F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2010, 11:25
by neutrino
Hi guys, can you give me an estimate about what you think will be the landing approach optimum AOA for the F-35? It seems that it is high - similar to the F-16 (11 degr) - rather than low compared to the F/A-18 (8.1 degr)... The speed of course will depend on weight and CG position. I also wonder if it will be using the virtual speed brake even prior to touch down, or after touchdown?

AF_1_14nov09_sm.jpg
What is the approach AOA...?


081023-F-3571D-394sm.jpg
What is the approach AOA...?

RE: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2010, 12:29
by spazsinbad
G'day neutrino, I'll keep looking for Optimum AoA airspeed etc but be aware: "While it shares its fundamental design with the F-35A (conventional takeoff and landing) and F-35B (short takeoff/vertical landing), the F-35C is specialized for the catapult launches and arrested recoveries of large aircraft carriers. It features 30 percent more wing area than the other two variants, larger tails and control surfaces, and wingtip ailerons – all contributing to the precise slow-speed handling characteristics required for carrier approaches. The F-35C’s internal structure is strengthened to withstand the punishment of repeated catapult launches and arrested recoveries on the carrier deck."

Which JSF variant AoA do you seek? If JSF-C this PDF is helpful in a general sense: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988 [1Mb] "The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter"

RE: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2010, 13:37
by dino1974
@neutrino

I think I know why you are asking the AoA question...
Thanks for your help with the FSX model. BTW I hope I will be able to pack the Beta 1 tonight.

@ Spazsinbad

Interesting read - I'd really want to make a -B and -C models for Flight Simulator and hope I can find the time one day or another...

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2010, 13:56
by dino1974
My apologies to all the other readers of this forum if my previous comment seems a bit cryptic.
I'm developing a model of the F-35 for Flight Simulator X - the test version is almost complete and the package should be ready in a month or so (hopefully).

The package, at present, will depict the CTOL versions of the Lighting II and will include a 3D virtual cockpit. I'm trying to make it reasonably realistic, but there will be several compromises due to the limits of FSX, of my knowledge and my time.

BTW - during the development of this project, this forum has been an invaluable source of information.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2010, 14:07
by spazsinbad
G'day Dino, finding exact information is not so easy but... (info below may be 'out of date'):

The Joint Strike Fighter: A plane for all reasons March 7, 2002 by Stephen J. Mraz

http://machinedesign.com/article/the-jo ... asons-0307

"FLY NAVY [USAF JSF-A approach approx. 160KIAS]
Carrier operations account for most of the differences between the Navy and other JSF variants. Carrier landings, for example, are so severe, they're often referred to as "controlled crashes." The JSF, in a low speed approach to a carrier landing, will descend at about 11 fps, and will withstand sink rates up to almost 18 fps. By comparison, the typical sink rate for an Air Force JSF will be about two ft/sec.

To help handle better at low speeds, the aircraft will have larger wing and tail-control surfaces. The increased wingspan also boosts the strike-fighter's range and weapon or fuel load. Even without external fuel tanks, the JSF has almost twice the range of the F/A-18C. Larger leading-edge flaps and wingtips provide the extra wing area, while the wingtips fold so the aircraft takes up less space on the carrier's crowded flight and hangar decks. The Navy's JSF will also have two extra control surfaces — ailerons outboard of the flaperons on the wings — for additional lowspeed control and flying precise glide slopes. The Navy JSF currently flies landing approaches at about 130 to 135 knots, about 25 knots slower than the Air Force version."
__________________

LONG STORY HERE:

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives ... index.html

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2010, 15:30
by dino1974
@ Spazsinbad

Thanks, another interesting read - although it seems to refer to the X-35A...
Now, I beginning to think it would be better, for me, to stop reading about the F-35 as the more I read and the more I'd like to add features and details...which would be a good thing if I had the time to implement them...

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2010, 20:54
by spazsinbad
Just for the record (whilst these Optimum AoA & Approach Airspeed figures seem to be difficult to find....) a recent Key Performance Parameter [KPP] figure for USN 'Maximum Approach Airspeed' is 145 KIAS.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2010, 21:47
by neutrino
Hi Spaz, thanks for the info and references - that was exactly what I was looking for ! I doubt that we will find a reliable data for optimum AOA, but at least the difference in approach speed between CV and CTOL variants (25 kts) is a very useful info. Also it seems that the CV may have a lower AOA to improve visibility.

The 145 kts maximum approach speed you quote is due to arresting gear limitations.

As to Dino's F-35 project - he has done an absolutely outstanding job of modeling the AA-1 prototype. Check out this picture from his blog which is my favorite...

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2010, 22:14
by spazsinbad
neutrino, no probs. IMHO the 'lower AoA' as you state does not make sense (except perhaps 'lowering the nose to have a better Field of View FOV during a carrier approach). Perhaps you mean airspeed? The PDF mentioned (http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988) [1Mb] "The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter" plus this PDF:
&
http://www.robertheffley.com/docs/HQs/N ... 002_71.pdf (2.8Mb) "REVIEW OF THE CARRIER APPROACH CRITERIA FOR CARRIER-BASED AIRCRAFT PHASE I; FINAL REPORT" make it clear I think that the 'visibility over the nose is important' but one of many other considerations - not the only one. Remember the pilot of a JSF (any kind) can look through the airframe to see everything all around, so amongst other things that FOV is less important compared to other variables.

Probably the first PDF mentioned above has best general info about JSF-C criteria considerations. Without someone publically explaining the issues in detail then we have not a lot to go on - but I'll keep looking because I'm interested. Yes the arresting gear limitation is crucial - dictating a lot. Probably the actual AoA detail is out there - it is just not easily found for the moment.

Did you get to use the FSX Accelerator A-4K KAHU yet? http://www.fratbrosdesign.com/ The KAHU HUD with AoA Indexer (like Hornet and freeware Dino Catteneo Goshawk T-45C and Tomcat F-14D show these Optimum AoA issues perfectly. :-)

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2010, 22:40
by neutrino
Spaz - with lower AOA I meant lower optimum approach AOA than the air force variant. For example the CV can have the usual 8 degrees, while the CTOL may have the more typical 11 degrees. With lower required AOA your nose will be lower, thus better visibility to the mirror and the deck. I am sure they will be able to see through the aircraft with the HMD, but what if the DAS fails...

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2010, 23:33
by spazsinbad
Yes, doing a manual approach without any fancy aids relying totally on 'meatball, lineup and airspeed [Optimum Angle of Attack]" is always good. :-)

One thing to consider is that likely the JSF-A carries some excess airspeed just before touchdown (unlike JSF-C) for the flare before touchdown on the runway. How you factor that in from whatever side views you have I have no idea. Perhaps if you can have identical viewpoints for the AoA just before the flare for the JSF-A and the 'just before touchdown' same view for the JSF-C then that would be helpful. However the JSF-C has not flown yet AFAIK. What the JSF-B does for a converntional approach and landing I have no idea but I guess because it is more similar to the JSF-A, the JSF-B will replicate the JSF-A conventional approach, unless we know otherwise, would be my uninformed guess. :-)

The side view is also important - looking down to the front and port side for that important half way from base turn to finals view of the carrier landing (and for long straight in approaches at night for example). Yet failure of critical aids in the JSF-C will be a real emergency most likely; necessitating other solutions. I wonder if the JSF-C will have an AoA indexer on top of all that fancy flat panel display gubbins?

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2010, 00:42
by neutrino
Haha, AOA indexer - no way :) You will have an AOA bracket on the HUD/HMD, well if that fails - then you must use pitch or just speed as reference 8)

BTW, from my own pictures in the beginning of the thread I calculated the AOA of the aircraft to be between 9.7 and 10.2 degrees. That's not necessarily the optimum AOA, nor is the visual calculation very precise, but it's a rough estimate.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2010, 00:50
by spazsinbad
neutrino, why not a conventional indexer as a backup? You mention loss of flat panel screens already. I guess there would be an emergency flat panel display of some kind and I had not forgotten HMD but if there is going to be catastrophic 'instrument failure' then the AoA indexer would be a nice backup that all Naval Aviators would be familiar to use. Otherwise in normal landing I gather the HMD will have the indexer. Remember in ordinary use for a visual landing (without the HMD working) the AoA indexer would be in line of sight of pilot looking at meatball and lineup.

Whatever you reckon is Opt AoA is fine by me - until we know for certain. Most of JSF knowledge is guesswork for the moment (from the outside anyway). Maybe someone will see your message to at least tell you the AoA?

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2010, 06:18
by bjr1028
spazsinbad wrote:Yes, doing a manual approach without any fancy aids relying totally on 'meatball, lineup and airspeed [Optimum Angle of Attack]" is always good. :-)

One thing to consider is that likely the JSF-A carries some excess airspeed just before touchdown (unlike JSF-C) for the flare before touchdown on the runway. How you factor that in from whatever side views you have I have no idea. Perhaps if you can have identical viewpoints for the AoA just before the flare for the JSF-A and the 'just before touchdown' same view for the JSF-C then that would be helpful. However the JSF-C has not flown yet AFAIK. What the JSF-B does for a converntional approach and landing I have no idea but I guess because it is more similar to the JSF-A, the JSF-B will replicate the JSF-A conventional approach, unless we know otherwise, would be my uninformed guess. :-)

The side view is also important - looking down to the front and port side for that important half way from base turn to finals view of the carrier landing (and for long straight in approaches at night for example). Yet failure of critical aids in the JSF-C will be a real emergency most likely; necessitating other solutions. I wonder if the JSF-C will have an AoA indexer on top of all that fancy flat panel display gubbins?


