F-16.net

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 02, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

The latest issue of Code One is now online. In it contains a long article on F-35 flight tests, with extensive pilot's impressions and comments. Code One is Lockheed-Martin's official company publication.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2007/articles/apr_07/flighttest/index.html

Excerpts:-

The thrust impressed me most. The first flight profile called for the F-35 to immediately go to 15,000 feet. I had to keep the speed at 225 knots during the climb since I had to keep the gear down, which limited the maximum speed.

The steep angle, witnessed by the crowds on the ground, highlighted the raw power I was experiencing in the cockpit. The thrust surprised me. Not in the sense of "Gee, how am I going to handle all of this power?" But more like, "Wow, this is more than I expected."

The F-16s flying chase don't have near the fuel capacity or payload capability as the F-35. The Lightning II does very well in comparison. For example, the F-35 often forces the chase aircraft into afterburner when it is in military power.

Another strong impression is that the airplane wants to fly a lot faster than we are allowed to fly at this point in the flight test program. Most of the time we fly at about thirty to forty percent of available thrust. This airplane can go out to high subsonic speeds very easily without using afterburner.

On Flight 9, we performed the first afterburner takeoff. Flight 9 was also our longest flight to that point, 1.5 hours. We took off with 3,500 pounds short of a full fuel load and landed with about 4,000 pounds of fuel remaining. So we shorted ourselves more fuel than the entire internal fuel capacity of an F-16 and still flew for 1.5 hours without aerial refueling. During Flight 9, we also flew close formations, power approaches, and maneuver blocks to sixteen-degrees angle of attack at 20,000 feet.

Summing up the flying characteristics: the F-35 flies a lot like the F-22 and has the size and feel of an F-16. The F-35 is a solid and very responsive airplane.

F-16.net Sponsor

Make note of the last line in the article: "The F-35 can maneuver post-stall like an F/A-18." That's one up on the Viper

Active Member Joined: Nov 22, 2004 Posts: 134

Looks like things are going great so far! Thumb

F-35 test pilot Jon Beesley wrote:

This is the first real electric jet. The flight control actuators, while they have internal closed-loop hydraulic systems, are controlled and driven by electricity--not hydraulics.

And then when electric motors replace the self-contained hydraulics, he or someone else will repeat the first sentence yet again. No, this time I really-REALLY mean it! Wink

By the way, not to be negative, but does the F135 seem a little smoky for a modern fighter engine to anyone else? I'm not saying that it's like a J79 or an RD-33 or anything that bad, though. Maybe I'm just imagining things.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

RobertCook wrote:

Looks like things are going great so far! Thumb

F-35 test pilot Jon Beesley wrote:

This is the first real electric jet. The flight control actuators, while they have internal closed-loop hydraulic systems, are controlled and driven by electricity--not hydraulics.

And then when electric motors replace the self-contained hydraulics, he or someone else will repeat the first sentence yet again. No, this time I really-REALLY mean it! Wink

Well, it is actually the second such aircraft to enter production. The Boeing 787 is the first.

RobertCook wrote:

By the way, not to be negative, but does the F135 seem a little smoky for a modern fighter engine to anyone else? I'm not saying that it's like a J79 or an RD-33 or anything that bad, though. Maybe I'm just imagining things.

Not really, its practically smoke free in flight with just a hint of smoke getting off the ground with full burners. The F100 or F404 is the same way. Let's put it this way, it is not going to be as "clean" as a GEnx or Rolls-Royce Trent. But its a fighter! It's like asking a Formula One race car to pass SMOG test!

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1035 Status: Offline

dwightlooi wrote:

F-35 test pilot Jon Beesley wrote:

This is the first real electric jet. The flight control actuators, while they have internal closed-loop hydraulic systems, are controlled and driven by electricity--not hydraulics.

Well, it is actually the second such aircraft to enter production. The Boeing 787 is the first.

Odd...I could have sworn when the F-35 took its first flight the 787 was just a bunch of pieces on the floor. Point in fact, neither aircraft is in production.

Quote:

Another strong impression is that the airplane wants to fly a lot faster than we are allowed to fly at this point in the flight test program. Most of the time we fly at about thirty to forty percent of available thrust. This airplane can go out to high subsonic speeds very easily without using afterburner.

So can we pretty put the whole 'Mach 1.6' and subsonic cruise speed discussion to end or do we have to jerk around for several more years like we did with the F-22? Razz

Active Member Joined: Nov 22, 2004 Posts: 134

dwightlooi wrote:

Not really, its practically smoke free in flight with just a hint of smoke getting off the ground with full burners. The F100 or F404 is the same way.

It looked a bit more visible than what I've normally seen on teen series fighters (except for the F-14A) or the F-22. To tell you the truth, I'm probably just looking too hard--it's no big deal in any case.

dwightlooi wrote:

Let's put it this way, it is not going to be as "clean" as a GEnx or Rolls-Royce Trent. But its a fighter! It's like asking a Formula One race car to pass SMOG test!

Point taken, but the idea is that the more smoke you generate, the more visible you become. If it smoked like a J79--which it does not--then it might actually be an issue.

PhillyGuy wrote:

Quote:

Another strong impression is that the airplane wants to fly a lot faster than we are allowed to fly at this point in the flight test program. Most of the time we fly at about thirty to forty percent of available thrust. This airplane can go out to high subsonic speeds very easily without using afterburner.

So can we pretty put the whole 'Mach 1.6' and subsonic cruise speed discussion to end

This quote from Beesley answers absolutely no questions regarding how fast the F-35 can cruise on dry thrust, so why should the debate be settled? Confused

What do you think he's saying?

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1092

Just a thought, but maybe there is a special additive that's not always used with JP-8 which reduces smoke emissions. I don't know if this is true or not, but if there is I'm assuming they wouldn't waste this additive on flight test vehicles unless there was a need to.

Active Member Joined: Nov 22, 2004 Posts: 134

About the smoke thing, I just watched all of the F-35 videos I have again, bearing in mind the likely throttle settings, and I don't see anything out of the ordinary. Shrug

I guess I was imagining things after all (the issue just got stuck in my head somehow), so never mind. Embarassed

Raptor_One wrote:

Just a thought, but maybe there is a special additive that's not always used with JP-8 which reduces smoke emissions. I don't know if this is true or not, but if there is I'm assuming they wouldn't waste this additive on flight test vehicles unless there was a need to.

That's an interesting thought, although I'd imagine that it might not be used outside of actual combat. Additionally, I've heard about an additive that reduces the radar signature of the exhaust plume. Supposedly, it was used on the SR-71, and it would seem to be at least as useful for the F-35 and F-22, but I really don't know anything about it.

Elite 3K Joined: May 10, 2004 Posts: 3098 Status: Offline

Quote:

Supposedly, it was used on the SR-71

Never heard about it myself, but the Road Runners' reunion is coming up so I'll ask the guys there - they'd know if anyone does Smile

.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Latest F-35 flight test article on Code One magazine