Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Quote:

lol Jon Beesley referred to AA:1's nose landing gear door as a sail. This is much better. You'll see this on all variants now.

good riddance, that nose landing gear door on the AA1 was hideous, this is much better.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

LinkF16SimDude wrote:

Interesting...they went with a 1-piece intake cover for the lift-fan vs. the accordions that were on the prototype. What's the 2nd set of doors behind the fan? Aux engine inlet perhaps?

The original proposed design was a dual sliding door that flushed into contour at the fuselage above the fan. When activated it would pull inwards and slide along guides behind the fuselage skin with a simple rotary actuator with dual units in one sleeve (backup, primary elec, backup Hyd).
The more complex accordion type was made instead due to costs restraints at the time. The current one, well it must be cheaper and better than the last two concepts you would think.

BTW LM should have painted it before presentation. The F-35 is no nice aircraft at all, but without paint it looks even uglier. But better ugly and good, than beatiful and bad Wink

Newbie Joined: Jul 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Status: Offline

LMAggie wrote:

Yoram777 wrote:

New 'nose landing-gear door(s)' Question

it does look a lot better this way Smile

lol Jon Beesley referred to AA:1's nose landing gear door as a sail. This is much better. You'll see this on all variants now.

The AA-1 nose landing gear configuration was a horrible idea for weight savings. It really played havoc on the airdata system.

Scorpion82 wrote:

BTW LM should have painted it before presentation. The F-35 is no nice aircraft at all, but without paint it looks even uglier. But better ugly and good, than beatiful and bad Wink

They didn't paint AA:1 until way after rollout, its just not necessary at this point.

LMAggie wrote:

Scorpion82 wrote:

BTW LM should have painted it before presentation. The F-35 is no nice aircraft at all, but without paint it looks even uglier. But better ugly and good, than beatiful and bad Wink

They didn't paint AA:1 until way after rollout, its just not necessary at this point.

I know that it is not necessary, but for a large official presentation a painted aircraft would leave a better impression.

I was at the ceremony covering it for a local newspaper. . .here is a link to photos I took
http://www.pbase.com/keith1959/f35b_rol ... ony_121807

Scorpion82 wrote:

LMAggie wrote:

Scorpion82 wrote:

BTW LM should have painted it before presentation. The F-35 is no nice aircraft at all, but without paint it looks even uglier. But better ugly and good, than beatiful and bad Wink

They didn't paint AA:1 until way after rollout, its just not necessary at this point.

I know that it is not necessary, but for a large official presentation a painted aircraft would leave a better impression.

Well its a waste of time and money....and well, time is money. If you paint the airplane before ground tests, you would end up painting the aircraft twice. All of the ground test equipment attached to the airplane would dirty up the final finishes. So you waste paint on the second round of finishes, and more importantly you waste the manhours spent on it which could have been applied towards acheiving first flight on time. Keep your eye on the prize Wink

.

F16JOAT wrote:

The current (lift fan door), well it must be cheaper and better than the last two concepts you would think.

Maybe...but with it opening up and aft into the air stream I'm just curious how that'll impact the jet's handling qualities when switching from wing-borne to lift fan flight. A maximum forward airspeed is almost a given to keep from rippin' the door off.

If it were me (and it ain't), I'd think you'd want to find a way to start blending out the forward flight laws while blending in the vertical laws as it crosses some transition airspeed. Automatically opening the lift fan and aux doors, clutching in the fan, and starting the nozzle pivoting.

Elite Joined: Dec 19, 2005 Posts: 615 Status: Offline

Man, I can't wait for the F-35C! Salute

FLY NAVY

I know the STOVL version of the F-35 is the hightest risk - but am I the only one concerned about potential problems with the F-35C Naval variant? Its MUCH higher risk than the air force version, doesn't have an internal gun WTF

(shades of Navy F-4 Phantoms in Vietnam anyone?) and looks to be the Navy's "stealth heavy hitter" aircraft.
Does anyone else remember the pie in the sky forcasts for the F-111B the (cough) Navy fighter (cough - cough) version of the F-111 bomber? It was eventually canceled after being judged unsuitably heavy and underpowered for carrier landings. With all the expectations the Navy has for this aircraft, the lack of testing (at this point anyway) for that version worries me. I think who ever decided that a gun wasn't needed, not to mention the possible cutback of tests should be flogged repeatedly, duct taped to a chair and forced to watch the History Channel untill he/she (they?) learn the error of thier ways! Crazy Pilot

FlightDreamz wrote:

doesn't have an internal gun WTF

(shades of Navy F-4 Phantoms in Vietnam anyone?)

First of all, the Navy and Marines are pointing their finger and laughing at the Air Force for the added weight of the internal gun. Second of all, a missionized gun pod has already been designed to be strapped on at a moments notice with minimal impact to overall performance. But the USAF will never let go of their precious internal gun.

FlightDreamz wrote:

It was eventually canceled after being judged unsuitably heavy and underpowered for carrier landings.

The navy knows exactly what power the F135 has (they're actually getting MORE than expected) and a good projection at how heavy the F-35C will be. Judging by the Navy and NAVAIR's response to the CV design review, this is not an issue. Keep in mind, the CV variant will benefit from the mistakes learned from the CTOL and STOVL variants.

FlightDreamz wrote:

With all the expectations the Navy has for this aircraft, the lack of testing (at this point anyway) for that version worries me.

For what it's worth, the X-35C went through extensive testing and proved to be a solid platform (and that was without Nothrop Grumman). Do you know how good NGC is at making jets for the Navy (case-in-point: F-18, F-14, etc.)?

FlightDreamz wrote:

I think who ever decided that a gun wasn't needed, not to mention the possible cutback of tests should be flogged repeatedly

The gun, we've talked about. The success of the CATB program made those tests redundant and a waste of money. As a taxpayer, shouldn't you be thanking LM?

FlightDreamz wrote:

and forced to watch the History Channel untill he/she (they?) learn the error of thier ways!

They don't send marines to hollywood to learn how to fight, do they? Well, aircraft designers don't learn from the history channel for the same reasons.

FlightDreamz,
Since you are from Long Island, I wonder if you have a little Grumman blood in you, bringing up the F-111B as you did. The 111B was never intended to the a fighter in the way the F-14 turned out to be. It's mission was fleet air defense, which means shoot down the bad guys who are coming to attack the ships. The airplane was canceled for one primary reason, the Navy did not want an Air Force-derived airplane, no way, no how. McNamara forced it on them for a while, but they (with Grumman's assistance) found enough excuses to cancel it. There is no question that the -111B was not an F-14 style dogfighter, but remember, that was not it's mission. Given normal development, it would have performed the fleet air defense mission well.

Too heavy and not enough thrust for carrier operations? Tell that to the crew that took the airplane to the USS Coral Sea for one whole day of ship trials the Navy allowed after the cancellation. Ten cat shots, ten landings, elevator operations, deck spotting, towing, tip back, etc., no problems at all. The Coral Sea was one of the smaller carriers of the day and had no problem accommodating the F-111B.

So let's look at what the Navy's parochial attitude caused. Wasted billions on development of an airplane they eventually canceled and compromised the Air Force airplane by forcing Navy design requirements which were never used. For example, extremely heavy landing gear and tail hook attach structure, incredibly complex, heavy, un-reliable high lift system (slats/flaps), short vertical tail to fit on hangar deck (compromised handling qualities), long stroke landing gear for high sink rate Navy landings, side by side seating (the requirement for which magically disappeared when the F-14 came along), on and on.

Did I mention Grumman's part in all this? They were "partners" with General Dynamics, being responsible for the aft fuselage and landing gear design. You ever heard of Grumman Iron Works? A well-deserved nickname. Just an opinion here, but it is my belief the the upper management was in cahoots with the Navy to sabotage the 111B program. The ordinary working troops did their best to make the airplane a success.

You may well be right about the missing gun on the F-35. We'll see, I hope. I'm saddened you are worrying about the lack of testing on the F-35C, but do you suppose not having an airplane to test might be the cause of that? As far as the "cutback of tests' goes, my hat is off to whoever suggested that. Fewer test flights means the test crews will have to develop more efficient test plans, and that is a good thing.

FlightDreamz, I also don't like the idea of no internal gun system, but that was discussed some time ago in different thread. Yet i think that comparing JSF to SEA F-4 in that manner is a bit off. You have to remember, that the Navy never wanted an F-4 with internal gun, like the USAF did, and were happy with the N, J and S Phantoms all the way, and the mk.14 gun pods were rarely mounted. The poor air kills ratio was fixed in the Navy by teaching a better missiles deployment, not bringing back the Vulcan cannon.

This is somewhat different today. Today main Navy Combat Aviation tasks are CAS and strike missions over Afghanistan and Iraq, Air Policing over own airspace, and protecting the CG. If we throw the JSF into all of this tasks, that gun pod will have to stay on those airplanes all the time. You can't strafe ground troops positions with Amraams, and Amraams are not a good solution if you want to take down a B747 neither, it actually can withstand a hit or two, but sawing off a wing with a 25mm Gatling is always fatal.

Elite Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1011 Status: Offline

You're right...you know...with all those B747's that we've been shooting down lately, the gun makes it a lot easier...LoL

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

First STOVL F-35 Rollout Ceremony