If those failures were to also effect the FBW computers, it wouldn't matter.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2010, 00:00
by spazsinbad
Would be helpful if any AoA data for carrier landing is known but here is some more info from 1st flight comments:

"Handling with landing gear down was a key focus of the first flight as the F-35C has a 30% larger wing and uprated flight controls to reduce takeoff and landing speeds compared with the other F-35 variants. Knowles says the aircraft approached at 135 kt., compared with 155 kt. for the smaller-winged F-35A and B variants at the same 40,000-lb. gross weight. Takeoff rotation speed was 15-20 kt. slower, he says.
&
The 57-min. first flight focused on gear-down handling and formation flying with the F/A-18 chase aircraft in “an early look at handling around the carrier”, says Knowles, adding “The approach was very stable, with good roll response.” [http://alturl.com/fnsk]

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2010, 15:19
by Gums
Salute!

Looks like the "C" will be a very smooth transition.

I would not be surprised to see the "C" be bought by more air forces than the "A". Kinda like the SLUF. When USAF went with the A-7, they put in the newer motor and drastically improved the avionics. Then the Navy saw the "D", and bought them for themselves as the "E". Virtually identical except for the nose gear.

The over-the-nose vis and the approach speed is very important, and I was surprised at the Navy spec for 145 knots. If the boat is at 25 or 30 knots, and we have 10 or 15 knots of wind, then we're talking approach to the deck of 100 knots or less. Not too shabby. I doubt that many Navy jets will be at the 145 approach IAS.

The larger wing area of the "C" might hurt top speed, but I bet that sucker has better range than the "A". And trust me, the Hornet is neat, but the sucker burns gas like the F-4. Too much for the loadout and such.

Looks like we actually "turned the corner" with this new jet.

Gums sends ...

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2010, 21:43
by spazsinbad
gums, the limit for Optimum AoA approach airspeed is a limit of the arrestor gear weight/airspeed. In this instance the aircraft is designed to the ship limit. Perhaps new fangled arrestor gear (similar to variable launch of EMALS) will allow different specifications but as indicated in this PDF sometimes the ship wins: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988 [1Mb] "The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter"

The worst case scenario is relevant for example: nil wind (or even a slight downwind during landing) at max landing weight optimum angle of attack recovery. In ordinary carrier ops sometimes the carrier may not be able to go fast in a slight wind due to nearby land for example. And yes range is greater with bigger wing and turning radius much better (vague recollection - mentioned elsewhere).

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2010, 22:46
by Gums
Salute!

I don't get it, Spaz.

I can't find a limit on the cables versus the jet's AoA on approcah, or speed. I'll read the reference again.

Looks to me that the sucker has good over-the-nose vis for the pilot at "normal" approach AoA's. Maybe like the SLUF. Less tinkering with the control surfaces such as the Hornet required ( canted rudders to get the nose up for takeoff).

i also note that the AoA they are talking about in your reference is not the aircraft's aero AoA but its fight path vector with respect to the local level.

This jet looks like it will have a very easy carrier qual series. Great vis and a decent approach speed.

The existing cables and their capabilities don't seem to be a factor. Biggest speed requirement has always been "wind over the deck" for takeoff. If we have a 145 knot landing speed limit, then no problem for the "C".

Gums sends ....

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2010, 23:56
by spazsinbad
Gums, probably more PDF reading, such as an LSO NATOPS manual will be informative also: http://www.vaw120.navy.mil/NATOPS/UE_In ... NATOPS.pdf (probably this link not working now so try next [older one but still relevant]) http://www.robertheffley.com/docs/CV_en ... NATOPS.pdf (4Mb)

Carrier Landing Aircraft require special features that are 'hinted' at in the aforementioned 'JSF Design' PDF above (see graphic). Another thread has info about the arrestor gear capabilities mentioned (see graphics) from this thread: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-75.html

Image
Image

Bear in mind the JSF pilot can see through the aircraft (perhaps a feature not realised when the PDF was written). In any event as you say good physical visibility forward is required. I'm not in the JSF program so I can only guess from public knowledge about a lot of things that likely will be revealed when the F-35C is doing FCLP and DLP trials. Therefore I cannot state categorically that the carrier JSF will be like all other USN jets but in a nutshell they all fly a constant Optimum Angle of Attack down the glideslope to a no flare landing either ashore or afloat. IF USAF former USN aircraft used a different airfield landing technique - then that is unknown to me. AFAIK the Oz Hornets land Navy style ashore.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2010, 00:10
by lamoey
Not being a pilot this will be an educated guess from my side, but the larger wing area allows the plane to descend with the same rate and AoA, while 20-25 knots slower airspeed, compared to the A model. Since they typically slam it down on the carrier deck they can lower the AoA, increase the descend rate, while keeping the throtle at a lower setting to maintain the lower maximum speed required. I would think the B model would have a slightly different modeling in the FLCS due to the heavy lift fan, where the other two may have a close to empty fuel tank.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2010, 00:26
by spazsinbad
lamoey, for the moment we have to guess about a lot of things about JSF and variants. Generically the Optimum Angle of Attack has the aircraft landing hook first, then main wheels then nose gear. As the hook engages the wire (or cross deck pendant as USN want to call it) the deceleration brings everything down. There is a maximum rate of descent which when exceeded can break the strong undercarriage. However the medium ROD is usual so that ship movement and last second pilot YIPS can be accounted for so as to not exceed the MAX ROD. Using this ideal aircraft attitude gained by the Optimum Angle of Attack the best carrier landing can be carried out. Bear in mind under the maximum carrier landing All Up Weight, the KIAS will vary with weight whereas the AoA Optimum remains the same. The LSO looks at that OAoA Attitude to gauge how the approaching aircraft is 'travelling' down the glideslope. Using a different approach flying technique a carrier pilot maintains glideslope with power while the nose controls AoA (airspeed). The only way to FLY NAVY! :D

There is nothing smooth about a carrier landing except that perceived from the outside. Inside the pilot is working like a 'one armed wallpaper hanger' with the engine(s) cycling up and down and nose moving also to maintain the ideal attitude/glideslope all the way to touchdown/arrest.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2010, 02:47
by Gums
Salute!

I still see no show-stoppers with respect to the boat's arresting gear, nor none with the cats.

The USAF A-7's usually did a very slight "flare" to get a better "touch", but we flew the indexer just like the Nasal Radiators did.

Only time I ever seriously "planted" the sucker without a flare was with a hydraulic failure when I had to take the approach cable. We had same main gear as the Navy jet, and nose gear was "almost " the same, but didn't have the gizmo for the cat shot. in really bad weather, some of us would "plant" the thing, but I am talking 1/8 of a mile vis and 50 or 100 feet ceiling. Ever done one of those, Spaz? And, BTW, I did one in the VooDoo at 180 KIAS approach speed one day. Interesting, to say the least.

Unless the "C" bounces on the deck, or has a hook angle problem, the sucker looks like it will have a very smooth carrier qual series of flights.

Gums sends ...

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2010, 03:43
by spazsinbad
Gums, thanks for the USAF/navy style landing explaino. I'm not contradicting (aircraft type would be significant also) but of course as the first PDF explains about Navy requirements for a 'flare' (if we can call it that for this explanation purpose) during the approach (apparently new research has made this requirement obsolete - so perhaps no longer relevant).

"(2) the aircraft must be capable, without changing engine thrust, of effecting a change in flight trajectory that intersects a glidepath positioned 50 ft above and parallel to the aircraft's glidepath at the start of the maneuver, within 5 sec of control application;"

Anyway at Opt AoA there is little energy for a proper 'float flare to greaser' landing but enough for that 'cushion effect'. Usually Navy Pilots will practise same landing technique (with a mirror if available ashore) or otherwise 'wing it' on a non-Naval airfield.

In my time (now more than 35 years ago) only GCA/CCA could bring one down to 1/4 NM at 200 feet. Otherwise only TACAN or a Radio Beacon approaches available. I have in real weather started to overshoot at what was my authorised minima [at that time] of 1/2NM at 400 feet AGL off a GCA to then spot a magic hole in the clag straight ahead with good sight of the runway so I did a "High Precautionary Approach" style descent (with power off) to a 'full power coming on to cushion the huge descent rate' landing [with power back to idle instantly] on the runway (was already cleared to land off the GCA). Outsider viewers thought it was spectacular. :D Other than that had a nice escape here: http://www.filefront.com/12844254/RampS ... ryA4G.pdf/ (7.5Mb)

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2010, 05:20
by Gums
Salute!

Sounds great Spaz, but had trouble with the link.

