Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22977
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post28 Jun 2010, 22:04

What is interesting - of course - is news that LM will be 'testing' F-35C - either in reality or simulation - for skijump use. Go TEAM! :D

Indian Navy Fighter RFI: Lockheed To Respond With Both F-35B & C June 28, 2010

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/06/in ... gle+Reader

"Lockheed-Martin plans to respond to the Indian Navy's recent RFI for a new generation carrier-based figher with two parallel dockets on the STOVL F-35B and the carrier variant F-35C. While it was initially thought that the F-35B would be the variant offered (since it appeared a logical replacement for India's Sea Harrier jump jets), Lockeed-Martin Biz Development (India) VP Orville Prins told me and a few other journalists today that Lockheed-Martin is conducting simulation and analysis studies to support the team's supposition that the F-35C -- built for a steam catapult launch off aircraft carriers -- is also capable of short take-offs from ski-jumps. The simulation and analysis will take into account various stress and strain parameters. The RFI to Lockheed-Martin simply requested information on the F-35 as a potential future carrier-based asset for the Indian Navy, and did not specify a variant. While LM has provided the Navy with programme-level briefings it will shortly begin a round of technical briefings on both the F-35 variants it plans to offer.

Prins cannot ever resist a swipe at the Saab folks. Asked about the other potential contenders in the Indian Navy fighter competition, he scoffed, "The Sea Gripen? What are they talking about? That's a paper plane."
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

bjr1028

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 516
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2009, 03:34
  • Location: Dubuque, IA

Unread post28 Jun 2010, 22:42

Anything is capable is taking off from a ski-jump. You just have to be willing to pay the price of taking about twice as long to take off and in the case of STOBAR carrying fewer aircraft because the ski jump and larger takeoff area make large portions of your deck unsuitable for parking aircraft.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22977
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post28 Jun 2010, 23:16

bjr1028 said: "Anything is capable is taking off from a ski-jump." This would be true if all aircraft had suitable undercarriages to take the strain of the ramp changing incline at start. I guess you have not considered prop clearance in the case of prop aircraft. I have read however that the old model E-2 was tested for ski jumps (perhaps not all ski jumps are the same though).

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm

"The E-2C Hawkeye demonstrated its ability to launch from a ski-jump during the 1980s..."
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22977
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Jul 2010, 09:26

THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL FEBRUARY 2009 VOLUME 113 NO 1140

CVF ski-jump ramp profile optimisation for F-35B A. Fry, R. Cook and N. Revill

http://www.raes.org.uk/pdfs/3324_COLOUR.pdf (0.6Mb)

"2.2 Principles of the ski jump
The ski jump ramp works by imparting an upward vertical velocity and ballistic profile to the aircraft, providing additional time to accelerate to flying speed whilst ensuring it is on a safe trajectory. This additional time is manifested either in a reduced take-off length for a given weight, or increased weight (i.e. launch performance) for a fixed take-off distance as in a ship based STO.

The additional performance does not come for free, with a significant increase in landing gear loads above those of a standard take off (which are very low compared to a landing). The increase represents the energy transferred to the aircraft as it translates up the ramp; and if the angle and curvature of the ramp are increased to obtain greater performance benefit, so are the loads. This is tolerable up to a point because the gear strength is defined by landing events and thus has the ability to accept the increased take-off loads, but loads act as an upper boundary on permissible ramp size, as illustrated in Fig. 5.

The ideal landing gear vertical load time history for a ski jump ramp STO is sketched in Fig. 6, with a rapid increase to a steady maximum where the area underneath the curve represents the energy imparted by the ramp. However, the actual loads are different, and reflect the complex dynamic response of the gear components as they enter and travel up the curvature of the profile.

References 1, 2 and 3 describe in further detail the principles behind the ski jump and its advantages as part of a STO manoeuvre compared to a flat deck launch and the design of the profile is described later. It should be noted that non-STOVL aircraft can benefit from a ski jump manoeuvre, as illustrated by the Russian use of ramps with conventional type aircraft from their carriers. STOVL aircraft are unique however because of the flexible and complex manner in which the thrust and control effectors generate combinations of thrust and forward speed in conjunction with the speed dependent wing lift.

