F-35B down.
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!
Seems un-intuitive to me, I'd have expected throttle to be up-down, stick to be fore-aft.
A bit like... a helicopter!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by Engines; 1st Oct 2018 at 17:17. Reason: Corrections
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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...
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...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by Engines; 2nd Oct 2018 at 08:59.
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
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...
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
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...
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.
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.
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
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...
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
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...
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)
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...
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...
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You must be. All I get is this:
https://geoscripts.meredith.services...no-access.html
https://geoscripts.meredith.services...no-access.html
-RP
You must be. All I get is this:
https://geoscripts.meredith.services...no-access.html
https://geoscripts.meredith.services...no-access.html
