Page 9 of 9

Re: F-35B/C and the Ski-Jump?

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2020, 07:06
by Corsair1963
steve2267 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Does anybody know of a source. That states Ski Jumps are less stressful on Naval Aircraft than Catapults???


Zero to 165mph in two seconds...

vs

Zero to flying speed in 5-6 seconds?

For real?


NO I wasn't questioning it at all. Just looking for a source to support it....

Re: F-35B/C and the Ski-Jump?

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2020, 02:45
by steve2267
There's your source.

Or you could state the math yourself. You just inquired about "lower" -- not actual g-values. So the math should fairly obviously show it to be lower. Or perhaps support your statement / math by quoting sources about how long it takes to STO off an LHA vice catapult velocity / time values (which are easy to find).

Re: F-35B/C and the Ski-Jump?

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2020, 08:19
by spazsinbad
Look through this PDF: SKI JUMP INFO VARIOUS Sep 2015 pp152 forumED.pdf (11Mb)

download/file.php?id=25188

OR attached F-35B STO & CVF Ski Jump INFO 30NOV17 pp147

Re: F-35B/C and the Ski-Jump?

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2020, 13:02
by spazsinbad
CARRIER SUITABILITY OF LAND-BASED AIRCRAFT [PDF attached below]
25 Jun 2012 José-Luis Hernando and Rodrigo Martínez-Val Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Abstract
The paper describes the first steps of a study aimed at assessing the modifications that should be introduc-ed in ground-based combat airplanes to make them compatible with aircraft carriers designed with ski-jumps & arresting devices. The present analysis includes operational and performance aspects, & describes the complexity of the take-off and approach/landing manoeuvres, identifying the key variables intervening in such manoeuvres. A last section is devoted to summarise the most critical features for carrier suitability....

...4 Final considerations
The present paper has described the take-off and approach/landing manoeuvres, as they are performed on aircraft carriers equipped with ski-jumps and arresting mechanisms. The operations are very different from those on ordin-ary runways, for the size and longitudinal motion of the deck, for the pitch and heave displacements of the carrier, and for the potential interference between the carrier superstructure wake or the rough sea generated air turbulence and the approach glide path. The findings include the following critical items:

- The thrust-to-weight ratio at take-off must be appropriately matched to the available deck length & the ski-jump geometry, including wind-on-deck effects;
- The approach speed must be compatible with wind-on-deck & the available landing distance to completely stop the airplane after engaging the last arresting pendant;
- The thrust-to-weight ratio at approach must be high enough as to allow fast acceleration and safe lift-off should the airplane hook failing engaging the arresting pendants.

Obviously, since the present paper only describes the first steps of the study there are other important aspects that will be addressed in future works. They include, for example:

- Very fast control to give the pilot full authority on the aircraft after the semi ballistic jump at the end of a hands-off take-off;
- Suitable aircraft attitude during ground runs, that may require meaningful modifications of the nose landing gear; and
- Rear fuselage modifications to fit the arresting hook, as well as structural reinforcements to withstand the hook transmitted loads.”

Source: http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS20 ... RS/167.PDF (1Mb)

Re: F-35B/C and the Ski-Jump?

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2020, 00:06
by spazsinbad
More on HORNET on Ski Jump test NAN Mar-Apr 1984: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/h ... april.html (PDF 4.4Mb)

Re: F-35B/C and the Ski-Jump?

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2020, 04:16
by Corsair1963
THANKS