3.0 RAMP DESIGN PROCESS
Figure 7 illustrates the overall concept adopted for the design of the CVF ramp and this was strongly influenced by the documentary evidence and guidance from previous ramp design tasks. References 4 to 7 and the acknowledgements reflect drawing on past experience and knowledge, and the team’s contribution was to then optimise it to the F-35B aircraft using TJSF analysis tools."
_________________________

"7.0 CANDIDATE RAMP DEFINITION
The CVF candidate ramp was defined as a 12·5 degree angled ramp with the profile achieved by combining a nominal profile based on a quartic fit to an optimum cubic transition plus circular arc, a rounded step lead in and an elliptic let down. Definitive performance and landing gear loads data were generated to demonstrate the resulting capability and compliance with the metrics.

9.0 CONCLUSION
The paper has covered all the principles and processes used in designing a candidate ski-jump ramp profile for the CVF, optimised for the F-35B.

With loads metric eventually dictating the choice of exit angle and the ramp profile shape, this demonstrates the importance of developing and defining the optimisation metrics.Compared to the CVS ramp, the candidate ramp offers comparable performance but with acceptable loads.

The key issues involved in converting a mathematical profile to a physical structure have been explained.

The team and customer are now taking this profile forward as part of the continuing integration of the F-35B aircraft onto CVF."
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22977
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Jul 2010, 22:35

THE JSF STOVL PERFORMANCE PROCESS FROM SMALL-SCALE DATABASE TO FLIGHT TEST DEMONSTRATION

http://pdf.aiaa.org/downloads/2002/CDRe ... 274d1857TR

ABSTRACT
"This paper discusses the STOVL performance calculation process that was executed during the Joint Strike Fighter Concept Demonstration Phase. It includes a discussion of the performance methods themselves and the inputs required to run them. The X-32B and X-35B STOVL Concept Demonstrator Aircraft are used as case studies.

Lessons learned from the development of their STOVL performance related databases are discussed. The pre-flight test STOVL performance calculations are compared with the flight test demonstrated performance. To the extent possible, the paper provides a comparison between the small-scale and full-scale STOVL database elements, such as hot gas ingestion and propulsion induced aerodynamics. This background, along with the experiences of other predecessor programs, will provide the point-of departure for STOVL performance estimates during the JSF System Development and Demonstration (SDD) Phase, as well as performance estimates for any future STOVL aircraft development programs."
_________________

"The STO [Short Take Off] deck run starts at brake release, which typically occurs at the maximum thrust that the brakes can hold. This is an input. The engine spool-up characteristics from this throttle setting to maximum power are considered during the acceleration portion of the deck run. Weight on main and nose gear is calculated, and must be monitored to maintain adequate deck handling characteristics. The code can represent both flat deck, typical of current generation US Navy ships, as well as any geometry of ski jump. Ski jumps are currently used by the navies of two of the JSF international participants, the UK and Italy. The code can be run with hard gear or with a gear dynamic model. The output is both tabular and graphical time history type values for all parameters. A typical product of STO analysis is the gross weight verses deck run chart, represented by the cartoon on the right side of Figure 2."
___________________

"Section III: X-35B
The first and most important observation relative to the X-35B background is that it is not directly relevant to the F-35B. The F-35B features a fundamentally similar shaft driven lift fan lift/propulsion system, and similar geometry. The X-35B was designed to meet a relatively narrow set of demonstrator type requirements, and used “off the shelf” components where possible to save money and streamline schedule. As such, the X-35B aircraft differs significantly in detail from the F-35B. There is no discussion of the F-35B in this paper- only experiences with the X-35B are presented."
________________

"Figure 31. X-35B Outwash Flowfield
The Figure 31 flow speed footprint is for a hover height just above landing gear touchdown. This is not an operationally representative hover height, but provides a useful indication of the major flowfield characteristics of the X-35B when IGE [In Ground Effect]. The lift fan influences the flowfield around the aircraft nose. The peak flow speed levels in this region are high, but the ground sheet profile distribution with height above the deck is thin. There is an energetic reinforcement zone just off the aircraft wing, which is due to the interaction of the lift fan flow and core nozzle flow. This is the dominant flow characteristic of the X-35B, as it has a much thicker ground sheet profile than the nose and tail regions. The core nozzle flow near the tail also has a relatively thin profile with height above the deck. Consistent with the temperature levels in the jet exhausts, the thermal environment in the lift fan flow dominated forward quadrants is relatively benign."
Attachments
X-35BoutwashFlowFieldDiagram.gif
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22977
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Jul 2010, 01:50

This video is on another thread [http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-14295.html] on this forum along with story (BBC Reporter Lands F-35B on carrier via simulator) but it is worthwhile repeating his info / video here:

How to land the new Joint Strike Fighter 16 July 2010

"The BBC has been given exclusive access to film the world's most advanced fighter jet - the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, built by Lockheed Martin for the US and UK military.