As you have pointed out, we USAF pukes tried for a smoother touch and the nasal radiators landed pretty much the same way on a long runway as on the Nimitz. The F-4 guys were pretty much the same as us, but seems that many used the "navy" technique. No big deal, and it is comforting to have a jet that you can "plant" without worrying about cracking the wing box or damaging the gear.

May surprise you, but i landed the Viper about like the SLUF. Flew the "optimum" AoA and did only a slight flare. That plane likes to land slow, so all the flare and such just seemed harder than a mini-flare just at touchdown.

I see no problems with the F-35C, and I hope you don't. I see a plane that will adapt to carrier ops much easier than the Hornet, aka YF-17.

Unlike the Hornet, the F-35 was designed from the get-go for the Naval version and the USAF/USMC versions. The plane is significantly different than the F-111 ( read ATF) back in the 60's. The thing reminds me of the SLUF and the Double-Ugly more than the Hornet. Many, many mods to the YF-17 to get to the Hornet. And it showed.


Gums sends ...

P.S. BTW, my poor vis landing in the VooDoo was at New Orleans NAS on a GCA with a calm, old Chief talking me down. Unlike the USAF controllers, he continued to talk to me even as I reached the min alt decision point. As I advanced the throttles for the go-around I saw the lights at the end of the runway and chopped power, touched, deployed drag chute and aero braked. Thanks God, and Chief, I'll take over from here, heh heh.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2010, 10:19
by spazsinbad
Gums, thanks for explanations. Firstly not sure if you were able to download the 'rampstrike' PDF story. Same version has been made available here: www.a4ghistory.com but not yet visible on the page. If you right button mouse click on this next link you will be able to 'save as' the 7.5Mb PDF to your computer (that is the plan anyway): www.a4ghistory.com/Ramp-Strike-01-Sept-71-no8.pdf

Ashore our ATC GCA chaps (in a portable van control space with a separate portable radar) would continue to talk advisory only at minima and after. When carrier landing at night they would stop at the 1nm mark to allow us to concentrate (to look ahead and land visually) and also 'call the ball' to the LSO (often more wish than reality but it got better the closer one got to the mirror).

At NAS Nowra the two runways were only 6,000 feet, the minimum for A4G ops; where braking on a wet runway was always critical. However one gets used to these things. Max weight takeoffs on hot windless summer days could be dicey to say the least. :D

Yes to me it seems the JSF/F-35 will be a great aircraft to fly (especially the STOVL version from what we have seen already). I'm just impatient to know more practical details for carrier landing - these will be known soon enough.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2010, 11:44
by spazsinbad
From the DEWLINE comes this item which elaborates on some issues mentioned above:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... e-aud.html

F-35C first flight and the audacity of naval aviation By Stephen Trimble on June 9, 2010

"...Last year's discovery that the F-35C requires a keel redesign to survive repeated carrier landings may indicate the scale of the learning curve, even though the company is no stranger to carrier-based aviation with the S-3 Viking.

I recommend a new article in the Naval War College Review to gain a better appreciation for the story of carrier-based aviation. The author, Robert C. Rubel, argues the Navy's carriers didn't fully recover from the transition to the jet age until the arrival of the F/A-18 Hornet. An excerpt:

"Some histories of naval aviation regard the transition to jets to be substantially complete with the phasing out of the last propeller driven fighter, the F4U Corsair, while others maintain that the transition lasted until the introduction of the F-8 Crusader and F-4 Phantom II--the first Navy carrier-based fighters that were the equals of their land-based counterparts. Another way of looking at it is through the lens of safety: one might declare the transition to have been complete when the Navy aviation accident rate became comparable to that of the U.S. Air Force. The logic behind this reasoning is that whereas a multitude of factors--technical, organizational, and cultural--constitute the capability to operate swept-wing jets, the mishap rate offers an overall indicator of how successful an organization is in adopting a new technology.

Using this criterion, the Navy's transition process lasted until the late 1980s--which was, not coincidentally, the era in which the F/A-18 arrived in the fleet in numbers. This article argues that tactical jet aircraft design and technology presented Navy aircrews, maintenance personnel, and leaders with several major challenges that were in fact not substantially overcome until the introduction of the F/A-18 Hornet in 1983."


1.4Mb PDF here: http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/7667 ... on-to-Jets

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2010, 11:53
by spazsinbad
Another LSO NATOP manual (2001 version) is here: http://www.navyair.com/LSO_NATOPS_Manual.pdf (0.7Mb)

A graphic showing improvement in USN accident rate over time (biggest influence would have been standardisation by NATOPS) from 'GRAMPAW PETTIBONE' follows.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2010, 17:48
by bjr1028
Gums wrote:Salute!

Sounds great Spaz, but had trouble with the link.

As you have pointed out, we USAF pukes tried for a smoother touch and the nasal radiators landed pretty much the same way on a long runway as on the Nimitz. The F-4 guys were pretty much the same as us, but seems that many used the "navy" technique. No big deal, and it is comforting to have a jet that you can "plant" without worrying about cracking the wing box or damaging the gear.

May surprise you, but i landed the Viper about like the SLUF. Flew the "optimum" AoA and did only a slight flare. That plane likes to land slow, so all the flare and such just seemed harder than a mini-flare just at touchdown.

I see no problems with the F-35C, and I hope you don't. I see a plane that will adapt to carrier ops much easier than the Hornet, aka YF-17.

Unlike the Hornet, the F-35 was designed from the get-go for the Naval version and the USAF/USMC versions. The plane is significantly different than the F-111 ( read ATF) back in the 60's. The thing reminds me of the SLUF and the Double-Ugly more than the Hornet. Many, many mods to the YF-17 to get to the Hornet. And it showed.


Gums sends ...

P.S. BTW, my poor vis landing in the VooDoo was at New Orleans NAS on a GCA with a calm, old Chief talking me down. Unlike the USAF controllers, he continued to talk to me even as I reached the min alt decision point. As I advanced the throttles for the go-around I saw the lights at the end of the runway and chopped power, touched, deployed drag chute and aero braked. Thanks God, and Chief, I'll take over from here, heh heh.


I think the difference here is that the Navy and the Air Force are mostly on the same page.

For the TFX program, the Navy and Air Force were on completely different pages with completely different needs. The Air Force wanted a bomber. The Navy wanted a fighter and the air force designed the jet to their needs.

With LWF/VFAX, the Air Force and Navy weren't really on the same page either. The Air Force wanted a lightweight fighter. The Navy needed something that could replace the a-7 in the air to ground role while replacing some of what the phantoms did in the air to air role in the Marine squadrons and the air wings on the midway class ships which were too small for tomcats. Neither was a priority for the Air Force, nor was actually being able to land on a carrier and once again they choose only based on their requirements. Later on, the F-16 would be modified for AtoG and BVR roles and gain about 3500lbs in the process.

With the JSF, its a little more consistent on the requirements. The Air Force and the NAVAIR community are looking for a lot more of the same requirements.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2010, 17:53
by Gums
Salute! Aye aye!

I get the impression that the nasal radiator writing for the Navy journal was a Hornet dweeb, heh heh.

Seems to this old fart that the Double Ugly was designed for fleet air defense and carrier ops from the get go, so I question the author's assertion that the Hornet set a new standard. I also remember the Panther, Cougar, Tiger and, of course, the Scooter. Somewhere in there we also had the Skyray - semi-delta wing interceptor with a good Pratt motor and afterburner.

The YF-17 required many changes to be capable of cvarrier ops, and GD flat-ass quit when asked about a carrier version of the YF-16. Wasn't the spec that GD had designed the LWF for, and they used their resources to improve the design and produce the Viper I first flew back in 1979. Except for no relief tube and a crappy autopilot, they did a fine job, IMHO.

I am surprised at the Crusader loss rate and will have to verify. Only other jet I know of with that loss rate was the Thud, and seems most of them were no sierra combat losses. have many classmates that punched out and spent time in the Hilton.

So LTV used the Crusader's best features and developed the SLUF. Designed for carrier ops from the beginning, and was operational by late 60's, 20 years before the Hornet. Sucker lands real easy on the boats, and the cat shots were also real easy on the boat's gear as well as the SLUF's nose gear. Honest, I LOVED THAT PLANE!!!!!


I can't find a good reference to a re-design of the F-35 "keel" to withstand repeated arrestments. No surprise there, and I would have thot LM had thot about this beforehand. Hmmmm......

I am still not worried in the least. The Hornet required a lot more re-design than the F-35C. Other than the Double Ugly, this new jet may be the best multi-service plane we have ever seen. While I don't like the program stretchout, we all must realize that this may be the last human-operated jet we shall ever see. Just think about that.

We must also remember that GD got the JTF contract back under McNamara. The final operational use of the jet was decent, but the Naval variant was a disaster fro the beginning. many of we nuggets had serious concerns about the beast, but it was way above our pay grade. So we witnessed the genesis of the "fighter mafia" on the Air Staff. Also saw the Navy get serious and develop the F-14. Then the Eagle, and finally the low-end complement to the Eagle - the Viper.

