots off the max speed.
Like you say, all designs involve trades, and the F-35's are complicated by signature and other factors. They're always interesting.
Best regards as ever to those making the choices for real,
Engines
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Courtney,
Elsewhere, you have commented on Typhoon's lengthy gestation which I don't dispute. However, in a much earlier life, along with Ned, we had to contend with F35 colleagues who were spouting forth several outlandish (at the time) claims about their product's availability timescale and costs. So to be comparatively fair, in both respects, I would contend that the aircraft has, as you claim, never been either ON TRACK or COST EFFECTIVE.
Elsewhere, you have commented on Typhoon's lengthy gestation which I don't dispute. However, in a much earlier life, along with Ned, we had to contend with F35 colleagues who were spouting forth several outlandish (at the time) claims about their product's availability timescale and costs. So to be comparatively fair, in both respects, I would contend that the aircraft has, as you claim, never been either ON TRACK or COST EFFECTIVE.
Last edited by jindabyne; 12th Nov 2014 at 18:26. Reason: sp
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35 Birdstrike Test
I’ve been involved with a canopy birdstrike test and it was interesting that although the bird may not penetrate the canopy, the “shock wave” can still be a major issue. See the video below. Also note the HUD’s interaction with the impact.
The link below is a briefing given on the F-35 birdstrike tests on both canopy and inlet.
LINK
The link below is a briefing given on the F-35 birdstrike tests on both canopy and inlet.
LINK
jinda:
Schedule slips to right aren't unusual, what makes the F-35's so annoying is how many and how far to the right.
Courtney:
I don't disagree that the advocacy groups, to include my own dearly beloved United States Navy, have been making selectively positive utterances for about half a decade on this program, as it slips right yet again.
Maybe we need this thread to supplant the other one, since it does not look to be cancelled any time soon, but still looks to be blood expensive if it ever goes IOC.
G limits: a performance metric. Not surprised that the C, being heavier/beefier for carrier ops, has different G limits than A.
I seem to recall F-15 had more G allowance than F-14, but it's been a few years and my memory may not be what it once was.
Schedule slips to right aren't unusual, what makes the F-35's so annoying is how many and how far to the right.
Courtney:
I don't disagree that the advocacy groups, to include my own dearly beloved United States Navy, have been making selectively positive utterances for about half a decade on this program, as it slips right yet again.
Maybe we need this thread to supplant the other one, since it does not look to be cancelled any time soon, but still looks to be blood expensive if it ever goes IOC.
G limits: a performance metric. Not surprised that the C, being heavier/beefier for carrier ops, has different G limits than A.
I seem to recall F-15 had more G allowance than F-14, but it's been a few years and my memory may not be what it once was.