Britain had planned to buy around 150 aircraft for the RAF and Royal Navy - but with each plane costing at least £70m, that number is likely to fall.

Jonathan Beale visited the US Navy's Patuxent River Air Base in Maryland where he was given a chance to try his hand at landing the fighter [vertically on a carrier] in a simulator."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10652019
OR
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10654822 (second video on page so scroll down)
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

thumper1308

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2010, 03:44

Unread post19 Jul 2010, 04:18

Well aparantly the US Navy doesnt want them, or need them.

We have actual Air-Craft Carriers, for fixed wing operations!!
Offline

thumper1308

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2010, 03:44

Unread post19 Jul 2010, 04:23

Being in the Navy, and stationed on a air-craft carrier, and talking to alot of engineers working on the F-35 hat-trick, now of course out of that phase, but anyway never once, was the possibility, of the "ramps" mentioned.

They do help, for countries, who don't have REAL carriers.

Hehe!!


BUT we have real carriers, and our amphib's, are that, Marine transport, and the Fixed wing operations on board are in for support!
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22977
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Jul 2010, 04:30

thumper1308, no argument. However you may note that there is a lot of commentary nowadays about 'smaller USN carriers' needed - rather than the 'too expensive CVNs' underway, being built today. Not my part of ship though - that is an issue for the USN and Americans.

You seem to have forgotten that the USMC will have F-35Bs on the 'Marine Transport FlatTops'. Or not? Are we hearing that for the first time as news? :D
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22977
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Jul 2010, 04:38

Navy: Price tag to alter ships for JSF at least $70 million apiece — Ship will be available in 2012
– Inside the Navy June 14, 2010 by Dan Taylor & Jason Sherman

http://www.mikemooney.com/uploads/DMR_6-16-10.pdf (286Kb)

""The Navy estimates it will cost at least $70 million to modify each large-deck amphibious ship to accommodate the Marine Corps’ F-35B variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, including infrastructure modifications and efforts to mitigate engine heat from the short-take-off, vertical-landing JSF variant, according to a senior Marine. Required ship alterations are scheduled to be identified in order to support the first operational F-35B Marine Expeditionary Unit deployment in 2014, two years after the service’s goal to have its first JSF unit operational — a previously unreported milestone....

...Trautman said that while alterations necessary to accommodate the JSF and its associated equipment are similar for L-class ships and aircraft carriers, the environmental effects of each F-35 variant pose different challenges.

“Environmental effects differ due to the unique take-off and landing characteristics of each variant,” according to Trautman.

“The L-class F-35B integration challenges represent the most difficult situation for STOVL operations, when combined with the more robust CVN design and ship structure we anticipate less effort required for F-35B carrier operations.”
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22977
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Jul 2010, 04:46

Whole Article TEXT: http://www.mikemooney.com/uploads/DMR_6-16-10.pdf (286Kb)

Ship will be available in 2012
Navy: Price tag to alter ships for JSF at least $70 million apiece Inside the Navy June 14, 2010
by Dan Taylor and Jason Sherman

"The Navy estimates it will cost at least $70 million to modify each large-deck amphibious ship to
accommodate the Marine Corps’ F-35B variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, including infrastructure
modifications and efforts to mitigate engine heat from the short-take-off, vertical-landing JSF
variant, according to a senior Marine.

Required ship alterations are scheduled to be identified in order to support the first operational F-
35B Marine Expeditionary Unit deployment in 2014, two years after the service’s goal to have its
first JSF unit operational -- a previously unreported milestone. Lt. Gen. George Trautman, deputy
commandant for aviation, detailed the schedule for JSF ship integration efforts in written
responses delivered last month to the House Armed Services Committee following a March 24
hearing.

Should the Marine Corps’ first JSF unit need to deploy before being fully integrated with other
elements of the MEU, an L-class ship modified for JSF operations will be be available beginning
in 2012, according to Trautman.

Naval Sea Systems Command, according to the three-star general, has identified $27 million
worth of “cornerstone” modifications necessary for the L-class ships to accommodate the F-35B,
alterations that are funded in the fiscal year 2011 spending request or programmed in the Navy’s
FY-11 to FY-15 investment plan, according to Trautman. Not yet funded, but estimated to require
$43 million per hull, are additional alternations needed to account for external environmental
impacts, according to Trautman.

