Forum: F-35 Design & Construction

This issue keeps coming up on other threads, so I thought I'd give it its own discussion. Obviously the drag chute is important to a number of customers, so why didn't LM work this out earlier (I've seen a couple of graphics on the matter)? Was there a major design issue, were they just lazy, or were they actually dumb enough to assume that no one would care/notice?

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by luke_sandoz on Apr 20, 2012 - 08:49 PM; edited 1 time in total

what makes you think something was missed ?

The drag chute option was part and parcel of the initial design and has been through the full Systems Engineering process, even to the point of full motion immersive analysis on how to maintain the system

from 2010

http://www.motionanalysis.com/html/temp ... edHIL.html

There has been much sturm & drang in the media over this and the P&D fittings for the F-35A and it is all the usual "Journalists are so stupid they will write anything and so lazy thy won't investigate anything" stuff that goes on.

Unlax, enjoy the ride.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

This issue keeps coming up on other threads, so I thought I'd give it its own discussion. Obviously the drag chute is important to a number of customers, so why didn't LM work this out earlier (I've seen a couple of graphics on the matter)? Was there a major design issue, were they just lazy, or were they actually dumb enough to assume that no one would care/notice?

The chute will likely be installed on the first two RNoAF F-35As scheduled for delivery late 2015. Integration will probably be shared with Canada.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

"Will likely be" and "will probably be" are a long way from "already is" and "already has been."

And Luke, computer-generated does not equate to working-system. Just ask the F-35C's tail-hook.

From many years ago.

Yeah, that's the graphic I was talking about.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

"Will likely be" and "will probably be" are a long way from "already is" and "already has been."

And Luke, computer-generated does not equate to working-system. Just ask the F-35C's tail-hook.

ya I kinda got that figured out, but thanks for trying to help.

It was posted to put-paid to the notion that the drag chute was forgotten about, over looked, the LM screwed up and made big mistake.

"Was there a major design issue, were they just lazy, or were they actually dumb enough to assume that no one would care/notice?"

If they went to all the trouble they went to model the maintenance actions, it is difficult to conclude the drag chute was forgotten about.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

"Will likely be" and "will probably be" are a long way from "already is" and "already has been."

And Luke, computer-generated does not equate to working-system. Just ask the F-35C's tail-hook.

Anyway, the RNoAF want's the chute from the get go and is actively working with LM. It's largely a matter of who's going to pick up the bill as the project has been pulled forward from Block 4 to Block 3 integration. Canada has a requirement and other partners have also shown an interest.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

I don't know why Canada all of a sudden decided that we need a chute. Our current CF-18's don't use one and just simply DON'T land on very icy northern runways. Even if the airfield is equipped with an arresting cable. If we don't send our current 30 year old aircraft into bad conditions, we sure as hell won't send a brand new CF-35.

'pushoksti' interesting info about Canadian Icy Runway Ops.

There was something in there about the F-18, being a carrier fighter, having a lower landing speed.

'count_to_10' said: "There was something in there about the F-18, being a carrier fighter, having a lower landing speed."

Lower landing speed compared to an F-35A? That would be true.

The suggestion being that they could go with the F-35C instead of a drag chute.
The chute is already being payed for, so they might as well join in. I wonder if they can get the 'B wings for landing speeds without paying extra for the reinforced frame and undercarriage.

The F-35C is more expensive to buy compared to the F-35A (with/without parachute I'll guess). If Canada is strapped for cash then I don't see them buying the F-35C for icy runways they do not intend to land on. Any modifications such as 'B' wings (which are similar to 'A' wings if not identical?) to the three base models would require expensive testing etc. and I cannot see Canada wanting to pay for this. Perhaps you meant bolt on 'C' wings to the 'A' model. This has been suggested before but who pays? It would be a new model - and for what?

Oops -- I meant "C" wing. I think the B wind might actually be smaller than the A.

Forum: F-35 Design & Construction

F-35 drag chute