I was privileged to be there as USAF and USN and USMC got their act together and field some really capable jets that have served us for three decades.

Gotta go, and I hope that my "historical" perspective adds to the flavor of this neat forum. Throw some more shrimp into that gumbo, huh?

Gums sends ....

P.S. I had never flown a GCA with a Navy controller until that day in early 1967 at Belle Chase. So I was pleasantly surprised when that crusty old Chief kept talking to me once I neared decision height. he gave me a few "attaboys" on the approach, and he was also surprised at my groundspeed. Figure it out - basic approach was 175 IAS plus 5 knots for every 1000 pounds above 3,000. Only good thing about that jet was if you had it lined really well from a few miles out, then you couldn't do much to screw it up.

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2010, 07:30
by spazsinbad
F-35C carrier approach info: VX-23 'Salty Dogs' Joint Strike Fighter Update -LCDR Ken “Stubby” Sterbenz VX-23 Ship Suitability Department Head in Paddles Monthly - Sept 2010

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... er2010.pdf (1.3Mb)

"The F-35C is 51.5 ft long and has a wingspan of 43 ft and 668 ft2 of wing area (7 ft longer wingspan and 208ft2 more wing area than the Air force or Marine versions.) It also carries 19,800 lbs of internal fuel - 1000 pounds more gas then the Air Force version. It is powered by a Pratt and Whitney F135 engine that produces 28k lbs and 43k lb of thrust in MIL and AB respectively. The max trap weight will be around 46k lbs, with an empty weight of about 35k lbs. It will fly an on-speed AOA of 12.3° at 135-140 KCAS [Optimum Angle of Attack or Donut]. Due to the fact that flap scheduling is completely automatic, the cockpit was designed without a flaps switch. Additionally, the tail hook retracts into the fuselage and is covered by hook doors that have an as-yet-to-be-determined airspeed limitation..." LT. Dan "Butters" Radocaj - VX-23 Ship Suitability

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2010, 08:31
by spazsinbad

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2010, 05:31
by spazsinbad
Model-Based Development of X-35 Flight Control Software Greg Walker 2 May 2002

http://sstc-online.org/proceedings/2002 ... /p1417.pdf (0.7Mb)

"CV - Flying and Handling Qualities and Flight Performance at Representative Mission Points"
"Validated in X-35A/B/C Flight Testing at Edwards AFB and Patuxent River NAS"
&
"Pilot Comments:
“IDLC Performance was Excellent.” (Throttle Bodes)
“Crosswind Landing was Easily Controlled.”
Airplane is Solid Through The Pattern. AOA Control is Solid. Good Control of Glideslope.”
(Manual FCLPs)

“Use of APC Reduced Workload Significantly Throughout the Pattern.”
__________________________

X-35C Field Carrier Landing Practice Videos:
http://www.jsf.mil/video/x35/x35c_fclp_high.wmv (4.5Mb)
http://www.jsf.mil/video/x35/x35c_fclp_low.wmv (0.5Mb)

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2010, 06:21
by spazsinbad

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2010, 01:13
by spazsinbad
Interesting (to me anyway) link to 'ODD' Conclusions about increasing Wind Over Deck (WOD) which will apply to any Naval Aircraft including the F-35C presumably: Scroll down the page....

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-14795.html

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2010, 04:12
by f35phixer


Watching them fly the pattern it's amazing the AOA difference. It's only about ~2 deg but looks more !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2011, 02:08
by spazsinbad
from Paddles Monthly Newsletter June 2011 Edition

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... ne2011.pdf (1.6Mb)

Next Month - July 2011 - will be info on (amongst other things): [Be There or Be Square]

JPALS Update

F-35 JSF Carrier Integration


[EDIT] Page to go watch (lower right): http://www.hrana.org/

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2011, 17:00
by sprstdlyscottsmn
f35phixer wrote:


Watching them fly the pattern it's amazing the AOA difference. It's only about ~2 deg but looks more !!!!!!!!!!!!!


looking at the two planes though, the F/A-18 has a LOT more nose in front of the pilot so it should need to have a lower AoA to get the same visibility.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2011, 21:35
by spazsinbad
One of the Naval Aircraft Design Criteria is to be able to have a good view of the meatball and lineup on carrier finals at Optimum Angle of Attack (FOV for Field of View I think it is called). The F-18 NATOPS actually has the angle for the Hornets I think (rather than the usual 'units of AoA' which can be arbitrary). One thing that the F-35C lacks AFAIK is the angle of attack indexer which is in the pilot view along with meatball and lineup. I guess if you can see through the aircraft a lot of this doesn't matter with the F-35C. Here is an excellent PDF: http://www.robertheffley.com/docs/HQs/N ... 002_71.pdf

"The FOV criterion is defined by the reference 1 as follows:
“The lowest level flight speed at which the pilot, at the design eye position, can see the stern of
the carrier at the waterline when intercepting a 4 degree optical glide slope at an altitude of 600
feet. The origin of the glide slope is 500 feet forward of the stern and 63 feet above the
waterline.”

"Figure 24 illustrates the geometry of this criterion. Although the criterion places the origin of the GS
at 63 ft above the waterline, the correct height of the GS source is 65 ft above the waterline,
reference 68. Through analysis, it was determined that this difference is not significant to the result
of AOA prediction using this criterion."

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2011, 10:23
by spazsinbad
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Project: Part 3. Thursday, September 1, 2011

http://www.sharkeysworld.com/2011/09/f- ... -part.html

"...Operations from a flat flight deck
58. The flight characteristics and landing speed of the F-35C Lightning II appear to have been designed specifically for operation from United States Navy nuclear powered strike carriers. These warships are capable of speeds in excess of 40 knots. The design approach speed for the F-35C Lightning II aircraft returning on board in a typical combat configuration, with all its original weapon load, is understood to be such that in ‘still air conditions’ the carrier will need to maintain a speed of at least 32 knots through the water during deck-landing operations.

59. The Queen Elizabeth class carriers have a design top speed of 27 knots which is insufficient for recovery of the F-35C Lightning II aircraft in a combat configuration in ‘still air conditions’ or when the natural wind is ‘light and variable’. If there is any doubt that the wind may fall to less than 5 knots, planned aircraft operations might be restricted. This therefore represents an unacceptable shortfall in operational availability and an unacceptable cost in weapons that have to be ditched before attempting landing.

60. It is understood that attempts to reduce the landing speed of the aircraft by 5 knots utilising such devices as spoilers on the wing would have an unacceptably detrimental effect on the stealth qualities of the aircraft – and would increase costs significantly.

61. If this limitation proves to be correct, the F-35C will not be a sensible option for operation from our carriers. The matter requires very early clarification."

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2011, 10:31
by spazsinbad
It seems to me that the CVF now with arrestor gear needs to have such that it can take the F-35C at max. landing weight at max. speed of the CVF at least (27 knots WOD) with NIL wind. If the arrestor gear setup has not been decided (another thread says next year for this) then how can this 'limitation' above be known? Seems to me to be a ridiculous assumption at this early stage - but that's the UK.
____________

INFO from previous page.

"F-35C carrier approach info: VX-23 'Salty Dogs' Joint Strike Fighter Update -LCDR Ken “Stubby” Sterbenz VX-23 Ship Suitability Department Head in Paddles Monthly - Sept 2010

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... er2010.pdf (1.3Mb)

"The F-35C is 51.5 ft long and has a wingspan of 43 ft and 668 ft2 of wing area (7 ft longer wingspan and 208ft2 more wing area than the Air force or Marine versions.) It also carries 19,800 lbs of internal fuel - 1000 pounds more gas then the Air Force version. It is powered by a Pratt and Whitney F135 engine that produces 28k lbs and 43k lb of thrust in MIL and AB respectively. The max trap weight will be around 46k lbs, with an empty weight of about 35k lbs. It will fly an on-speed AOA of 12.3° at 135-140 KCAS [Optimum Angle of Attack or Donut]...."

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2011, 12:03
by stobiewan
spazsinbad wrote:The flight characteristics and landing speed of the F-35C Lightning II appear to have been designed specifically for operation from United States Navy nuclear powered strike carriers. These warships are capable of speeds in excess of 40 knots."


Epic fact fail, the CVN's top out at 33 ish knots in the main, nowhere near 40 kts.