The “cornerstone alts,” according to a source familiar with NAVSEA plans, include carving out
new areas on the ship to accommodate a Special Access Program Facility space, the Autonomic
Logistics Information System infrastructure and a mission rehearsal trainer. In addition,
alternations are required to integrate the F-35C, the Navy JSF variant, into Nimitz- and Ford-class
aircraft carriers. Changes would include aircraft electrical servicing station modifications, ready
room and aircraft intermediate maintenance department upgrades, space for battery storage and
more.

The other category of ship modifications concerns what the Navy and Marine Corps designate
“external environmental impacts” caused by high temperatures from the F-35B’s engine exhaust
plumes. These effects will be the focus of development testing set to begin this fall “to assist in
defining shipboard mitigation required to meet” the Marine Corps’ goal of having its first JSF unit
operational by 2012, “such as relocating systems, material changes and shielding,” according to
Trautman.

This fall, the Navy will proceed with a $1.4 million project that would cover the amphibious ship
Wasp (LHD-1) with hundreds of sensors to accurately measure the effects of the fierce
downwash from the Marine Corps’ F-35B, according to the offices involved in the effort.

Crews will modify the Wasp from Sept. 30 through Feb. 3, 2011, by installing nearly 500 sensors
to measure the thermal, pressure and acoustic environment on the flight deck caused by the JSF
STOVL’s hot downwash, which some are concerned could warp the deck or damage essential
equipment nearby, according to a June 8 statement issued in response to questions from Inside
the Navy provided jointly by the Naval Sea Systems Command Surface Warfare Directorate and
the JSF program office.

The JSF program will foot the bill for the instrumentation package, which will be installed in
advance of at-sea developmental testing of the aircraft in mid-March of 2011, according to the
statement.

“The testing is planned to be conducted with two aircraft, which will perform vertical landing
operations to Spot 7 and 9, short take-off operations and work within NATOPS [Naval Air Training
and Operating Procedures Standardization] operating procedures for establishing hovers and
translations to the desired landing spots,” the statement reads. Spots 7 and 9 are the aft-most
landing spots on the port side of LHD-class ships.

“The testing will be conducted in a build-up approach with pilot qualifications first and one aircraft
in the pattern followed by two-aircraft operations, with most landings occurring at Spot 7, which is
the primary landing spot,” the statement continues. “The aircraft operations will serve to expand
the operating envelope of the F-35B for follow-on testing.”

The program tentatively plans to use test aircraft BF-1 and BF-4 for the testing. BF-1 flew for the
first time while using full vertical lift earlier this year.

JSF Integrated Test Force at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD, is responsible for gathering
the shipboard data, with NAVSEA in support.

Rear Adm. Mike Manazir, acting director of air warfare (N88), told reporters May 24 at the
Pentagon that the service has already captured data at Pax River by blasting a square of ship
deck-representative material and a bare metal piece with the downwash.

“We have sent that to NAVSEA right now,” he said. “They’re going through the actual specific
analysis as to what the impingement does.”

Crews will place temporary coverings over vulnerable systems on board the Wasp while testing
the heat and downwash effects of the JSF STOVL, Manazir said.

The Navy is also examining the effects of the F-35C carrier variant, which does not have a lift fan
but uses the same engine as the STOVL plane, the rear admiral said. The service is testing the
engine at Eglin Air Force Base, FL, and examining the data at Naval Air Warfare Center
Lakehurst, NJ.

“Aboard the aircraft carrier, the F-35C exhaust impingement on the jet blast deflector has also
been studied,” he said. “The aircraft obviously has a common engine, the F135, and so we took
an airplane out at Eglin and did tests against just a flat plate. We’ve taken the data off of that and
we’ve delivered it to Lakehurst.
“Lakehurst is going to take fleet representative JBDs [jet blast deflectors] and the cooling
structure that’s associated with that,” he continued. “They’ll install it at Lakehurst, and we’re going
to do tests against that jet blast deflector and those units will be able to be installed on a ship at a
future date.”

Manazir said the problem is not the heat pattern on the JBD, but the fact that the F-35 and the
F/A-18E/F Super Hornets launch less than a minute apart and place a heat load on different
places on the JBD.