Ian

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2011, 16:46
by spazsinbad
Some info from the F-35C 'drop testing':

http://www.key.aero/view_feature.asp?ID ... n=military

“…The tests were successfully carried out between March and April [2010], and included dropping CG-01 95 inches at 20 feet per second, with an 8.8 deg pitch [near Optimum AoA 12.3], two degree roll, and 133 knot wheel speed, simulating a carrier-deck landing.…”

Perhaps from this information some approach conditions to CVF can be inferred - at NIL WOD for CVF but even knowing 'wheel speed' from above link it is not known if this is the maximum wheel speed for a carrier landing. We know I believe that the runway wheel speed is much higher for takeoff while F-35A landing speed is said to be 25 KIAS higher than F-35C approach speed (with a flare reducing final touch down speed for A model : http://machinedesign.com/article/the-jo ... asons-0307) but how that applies to a carrier landing given the other unknowns about the capacity of the arrestor gear (weight of aircraft and engaging speed limits) I'll just have to scratch my nose.
_______________

Some more grist for the mill with a higher landing speed mentioned:

[original URL defunct] http://s3.amazonaws.com/ppt-download/vn ... 7DEGKZDHEQ
BETTER URL:
http://www.asdnews.com/news/27850/Vough ... for_LM.htm

"...This “drop test” is done to simulate a landing on an aircraft carrier. As a fighter jet approaches the deck of a carrier, forty-six thousand pounds of airplane is traveling at 138 knots and hitting the deck with a thud, stressing the airframe and especially the jet’s landing Vought Test Lab Simulates Jet Landing on an Aircraft Carrier gear with thousands of pounds of pressure. Every part of the gear must withstand that tremendous stress time after time with no structural failure...."
_____________________

JSF Carrier Variant Meets First Flight Goals Jun 8, 2010 By Graham Warwick

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... ht%20Goals

“Handling with landing gear down was a key focus of the first flight as the F-35C has a 30% larger wing and uprated flight controls to reduce takeoff and landing speeds compared with the other F-35 variants. Knowles says the aircraft approached at 135 kt., compared with 155 kt. for the smaller-winged F-35A and B variants at the same 40,000-lb. gross weight. Takeoff rotation speed was 15-20 kt. slower, he says...."

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2011, 17:39
by spazsinbad
stobiewan, just happened on this PDF of a four day surge for USS Nimitz in July 1997 showing carrier speed (GPS DATA):

USS Nimitz and Carrier Airwing Nine Surge Demonstration

www.cna.org/documents/2797011110.pdf

And yes I have read the screed at the link below given by 'Maks'.
____________________________

'Maks' has some STATS here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-45.html

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2011, 17:55
by spazsinbad
'Back of the envelope' calculations would suggest that the arrestor gear mentioned below can catch the F-35C approaching the CVF at 140KIAS max (see USN LSO figures above) then said CVF needs to trundle along at only 10 knots in NIL wind conditions to make the required 'carrier landing ground speed' (approx.) of 130 knots at under 46K pounds (mentioned in USN LSO stats above).

Weekend Wings #38: The F-111 Aardvark, Part 2 Saturday, December 4, 2010

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com ... art-2.html

"...Furthermore, the US Navy (with aircraft carrier operations in mind) had specified a maximum aircraft length of 55 feet, and (most important of all) a maximum weight of no more than 50,000 pounds, for its F-111B model. This was critically important. The arresting gear fitted to US aircraft carriers had to decelerate heavily-laden aircraft from flying speed to a standstill in no more than 300-400 feet of flight deck space. The gear had to absorb all the kinetic energy of the aircraft, which could be very high. (For example, the current Mark 7 Mod 3 arresting gear on USN Nimitz-class carriers can stop an aircraft weighing 50,000 pounds, traveling at a speed of 130 knots, in a distance of only 340 feet. That means absorbing kinetic energy of well over 45,000,000 [forty-five million] foot-pounds.)..."

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2011, 11:12
by stobiewan
Oh, they can cruise quite efficiently nearer the top of their speed range -- the details are covered in this useful essay from Naval Weapons:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.htm


They won't do 40 knots -and I really pointed that out to demonstrate that Sharkey is running an average of one total out and out factual howler per paragraph.

The actual point raised about F35 landing speeds and how easily or not they can be brought aboard a CVF has been interesting and I certainly wasn't confusing the messenger with the message on that one, apologies if I'd ruffled your feathers on that one,

Ian



spazsinbad wrote:stobiewan, just happened on this PDF of a four day surge for USS Nimitz in July 1997 showing carrier speed (GPS DATA):

USS Nimitz and Carrier Airwing Nine Surge Demonstration

www.cna.org/documents/2797011110.pdf

And yes I have read the screed at the link below given by 'Maks'.
____________________________

'Maks' has some STATS here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-45.html

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2011, 11:18
by stobiewan
Oh, they can cruise quite efficiently nearer the top of their speed range -- the details are covered in this useful essay from Naval Weapons:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.htm


They won't do 40 knots -and I really pointed that out to demonstrate that Sharkey is running an average of one total out and out factual howler per paragraph.

The actual point raised about F35 landing speeds and how easily or not they can be brought aboard a CVF has been interesting and I certainly wasn't confusing the messenger with the message on that one, apologies if I'd ruffled your feathers on that one,

Ian



spazsinbad wrote:stobiewan, just happened on this PDF of a four day surge for USS Nimitz in July 1997 showing carrier speed (GPS DATA):

USS Nimitz and Carrier Airwing Nine Surge Demonstration

www.cna.org/documents/2797011110.pdf

And yes I have read the screed at the link below given by 'Maks'.
____________________________

'Maks' has some STATS here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-45.html

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2011, 12:48
by spazsinbad
stobiewan, no worries. Just making a point that probably should have been made earlier in other threads.

About Sharkey. I have enormous respect for him but worry about how he probably seems to allow the 'distinguished others' (possibly even older old fogies) :D do research for him. Sharkey needs to do his own research or get better - more up to date - help. Sharkey is of the old school verbal argument in your face USMC kind. Checking facts would be impossible. Today that method is 'just so flawed' because we all have the luxury of Googling 'facts' and not being face to face the immediacy of his style of 'bombast' is missing. Sharkey did good stuff in his day but these days maybe he needs to be the one advising someone else that is doing the arguing. As you say he just gets so much wrong; but I can follow the drift - even if I don't agree in the thrust of the argument. Arguing to have Super Hornets instead of F-35Cs is wrong IMHO. I like the way any advantages of F-35C over Shornets are ignored. Good one Sharkey. I would like to meet him one day [unlikely if he is in 'Bahamas' and I'm in Oz] - just to shake his hand. AWIs are fearsome characters eh. :D

Yes I have read the 1999 CVN speed article - there are two threads with the 'F-35C landing information' [UK MOD in a MUDDLE over F-35C]. Sorry about that but thought it necessary to keep the 'F-35C Optimum AoA information' all in one thread also. Will be interesting to see next year what is decided about arrest/cat gear and deck layout etc. I still hope after proper investigation (given a decade of work on F-35B) that it is decided to go back to F-35B. Possibly by then the F-35 program overall will be less problematic for the UK. And get some money in your coffers. :D

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2011, 23:20
by spazsinbad
From previous page entry in this thread [Weekend Wings #38: The F-111 Aardvark, Part 2] about heavyweight arrested USN Mk.7 Mod.3 landings and the figures stated - here is a 1999 USN LSO Reference Manual graphic about 'heavyweight' landings which approximate the (F-111) F-35C with the EA-6B. Optimum settings in colours.

LANDING SIGNAL OFFICER REFERENCE MANUAL (REV. B) 1999 (new 2010 edition not available to public so far)

http://63.192.133.13/VMF-312/LSO.pdf (5.5Mb)

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2011, 00:36
by spazsinbad
F35 Lightning II Fighter Jet video by Rhiain Morgan on Tue 13 Sep 2011

http://www.t3.com/feature/f35-lightning ... 0&ns_fee=0

"Top gun trainer for F35 Lightning ii fighter jet and helmet

Maker of all things military, BAE Systems, has created the ultimate simulator for Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II, the next-gen stealth fighter that will be the RAF’s main weapon within the next decade and we we let into the defence inner circle for a closer look.

The sim uses six projectors to produce a panoramic 180-degree screen, helping pilots perfect such essentials as landing on a carrier deck in a storm, dog-fighting and nailing the ultimate loop.

We went along to the simulator’s base in Warton, Lancashire, for a test drive. Watch the video to find out how we got on."

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2011, 01:43
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:[..Warton, Lancashire, for a test drive. .."


Bravo on the centerline; touch and go?, bit lite on the tailhook! :)

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2011, 09:15
by spazsinbad
On the first page of this thread was a query about the FOV (Field of View) over the nose, then a diagram of this requirement for Navy aircraft on page 3 of this thread. Was reminded when reading this today:

FLIGHT TEST: F-35 Simulator - Virtual fighter By Mike Gerzanics 31/07/07 SOURCE:Flight International

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

“...Field of view over the nose is excellent, enhanced by the small radome enclosing the active-array radar....”

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2012, 01:10
by spazsinbad
An amendment to my 'back of envelope' F-35C Carrier Approach information needs to be amended in the light of these 'Speed Definitions' as indicated in this definition excerpt from:

"The relationship between Vpa, WOD, and engaging speed is significant to the discussion of approach requirements. Touchdown speed is defined as 105% of Vpa. The 5% factor added to the touchdown speed is not arbitary. It is based on actual ship survey data and the statistical variation seen in the actual touchdown speeds. The percentage varies with each aircraft. However, for design purposes, a 5% factor is used as a nominal value to define touchdown speed. Engaging speed is defined as touchdown speed minus WOD. Closure speed is the relative speed between the aircraft and the ship. The engaging speed limit is the minimum of the arresting gear limit speed, hookload limit speed, or limiting sink speed. The engaging speed must not exceed the engaging limit speed for safe recovery. WOD is generated by the combination of natural wind and/or ship speed."
+ [from diagram]
Engaging Speed Factor (0.06 x Approach Speed)
SPEED DEFINITIONS: from REVIEW OF THE CARRIER APPROACH CRITERIA FOR CARRIER-BASED AIRCRAFT PHASE I; FINAL REPORT
http://www.robertheffley.com/docs/HQs/N ... 002_71.pdf
___________

So this rough calculation: "CVF at 10 knots in NIL wind can arrest at Maximum Landing Weight F-35C at Opt. Angle of Attack Approach (140- KIAS) within limits of the USN Mk.7 Mod 3 or better Arresting Gear" from page 3 of this thread (scroll down): http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-30.html

Amendment needed perhaps however i thnk I used the maximum quoted figures so it is all in the ball park - if in doubt add 5 KNOTS! [to CVF speed 10+5=15 knots :D (for mum 'n the kids)]. I'll get around to that recalculation soonish.....

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2012, 22:52
by spazsinbad
On first page of this thread 'dino1974' back on 12 Jan 2010 said:

"@neutrino
I think I know why you are asking the AoA question...
Thanks for your help with the FSX model. BTW I hope I will be able to pack the Beta 1 tonight.

@ Spazsinbad
Interesting read - I'd really want to make a -B and -C models for Flight Simulator and hope I can find the time one day or another..."

It took some time with an F-35A 'cheapware' model being released but now withdrawn because the model has been updated along with BETA versions of F-35B and F-35C now in development 16 May 2012.

GO HERE:
http://indiafoxtecho.blogspot.com.au/20 ... shots.html

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bku13uAh1tk/T ... _hover.jpg

"Hovering in the F-35B:
http://indiafoxtecho.blogspot.com.au/20 ... f-35b.html

"...the integration with Rob Barenrdregt's STOVL functionality is done and...works like a dream! I spent a lot of the weekend hovering here and there and it is a lot of fun. Also, the F-35B is almost ready for Beta testing...

...And I've also figured out a way to model the F-35C in a reasonable amount of time (with a little artistic licence on a couple of details... which I am sure someone will notice in seconds, but it may be a fair compromise...it is worth a try IMHO).” 01 May 2012

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YFDXyGEZLkM/T ... _hover.jpg

There are other screenshots of F-35As and F-35Cs on Dino's Blog - so go look.

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2012, 22:29
by neptune
Latest comments from LM; "The all versions of the jet have started flying with external stores. Later this year, the aircraft will enter into high angle of attack testing up to 50 angle of attack, O'Bryan says. The programme will also start wet runway tests, engine air starts, and weapons releases. "
:)

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2012, 10:15
by spazsinbad
'Prepar3D' is an offshoot of Microsoft Flight Simulator X (FSX). Some FSX aircraft will fly in Prepar3D but not all. I have Prepar3D but need an up to date computer to run it. My now 3 year old + computer runs FSX OK but not Prepar3D. Anyhoo there is another Utube video which highlights some F-35 stuff. I'll post an F-35C clip soon. [USN F-35C clip only portion here (same as below attached) http://youtu.be/9QQT1X40qfg ]

Screenshot attached is HMDS virtual HUD view from complete video at Utube.

Are you Prepar3D®?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... YQ5dP0WOFA

"Published on May 18, 2012 by LockheedMartinVideos
Prepar3D® simulation software presents a virtual world that spans from the depths of the ocean to suborbital space. See how Prepar3D can be used for immersive, experiential learning in this trailer. Since launching the software in 2010 as an evolution of Microsoft ESP technology for professional training and academic learning, Lockheed Martin has expanded ground and maritime settings, added camera sensors and enhanced its multi-player capability for distributed training exercises. Visit prepar3d.com"

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2012, 03:43
by spazsinbad
Dino Cattaneo's F-35 Family is being BETA tested at moment, here is one result video for F-35C:

F-35C Initial Carrier Trials VIDEO FSX Flight Simulator X Accelerator

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 1m-YDW2kW4

"Published on May 31, 2012 by degigi2003"

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2012, 09:14
by spazsinbad
F-35B First Landing on a Cruiser FSX Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... n5XnupDw3w

"Published on May 24, 2012 by degigi2003?

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2012, 02:32
by spazsinbad
F-35 Beta 2 Test WIP - Reporting and open discussion May 28, 2012

http://indiafoxtecho.blogspot.com.au/20 ... -open.html

'Orion' (testing) screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/lpn2H.jpg

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2012, 14:38
by spazsinbad
F-35 Cleared to taxi and hold short... 12 July 2012

http://indiafoxtecho.blogspot.com.au/20 ... short.html

"Just a quick note to announce that the F-35 is *almost* ready. That is, I have a build that should be good enough for distribution. There are still some bugs here and there, and I was not able to fix all the issues that were highlighted during the Beta tests. Still, I believe the build is good enough, considering the complexity of the project and the fact that, well, I could continue trying to fix minor issues forever....at a certain point it is better to stop, provided that the quality level is acceptable.

After a thoughtful consideration the project will be payware - but I believe the price will be definitely acceptable for most users. Final price has not been decided but it will be close to the previous F-35, possibly with discounts for previous customers (if technically feasible).

I am, and will be and I still consider myself, a freeware developer - this is just a hobby for me and I do not want greed to be part of my hobbies... nor I envision this activity will ever replace my real life job, nor I'd like to become a regular businness. But the F-35 project has been extemely expensive by my standards, and, frankly, I'd like to limit my loss (which is in the area of few thousands euros...mostly spent on acquiring the high-definition meshes I've used as starting point in the modeling).

Anyway, it is almost ready. Almost. I still need to complete the manual, pack the files etc. etc.... I believe that will require another week or two. I hope you will have fun with the Lightning II."
&
"Forgot to say that if you'd like to see the list of changes/fixes, I've updated the Beta 2 tracking post below..."

http://indiafoxtecho.blogspot.it/2012/0 ... -open.html

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KcyhWQTQ6wQ/T ... 0/F35C.jpg

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2012, 15:39
by spazsinbad
F-35 Manual Draft 1 for download 20 July 2012

http://indiafoxtecho.blogspot.com.au/20 ... nload.html

"Above are few screenshots of the final models for the F-35 A, B and C, and here is a download link to the draft version of the manual. It is just a 25 pages document, but it should be good enough to provide the information the average user may need to enjoy this F-35 rendition. As the package will not be freeware, I have included an honest and, as far as I can, unbiased list of the major shortcomings of the package in a section of the manual - along with what I believe will be the FAQ. I honestly believe it is the most realstic rendition of the F-35 so far in any recreational enviromnent - but is definitely far from the incredible realism of other commercial packages...."

5Mb PDF download link at the URL above.

More text and DOWNLOAD LINK for the 5Mb PDF manual at the URL above. Found that FireFox was best to use for download rather than IE9 on Windows 7. Others may have a different experience however.

This bombed up F-35B in STOVL mode is - perhaps - unrealistic but it is FSX after all, maybe the aircraft is just doing a STO at Max. AUW or similar?:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mP_G5WAj3H0/U ... 0/F35B.jpg

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2012, 01:46
by spazsinbad

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2012, 02:31
by madrat
Why use stealth droptanks in a non-LO configuration?

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2012, 02:39
by spazsinbad
FSX would be guesswork. Correct? Are there any other non-existent drop tanks available?

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2012, 11:14
by gtg947h
madrat wrote:Why use stealth droptanks in a non-LO configuration?


I don't think those are. They're F-35-specific tanks, shaped like that for drag reduction... but I'm pretty sure there's nothing LO about them.

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2012, 11:58
by spazsinbad
I don't believe the drop tanks exist - except on paper. Here is one thread on this forum about them.

F-35 External Fuel Tanks?

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16656.html

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2012, 16:10
by SpudmanWP
Those are specific F-35 tanks for not only transonic drag reduction, but more importantly, separation issues.

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2012, 21:11
by spazsinbad
And yet do they exist?

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2012, 21:39
by SpudmanWP
Who knows what exists in the program somewhere.

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2012, 22:30
by spazsinbad
So we can speculate all we like? I would rather go with some solid information. Sure it is likely that F-35 drop tanks - when produced - will look like the line drawings seen in weapon carriage diagrams in F-35 briefings; but as indicated elsewhere on this forum, development is not forthcoming.

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 23:58
by alloycowboy
I am little disappointed, I was thinking with all the advanced CFD computer software and advanced 3d printing that the F-35's drop tanks wouldn't be quite so symmetrical.

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2012, 00:17
by spazsinbad
Yet another thread about F-35 drop tanks with graphic:

F-35 External fuel tanks? 16 Dec 2012

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-21708.html

Graphic from PDF posted by SWP?: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-16605.html

http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f_35ext ... nk_177.jpg

Image

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2012, 00:34
by spazsinbad
An update on the originator of this thread (FSX F-35 model)... Dino Cattaneo will soon kindly make his work freeware as indicated.

Projects update 28 Nov 2012

http://indiafoxtecho.blogspot.com.au/20 ... pdate.html

"A very quick update on the status of my various FSX projects:

F-35 LIGHTNING II - The product has been withdrawn from sales to be re-released as freeware. I've already made several minor improvements to the package, and I am evaluating further changes. A plausible release date is the first or second week of January...."

Other FSX Naval Aircraft suitable for carrier landing info next at URL. The T-45C is excellent for this purpose.

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2012, 00:42
by count_to_10
So, if the tank is made with composites, then couldn't it be radar-transparent?

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2012, 00:49
by spazsinbad
Radar transparent?: Stealthy, similar to the gunpod - depending on shape also - which for aerodynamic reasons is the way it is probably?

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2012, 04:23
by spazsinbad
Not my video - made with Dino's F-35C in FSX. The view out front is the best. One slight issue with the AoA only being at bottom of vHUD making it not visible some times but OK as seen here on a long straight in approach. Don't forget to right click on the 'playing video' to select ZOOM > FULL SCREEN.

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2012, 05:05
by archeman
So just mentally expanding on a previous posters comment about using non-ferrous materials to build the fuel tanks (which in theory, allows you to use the most aerodynamically efficient form) it brings up the follow-up Question 1: What is the radar reflectivity of kerosene? It seems to me that it would probably be transparent also but, could be wrong about that.

Question 2: Don't the drop tanks also include internal baffles to reduce fuel sloshing about, multiple internal fuel pickup tubes, fill ports with caps, connecting parts and such? It could prove challenging to get all those pieces radar transparent. How about fuel booster pumps? Are those tucked inside the tanks to push it out, or is the fuel sucked out?
If they do have pumps those would also have to be surrounded by radar absorbent or properly angled reflective materials.



I assume this must have been measured before because all our current and past fleets of stealth aircraft can and do on occasion dump their fuel for some reason. If dumping fuel was a signature problem then I suppose we wouldn't have heard about it but it may be public information.

Please no "Use Unleaded" jokes - thanks :)

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2012, 05:52
by spazsinbad
Can you do me a favour and take the discussion to the recent fuel tank posting please? Thanks. Yes threads go off topic but I think this one is clearly not about the external tanks as such - whereas the recent thread is. The details are:

F-35 External fuel tanks? 16 Dec 2012

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... af2d3.html

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2012, 13:50
by spazsinbad
F-35 Freeware version released! 30 Dec 2012

LOCKHEED MARTIN F-35 LIGHTNING II Platform: FSX:A and Prepar3d Latest version: 2.10
Released on: December 31st 2012 DOWNLOAD from Google Drive:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1VJtK ... 0NWT056eE0 (210Mb ZIP file)
________________________

http://indiafoxtecho.blogspot.com.au/20 ... eased.html

"I have changed my plans and released the freeware F-35 before the F-14D... The reason is that the F-14D Beta need more work than I though to make it a more meaningful release, and, well, I am not in the right mood to go through the tedious process of writing the missing code right now.
On the other hand, I've made several minor updates to the F-35, and I prefer to release it now. So here we go.

Version 2.10 – FREEWARE RELEASE December 30th 2012 – CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS VERSION:
Minor changes to .air files, less drag at transonic and supersonic speeds (to bring behavior closer to lates official claims)
Slightly reduced A/B thrust for B version (as in the real thing, B version has a different nozzle design)
Removed MFD and wide cockpit screens, unused by most users
Solved autothrottle bug (unable to engage A/T due to missing A/T arm flag in aircraft.cfg)
Fixed event firing bug in HMD code
Added specific inner bay doors animation to F-35B (inner doors open while hovering to improve lift, as in the real thing)
Fixed pilot animations in F-35B model
Added miscellaneous external views
Fixed pan rate for external views
Added custom sound package, courtesy of Serge Luzin
Changed hovering mode weight limit to 40600lbs (was 42000) according to the latest official data
Removed .exe installer, now manual installation is required

NOTE: FROM THIS RELEASE (2.10) ONWARDS THE LICENCE IS CHANGED TO FREEWARE:USAGE IS FREE, AND YOU ARE NOW FREE TO COPY THIS SOFTWARE, HOWEVER ANY MODIFICATION OR ALTERATION OF THE FILES IS STILL PROHIBITED."

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2012, 15:52
by thegroundeffect
Maby A bit off-topic, but does any of the JSF models hava a trimangle for the wings? Is that common in fighters anyway?

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2013, 03:57
by spazsinbad
FSX F-35 by Dino Review at FlightSim.com (see first comment by Dino) Remember FOLK this is FREEware.... :D

Review: F-35 Lightning II 02 May 2013 By Dylan Brown

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/content.p ... -II/view/1

http://www.flightsim.com/images/reviews ... 11-729.jpg

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2013, 07:27
by KamenRiderBlade
thegroundeffect wrote:Maby A bit off-topic, but does any of the JSF models hava a trimangle for the wings? Is that common in fighters anyway?


I thing you meant trimangle = trapezoidal wing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapezoidal_wing

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2013, 21:23
by maus92
archeman wrote:Question 1: What is the radar reflectivity of kerosene? It seems to me that it would probably be transparent also but, could be wrong about that.


Water in liquid and solid form reflects radar energy, so I'd bet that kerosene does as well.

Kerosene and radar

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2013, 03:49
by thebigfish
I believe the properties of liquids namely the di-electrcic constant determines how well a return signal is obtained. Kerosene is around the 0.8 mark and water is a least an order of mangitude above that. So water is easy seen but not so sure about kerosene if the radar transitter is not tuned to it. This from my little experience in dealings I have with radar level transmitters in the refining and chemical industry, they are starting to use in greater numbers. Kerosene level can be seen but only becuase the te radar is tuned. (i think)

RE: Kerosene and radar

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2013, 00:27
by count_to_10
It is probably related to Mie and Rayleigh scattering. The Rayleigh scattering cross section is proportional to [(n^2-1)/(n^2+2)]^2 where n is the index of refraction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mie_scattering

RE: Kerosene and radar

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2013, 01:12
by spazsinbad
This info has nothing whatsoever to do with F-35C Approach AoA, as requested earlier take a new thread for this discusion about fuel scattering radar beams OR go here as requested earlier. Thanks.

F-35 External fuel tanks? 16 Dec 2012

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... af2d3.html

RE: Kerosene and radar

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2013, 10:20
by spazsinbad
F-35 Version 2.20 limited introduction 10 Jun 2013 Dino Cattaneo
"Finally I am uploading the much awaited (and time consuming!) F-35 upgrade to version 2.20. For the moment it will uploaded only to Google Drive - just to check if there are no catastrophic issues before uploading to the usual repositories.

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOU UNISTALL AND/OR DELETE FILES FROM PREVIOUS VERSION BEFORE INSTALLING VERSION 2.20.

Version 2.20- June 9th 2013..."

http://indiafoxtecho.blogspot.com.au/20 ... ction.html

DOWNLOAD URL (FREE): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1VJtKJ ... sp=sharing

F35v220.zip 139 Mb

RE: Kerosene and radar

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2013, 08:58
by spazsinbad
A way to learn how to carrier land without going to the carrier first is by FCLP. Here is a great freeware program with a virtual LSO who will grade your FCLP approaches in the same way this same program will grade your carrier approaches. What could be better than that? NO LSO! :D

NALF Fentress + vLSO 0.7.1.0 25 Jun 2013 FOR FSX Accelerator ONLY with any carrier capable aircraft including F-35C (freeware)
"Ok, guys
Now you can download and test another vLSO version with my first photorealistic Fentress scenery. This new version supports multiple FCLP runways, and there are two working FCLP runways at Fentress. Also, starting from this scenery all my FCLP sceneries will have unidirectional carrier deck lighting, as in real life. Enjoy and feel free to give your feedback!"

http://vlso.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/...vlso-0710.html

Download: 'vLSO beta 0.7.1.0 (full) (June 26, 2013)' https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3pF...it?usp=sharing (.zip 6.1Mb)

Re: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2014, 00:58
by spazsinbad
The F-35 in Prepar3D v 2.3 is made by Dino Cattaneo.
New Prepar3D v2 Software for Exciting, Immersive Learning
Published on Oct 27, 2014 LockheedMartinVideos

"Lockheed Martin unveiled the newest version of Prepar3D® simulation software, with exciting new rendering, virtual instruction, scenario generation features as well as virtual F-35 and F-22 aircraft...."



Re: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2017, 13:33
by spazsinbad
A few threads mention Prepar3D and the freeware (now part of) Version 4 now 64bit Prepar3D. The 4 page PDF attached explains it and I'll gather the graphic is a screengrab from the new Version 4 of Prepar3D 64bits (and about time too). :roll:
Prepar3D Version 4
Sep/Oct 2017 PC Pilot No.111

"Ever since Lockheed Martin took its first steps into the simulation market in 2010, Prepar3D has improved at a steady pace. In version 2 the graphics engine was upgraded from DirectX 9 to DirectX 11, introducing HDR lighting and volumetric fog. The following version added avatar mode along with new aircraft such as the F-35 and the UH-60 Black Hawk, while on the technical side, SLI support was implemented. When Prepar3D Version 4 went on sale in May this year, it marked a major milestone in the product’s history. Not only does it introduce new features such as dynamic lighting, improved autogen and new weather effects, its 64-bit architecture promises to advance Prepar3D to the next level....

...Aircraft
Another outstanding feature is the quality of the default aircraft. Rather than having a fleet entirely developed by Lockheed Martin, it has a good mix of aircraft made by third-party developers. The general aviation fleet features the Extra 300 from Alabeo, the A36 Bonanza from Carenado, Mooney Acclaim from Lionheart Creations and the Piper Cub from Lockheed Martin. In keeping with Lockheed Martin’s military side, the F-35A Lightning II from India Alpha Foxtrot along with the F-22 from IRIS have been carried over from the previous version, while the rotorcraft fleet is supported by the R22 and the Virtavia Sikorsky MH-60/S-70 Black Hawk. The Ohio Class submarine and a Neptune SRM submersible are still included for those among us who seek a life below the waves.

We also have some new arrivals such as the Fury 1500 UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) and the star of the show for me is the F-16, which includes the A, AM and C variants. Developed by Lockheed Martin, it is a detailed example with a fully functional virtual cockpit and systems...."

Source: PC Pilot Magazine, September/October 2017, No.111

Re: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2017, 18:42
by Gums
Salute!

Back to original question......

Look at HUD when on the approach.

Difference between the zero reference symbol, the "w" thingie, and the flight path marker.

Voila!!! Dat's your AoA.

Gums sends.....

Re: Kerosene and radar

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2017, 19:08
by neptune
thebigfish wrote:I believe the properties of liquids namely the di-electrcic constant determines how well a return signal is obtained. Kerosene is around the 0.8 mark and water is a least an order of mangitude above that. So water is easy seen but not so sure about kerosene if the radar transitter is not tuned to it. This from my little experience in dealings I have with radar level transmitters in the refining and chemical industry, they are starting to use in greater numbers. Kerosene level can be seen but only becuase the te radar is tuned. (i think)


.....diesel,kerosene,naphta, etc. are commonly monitored for level and density by both non-contact and guided wave radar (GWR).

Crude oil and water interfaces can be both detected on the same GWR probe with mm accuracy. This allows for water draw off in crude settling tanks, after unloading from ships, etc.
:)

Re: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2018, 23:36
by spazsinbad
On previous page there's a PC Pilot 2017 story about Prepar3D - the tradition continues. Did not know about 64bit version.

Four page PDF from PC Pilot Sep/Oct 2018 LM Prepar3D - The story so far + FSX in Windows 10 'how to' attached below.

Re: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2019, 10:27
by spazsinbad
A new version of Microsoft Flight Simulator is due next year according to attached 7+2 page PDF PC PILOT sepDec 2019.

Meanwhile a FREEWARE F-35A [also in PDF] is available for X-Plane 11 demoed in video below.

F-35 A LIGHTNING II PROMO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVeoH_1cKYw


Re: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2019, 16:09
by usafr
There are also two more F-35 options available for the X-Plane flight simulator. Both by AOA Simulations. Their F-35B and more recently they have added an F-35A. Both are available in the X-Plane.org store. $32 for the "Bee" and $36 for the "Alpha"

I here they (AOA are working on TX/T-7A Red Hawk now too.

Re: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2019, 17:11
by ricnunes
That F-35A by AOA Simulations surely looks interesting.
I've seen a video where it seems that Air-to-Air combat is supported (at least tracking and shooting other aircraft) but I've yet to see how the air-to-ground combat (specially the Air-to-Ground targeting) works. Is it supported? And if yes, how does it work?

Re: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2019, 16:22
by usafr
X-Plane is not the best combat sim. Not even close, but it is . good flight sim and AOA Simulations models have excellent appearance, in flight handling and accurate performance numbers.

A2G is supported on the F-35A model by visually placing the target camera or HMD cues on a spot on the ground, then pressing a GPS designation click spot (center spot on camera or assigned HOTAS button). Released weapon then guides to that spot.

Re: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2019, 17:23
by ricnunes
usafr wrote:X-Plane is not the best combat sim. Not even close, but it is . good flight sim and AOA Simulations models have excellent appearance, in flight handling and accurate performance numbers.


Yeah, I get the idea that combat in X-Plane is more of a placeholder than an actual feature.

usafr wrote:A2G is supported on the F-35A model by visually placing the target camera or HMD cues on a spot on the ground, then pressing a GPS designation click spot (center spot on camera or assigned HOTAS button). Released weapon then guides to that spot.


So you're saying that there's indeed a camera in the cockpit which simulates an EO sensor (such as a FLIR) and as such allows the pilot to designate and engage a land target?
(if yes, that's already better than I expected)

I have another question: Does X-Plane have enemies that fire back (like enemy interceptor aircraft and/or SAMs)?

BTW, thanks for your feedback and thanks in advance for further replies.

Re: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2019, 18:15
by usafr
X-Plane allows you to have up to 20 aircraft loaded in the sim at one time; you plus 19 AI controlled aircraft. Those 19 can be either "friendly" (friendlies can not be locked by missile), "neutral" (neutrals, if armed, won't fire at you) or "enemy" who will attack your plane relentlessly, even after you shoot them down, because they almost instantly regenerate in another location ~ 40 nm away.

The AOA Simulations F-35A can be refueled AND re armed in-flight so, with 19 AI "enemies" you can set yourself up in a massive 1v19 fur ball and come out on top! ;-) Not realistic, but fun.

Re: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 13:00
by ricnunes
Yes, it looks fun indeed, thanks for the reply usafr.

One last question: Does X-Plane also has/model ground based air-defenses such as SAMs (or AAA) that fires at the player (and/or eventually at enemy AIs)?

Re: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 15:44
by usafr
No.

Re: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 15:57
by ricnunes
Thanks again for the reply, usafr

Re: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 01:24
by spazsinbad
2nd part of the PC Pilot MS Flight Sim 2020 'review' in four page PDF (1Mb) from Jan-Feb 2020 edition of PC PILOT.

Re: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2020, 12:23
by spazsinbad
Prepar3D v5 [FOUR PAGE PDF of article attached below]
May-June 2020 Richard Benedikz

"An exclusive interview with Lockheed Martin on their new upgrade

...PC Pilot: Apart from upgrades to the graphics and weather engine, has new content been added such as aircraft or other vehicles?...
...RM: In addition, we included two new public F-35 variants that were developed by IndiaFoxtEcho Visual Simulations. One is the F-35B, which supports short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL). All three F-35 variants have also been updated to high-resolution PBR textures.

PC Pilot: Are there any changes to the minimum systems requirements compared with P3Dv4? Obviously, support for DirectX 12 is now required. AB: Right, hardware that supports DirectX 12 is now required. That would be the main change to the minimum requirements. Still, most GPUs purchased in the last five years should support that at some level. One big detail that has flown under the radar is that v5 supports DirectX 12 on Windows 7. That is a very important feature for some training customers who are unable to update their operating system.

PC Pilot: In your experience, how does v5 compare with Prepar3D v4 in terms of performance, for example, VRAM usage?
RM: Performance is markedly improved in v5 compared to v4. We have taken advantage of the capabilities and control offered in DirectX 12 to really push performance in ways that weren’t previously possible. VRAM usage is comparable at similar settings but to take advantage of performance gains, more VRAM is used compared to v4 in some cases. New graphical features, particularly the Enhanced Atmospherics setting, will require more VRAM to run effectively compared to having this setting disabled.

PC Pilot: In terms of Virtual Reality support, are there any new features or additional support being added to v5?
AB: We have continued to have a strong focus on Extended Reality (XR) integrations - specifically with a strategic focus on Mixed Reality (MR). For example, we are excited to announce that v5 has native support for Varjo’s XR-1 headset. The MR experience in v5 is second to none for flight training. We will have additional announcements throughout 2020 on more XR advancements planned for Prepar3D.

PC Pilot: Will existing add-ons for P3Dv4 work in v5 or will third-parties have to update their products?
RM: Yes. Backwards compatibility is a major focus for us. Most third-parties will need to update their installers to find v5 but any other changes to update their products from v4 to v5 should be minimal...."

Source: PC Pilot May-June 2020 Number 127

Re: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2020, 14:31
by spazsinbad
Feature Discovery Series Episode 6: Airports https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10P21oFOxAU


_______________________________________________

Feature Discovery Series Episode 7: Multiplayer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezcSVFQdc5g


Re: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2020, 08:10
by nutshell
FWIW, there's a fully working mod on DCS for the F35.

Re: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2020, 10:24
by Dragon029
I don't know if I'd call those mods "fully working"; they essentially just replace the external model of F-15Cs or Harriers with animated F-35As / F-35Bs; the cockpits, etc are all still entirely from existing DCS aircraft.

Re: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2020, 13:12
by nutshell
It is even worse, you cant carry ordnance internally.

It is like you said: a "skin", a visual cosmetic.

Re: F-35 Approach AOA

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2020, 07:02
by gta4
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=53111

F-35's approach speed is 150 knots at 13 deg AOA,