“It means we have to have a slightly different cooling structure, which probably will involve extra
piping in the JBD, but not that much of a change,” he said.

Trautman said that while alterations necessary to accommodate the JSF and its associated
equipment are similar for L-class ships and aircraft carriers, the environmental effects of each F-
35 variant pose different challenges.

“Environmental effects differ due to the unique take-off and landing characteristics of each
variant,” according to Trautman. “The L-class F-35B integration challenges represent the most
difficult situation for STOVL operations, when combined with the more robust CVN design and
ship structure we anticipate less effort required for F-35B carrier operations.”
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22977
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Jul 2010, 10:06

How much thrust / heat in the F-35B IPP? Gotta love the video clip:

JSF Heat Woes Getting Fixed Naval Open Source INTelligence July 19, 2010

http://nosint.blogspot.com/2010/07/jsf- ... fixed.html

"Changes are being made to the integrated power package (IPP) on the Marine’s F-35(B) that should limit heat damage to carrier decks and other surfaces, Lt. Gen. George Trautman, deputy commandant for aviation, told DoD Buzz in an exclusive interview one day before the start of the Farnborough Air Show.

In addition, the heat buildup from the STOVL drive shaft will be addressed in LRIP 4, although negotiations on that are still underway so costs for that are not set yet.

“We have made the decision to adjust the IPP,” he said Sunday, reshaping the nozzle so that the enormous [QUE?] thrust comes out in an oval shape instead of the more highly focused circle now used.

It takes a “slight adjustment” to the IPP. The oval “will resolve that problem for almost all surfaces,” he said."
______________

Original link here?: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/07/18/jsf-h ... -trautman/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22977
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Jul 2010, 13:25

FARNBOROUGH: BAE to ramp up work on JSF production By Craig Hoyle SOURCE:Flight International DATE:13/07/10

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ction.html

"...Considerable work has already been conducted to prepare for the UK's future operation of the F-35B. Qinetiq's VAAC Harrier test aircraft supported the development of its flight control laws, and also tested a shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique. This will enable the STOVL type to return to the carrier's deck at a greater landing weight, allowing unused stores to be kept on the wing, rather than jettisoned before landing.

Developed for the UK as an alternative to making a vertical landing, the concept also has the backing of the USMC, which plans to adopt the procedure when operating its F-35Bs from the US Navy's Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.

Now installed at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire, Qinetiq's simulator for the VAAC Harrier - being adapted for additional use by the Empire Test Pilots' School - perfectly demonstrates the generational advance brought by the F-35B.

Flying an approach to the RN's new aircraft carrier in sea state six should be a daunting prospect for a novice pilot. But a single button press slows the aircraft to 60kt (110km/h) and automatically configures its flaps and nozzle deflection, making it a matter of merely flying an approach angle of 6-7° towards a series of white lights on the deck...."
&
"...Achieved by making a single button press, the F-35B's transition from forward flight to the hover is a world away from the multitude of control demands placed on a Harrier pilot today.

"All the conversions done have been faultless," says Tomlinson, who on 18 March made the first vertical landing using test aircraft BF-1. "There's a lot of drag when you open that lift fan door, and you as the pilot notice that. But we've got plenty of power. When you spin up that [Rolls-Royce] lift fan you've got 40,000lb of thrust available: that more than compensates."

Flight testing of the F-35B - the first of three JSF variants to enter service - is at a "careful, cautious and considered" pace. "We're matching the predicted line," he says.

One key aspect of UK-specific testing will start at Patuxent River next year, and involves the use of a "ski jump" to assist with take off from the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.

F-35Bs have already demonstrated short take-off performance for operations from the USMC's Wasp-class amphibious assault ships, and Tomlinson comments: "The ski jump worries me less. The aircraft even knows when it's on a ski jump, so all the pilot needs to do is to put the power on at the start of the run."
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22977
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post28 Jul 2010, 11:10

URL to original LARGE Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedma ... 438420763/

Cropped 1st STO F-35B with the SKI JUMP in view at Pax River.
Attachments
F35B1stSTO+SkiJump.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22977
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Aug 2010, 04:10

Very good CVF Alliance website with videos: http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.u ... brary.aspx
&
Graphics: http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.u ... -main.aspx

All at: http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/

BIG version of Graphic Below [CVF & ThroughDeckCruiserComparo]:

"Never mind the quality - Feel the WIDTH!"

http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.u ... rosyth.jpg
Attachments
qeclass-view-5.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests