Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2011, 20:55
by neptune
Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical

By Philip Ewing Tuesday, June 7th, 2011 2:49 pm

A Marine Corps photo set this week shows a squadron of veteran AV-8B Harriers at work in Afghanistan supporting troops on the ground, and it brought to mind one of the capabilities the Marines’ F-35B Lightning II will have that the Harrier doesn’t. Everybody knows that the B can “transform,” like a Decepticon, for short takeoffs and vertical landings on Navy amphibious ships at sea. But unlike a Harrier, the B also can land like a conventional airplane, said Lockheed Martin vice president Steve O’Bryan at the company’s big media day last month.

So what, you might say. Well, the Harrier doesn’t land conventionally: Every time it comes back, even to a ground base, it needs to do a vertical landing or a rolling vertical landing, O’Bryan said, burning fuel and working its jet nozzles more or less the same way. But if a Lightning II pilot wants to, she’ll be able to land down a runway like a normal fighter jet, without engaging the lift fan or all those other ports and hatches and bells and whistles.

If many — or most — of the flights that a fighter makes over its life are not under operational circumstances, because pilots are training or ferrying their jets, that could mean that a typical B won’t need its vertical landing capability most of the time.


“I don’t want to speak for the Marine Corps, but as we do analysis for the STOVL variant, [we think] most of the landings will be conventional landings — you can come back and land on a normal 8,000-foot airstrip without stressing all those components,” O’Bryan said. “Of course it’s up to the operational units, but why would I stress those if I don’t have to? … That is an option that’s not available on the current generation of STOVL airplanes.” :)

Source: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/06/07/lockh ... -vertical/

RE: Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2011, 21:48
by stereospace
Interesting. I hadn't realized the Harrier could not make a standard landing.

Re: RE: Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2011, 21:54
by battleshipagincourt
stereospace wrote:Interesting. I hadn't realized the Harrier could not make a standard landing.


I had the same reaction. The V-22 can't land or take off conventionally because its turboprops are too large, but what prevents the harrier from doing this?

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2011, 22:02
by aaam
The Harrier can make a fully conventional landing, it's just they usually don't bother. Partly because the vertical landing doesn't really put that much excess load on the a/c, and arguably uses less fuel. Also, the Harrier is trickier to land than the F-35B will be, so just like with Navy CTOLs, practice, practice practice.

The V-22 can takeoff and land horizontally when the need arises. In fact, on an overseas self deployment they would use a rolling takeoff because o the extra fuel being carried. The nacelles are simply rotated to an intermediate position.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2011, 23:02
by spazsinbad
The Harrier is trickier to land even in the rolling vertical landing on land (never shipboard except once in Falklands War due emergency) because the main wheels are directly under fuselage with only flimsy small outrigger wheels that won't stand the strain of crosswinds (or uneven - wing down landings) too much. And the Harrier was not designed to do conventional landings - unlike the F-35B. The reporter in the story above has been asleep and just woken ala RipVanWinkle I reckon to discover the AMAZING abilities of the F-35B. :D

Also as has been pointed out in the 'very long thread' Harrier pilots do vertical landings because they are more or less the same onboard and it is good practice. In the same way Navy pilots use the land IFLOLS to land but that is not quite the same because land Navy pilots do need to do concentrated FCLP before going back aboard. Whereas Harrier pilots need to do less or none in the case of the old RN Harrier pilots (because they did not consider land vertical landings any different to shipboard ones unlike USMC though - a long story).

In Afghanistan Harrier pilots will do rolling vertical landings on long conventional runways with ordinance but it is easy to get it wrong as we saw in a spectacular crash a few years ago with the pilot ejecting from burning bomb laden Harrier as it rolled down runway on fire having broken the wheels misjudging the flare component.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2011, 23:28
by spazsinbad
A Skyhawk Pilots Guide to Sea Harrier by LCDR Dave Ramsay RAN 1983
“...The undercarriage arrangement of centreline mainwheels and wingtip outriggers is necessitated by the engine and nozzle positions....
...Our normal criteria is to land from a hover when the fuel low level warning flashes (at 500 lb) and to aim to be downwind with a minimum of 1,000 lbs so all pilots are used to flying with low fuel levels – and you don’t bolter in this aircraft....
...The way it works is this:- you drive on around the circuit and point at your landing pad at 165Kts, gear and flap down and 40° nozzles selected. Power will be about 65% and the hoons amongst us will drive on in like this until the very last possible moment, then use full braking stop to decelerate. I myself sedately take the hover stop at about 0.8Nm. So now all the thrust points down and the slick aerodynamic qualities of the Harrier manifest themselves as a marked deceleration. This in turn means wing lift is decreasing (attitude is held constant at 8 units AOA) so you increase power to keep the ground at bay. It is a fact of life that as you decellerate through 90Kts the lack of wing lift and the trim change induced control inputs require an engine power and therefore JPT that is pretty well just what you will have in a nice steady hover....”

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2011, 23:51
by aaam
spazsinbad wrote:A Skyhawk Pilots Guide to Sea Harrier by LCDR Dave Ramsay RAN 1983
“...The undercarriage arrangement of centreline mainwheels and wingtip outriggers is necessitated by the engine and nozzle positions....
...Our normal criteria is to land from a hover when the fuel low level warning flashes (at 500 lb) and to aim to be downwind with a minimum of 1,000 lbs so all pilots are used to flying with low fuel levels – and you don’t bolter in this aircraft....
...The way it works is this:- you drive on around the circuit and point at your landing pad at 165Kts, gear and flap down and 40° nozzles selected. Power will be about 65% and the hoons amongst us will drive on in like this until the very last possible moment, then use full braking stop to decelerate. I myself sedately take the hover stop at about 0.8Nm. So now all the thrust points down and the slick aerodynamic qualities of the Harrier manifest themselves as a marked deceleration. This in turn means wing lift is decreasing (attitude is held constant at 8 units AOA) so you increase power to keep the ground at bay. It is a fact of life that as you decellerate through 90Kts the lack of wing lift and the trim change induced control inputs require an engine power and therefore JPT that is pretty well just what you will have in a nice steady hover....”



...and the Sea Harrier was trickier to land than the AV-8B-GR7/9, so it's really not that enormous a thing. In fact, the world's only privately owned Sea Harrier had the forward stick in the up position, so the pilot made a VL and gingerly reduced power until the nose touched. Minimal damage. F-35B will be easier than that.

Something in this narrative shows up another advantage of VL: did you notice that the low fuel warning doesn't come on until 500 lbs?

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2011, 23:58
by spazsinbad
aaam, was not that first SHAR warbird landing with a stbd outrigger not down? Easy enough to look up anyway. That chap has extensive USMC Test Pilot experience in both the A-4 and Harrier. He did the testing of the ski jump for USMC (story in the 'very long thread'). I'll look for that thread page link...

Yes Harrier pilots I have talked to are very comfortable with low fuel (as long as they are near a suitable landing spot). :devil:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... lls#155562

"...The May-June 1990 edition of "Naval Aviation News" has a two page article written by Major Art Nalls (now flying an ex-RN Harrier as a civilian warbird) about his advocating the 'ramp'. Testing started Dec. 1988 on 'Principe De Asturias' with a Marine detachment from NATC."

http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backiss ... 0/mj90.pdf

Text reference here: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... lls#176316
at:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hawkerassoci ... flyon.html

Info about Art Nalls here: http://www.nallsaviation.com/biography.html

Hover Emergency Landing: http://www.nallsaviation.com/videos/2.html

I did not realise until now that the emergency landing was done on the hover pad at PAX River.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2011, 02:19
by aaam
spazsinbad wrote:aaam, was not that first SHAR warbird landing with a stbd outrigger not down? Easy enough to look up anyway. That chap has extensive USMC Test Pilot experience in both the A-4 and Harrier. He did the testing of the ski jump for USMC (story in the 'very long thread'). I'll look for that thread page link...

Yes Harrier pilots I have talked to are very comfortable with low fuel (as long as they are near a suitable landing spot). :devil:
<snip>

I did not realise until now that the emergency landing was done on the hover pad at PAX River.


He had a hydraulic problem indication and elected to divert to PAX. They decided to have him land on the newly built JSF pad. He came in and hovered, and after they inspected the situation (all gear appeared to be down), cleared him to set it down, which he gingerly did. The nose gear collapsed when it got weight on, followed by the stbd outrigger. Not sure if the later occurred due to the same problem of if it's just because they're not designed to support that much weight.


Harriers can operate with lower fuel reserves because they don't have to worry about bolters, waveoffs (land or sea) or foulled deck/runway.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2011, 03:14
by spazsinbad
aaam, thanks for the Harrier emergency update.

IF a Harrier has to land quickly when there is a fouled spot it can easily 'air taxi' - hover moving slowly - to a new clear spot. Seldom, if ever, do they have to overshoot a vertical landing to do another QUICK circuit to land again; although that may be the case in rare instances - albeit unlikely. The USMC seem to want to do things more like their NavAv fixed wing chaps (I guess due the overweening influence of USN NavAv on USMC with different LSO styles and whatnot) rather than like the formerly RN/RAF pragmatic way of using the Harrier for vertical landings onboard. Whatever. Soon to become irrelevant when the F-35B is flying with the USMC (and others perhaps).

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2011, 03:25
by aaam
spazsinbad wrote:aaam, thanks for the Harrier emergency update.

IF a Harrier has to land quickly when there is a fouled spot it can easily 'air taxi' - hover moving slowly - to a new clear spot. Seldom, if ever, do they have to overshoot a vertical landing to do another QUICK circuit to land again; although that may be the case in rare instances - albeit unlikely. The USMC seem to want to do things more like their NavAv fixed wing chaps (I guess due the overweening influence of USN NavAv on USMC with different LSO styles and whatnot) rather than like the formerly RN/RAF pragmatic way of using the Harrier for vertical landings onboard. Whatever. Soon to become irrelevant when the F-35B is flying with the USMC (and others perhaps).


Remember, NATOPS is written by the Navy. They keep trying to operate it like a regular Navy CTOL that doesn't happen to need a hook.

USN got very frustrated during the test aboard the FDRwhen the AV-8s could operate independent of the wind, independent of the way the ship was heading, and didn't need to be tied to the conventional launch/recovery cycles.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2011, 04:04
by spazsinbad
aaam, agree. Have you read the long 'whinge' about those issues in 'the very long thread'? Otherwise read about 'em here:

V/STOL SHIPBOARD RECOVERY: “IT’S NOT JUST ANOTHER CARRIER LANDING”
by Major Andrew G. Shorter USMC 2002

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA407726

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2011, 04:22
by aaam
spazsinbad wrote:aaam, agree. Have you read the long 'whine' about those issues in 'the very long thread'? Otherwise read about 'em here:

V/STOL SHIPBOARD RECOVERY: “IT’S NOT JUST ANOTHER CARRIER LANDING”
by Major Andrew G. Shorter USMC 2002

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA407726


What is 'teh very long thread'?

I wonder if Nalls has any more money. I know where he can get a late model, low mileage, exquisitely maintained, recently updated, one-owner GR9. It's even been garaged since last December. Heck! He could probably pick up two ("Call in the next 20 minutes and we'll Double your order!").

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2011, 04:35
by spazsinbad
aaam, 'the very long thread' is this one, probably best to start at the end and work backwards but whatever:

Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-450.html

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2011, 19:07
by aaam
spazsinbad wrote:aaam, 'the very long thread' is this one, probably best to start at the end and work backwards but whatever:

Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-450.html


Ah, that one. I participated for a while but kind of drirfted away, maybe I should have another look. I opined 'If the navy wants to use those kind of ships regularly for normal carrier duties, then build some of their own, but don't overtask the Marines' ones'.

Re: Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2011, 20:40
by bjr1028
neptune wrote:http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/06/07/lockheed-many-f-35b-landings-wont-be-vertical/

Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical

By Philip Ewing Tuesday, June 7th, 2011 2:49 pm

A Marine Corps photo set this week shows a squadron of veteran AV-8B Harriers at work in Afghanistan supporting troops on the ground, and it brought to mind one of the capabilities the Marines’ F-35B Lightning II will have that the Harrier doesn’t. Everybody knows that the B can “transform,” like a Decepticon, for short takeoffs and vertical landings on Navy amphibious ships at sea. But unlike a Harrier, the B also can land like a conventional airplane, said Lockheed Martin vice president Steve O’Bryan at the company’s big media day last month.

So what, you might say. Well, the Harrier doesn’t land conventionally: Every time it comes back, even to a ground base, it needs to do a vertical landing or a rolling vertical landing, O’Bryan said, burning fuel and working its jet nozzles more or less the same way. But if a Lightning II pilot wants to, she’ll be able to land down a runway like a normal fighter jet, without engaging the lift fan or all those other ports and hatches and bells and whistles.

If many — or most — of the flights that a fighter makes over its life are not under operational circumstances, because pilots are training or ferrying their jets, that could mean that a typical B won’t need its vertical landing capability most of the time.


“I don’t want to speak for the Marine Corps, but as we do analysis for the STOVL variant, [we think] most of the landings will be conventional landings — you can come back and land on a normal 8,000-foot airstrip without stressing all those components,” O’Bryan said. “Of course it’s up to the operational units, but why would I stress those if I don’t have to? … That is an option that’s not available on the current generation of STOVL airplanes.” :)


Makes a lot of sense. Operating conventionally puts less strain on the aircraft and saves money on fuel and ordnance.

Re: Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2011, 22:57
by aaam
bjr1028 wrote:
neptune wrote:http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/06/07/lockheed-many-f-35b-landings-wont-be-vertical/

Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical

By Philip Ewing Tuesday, June 7th, 2011 2:49 pm


Makes a lot of sense. Operating conventionally puts less strain on the aircraft and saves money on fuel and ordnance.


You know, that may not be completely certain. Not really sure if landing on and then rolling down a runway and then taxiing back (we'll ignore carrier type landings which put a major strain on the aircraft) is significantly less stressful than just settling down and taxiing a much shorter distance to park. On takeoff, the STO won't use more fuel than a CTO, and is there any data that indicates a conventional pattern and landing uses a lot less fuel than a VL approach and landing (even allowng for the higher power setting at the very end of the VL). Ordnance-wise, if the plane meets its bringback requirement, it's not much of an issue. The exception would be if the aircraft had to return soon after takeoff, when the STOVL might have to dump some fuel--but then so would a heavily loaded CTOL.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2011, 23:29
by lamoey
aaam wrote:The Harrier can make a fully conventional landing, it's just they usually don't bother. Partly because the vertical landing doesn't really put that much excess load on the a/c, and arguably uses less fuel. Also, the Harrier is trickier to land than the F-35B will be, so just like with Navy CTOLs, practice, practice practice.


I don't see how an airplane that has to land under full power can use less than one that sails in on close to idle trust. How do you explain that?

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2011, 23:53
by spazsinbad
There are fair comments made about less ENGINE wear and tear - very high power vertical landing - compared to a lower power conventional landing. I think that is the point of the original article. Yes there is other mechanical wear and tear for longer taxi times but less relevant I would suggest. I guess more chance for taxi accidents also perhaps. Engine 'wear and tear' is going to be monitored as part of the 'health program' for the F-35B so I guess soon enough there will be statistics about what is good and what is not.

lamoey, I'm puzzling over your question: "I don't see how an airplane that has to land under full power can use less than one that sails in on close to idle trust. How do you explain that?"

IMHO I think there is misunderstanding about why a vertical landing is carried out by the Harrier at the end of a sortie. It is one way to retain currency for vertical landings on a flat deck. However as described 'running landings' are carried out but they are not really 'conventional landings' because as explained perhaps earlier the Harrier is not designed for that whereas the F-35B is (with nice tricycle undercarriage).

And yes a Harrier 'running landing' is tricky so unless necessary they are usually not performed - I'm guessing that Khandahar is an exception perhaps, whereas the crash there showed how 'tricky' they are especially with a load of ordnance. "Ya pays ya money and ya takes ya chances." I guess bringing back cheap bombs via a 'running landing' is useful if you only lose a Harrier every now and then? Some might argue that a vertical landing is not so easy but it is if practiced regularly AFAIK. So why not keep in practice using vertical landings? I don't make those decisions.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2011, 00:28
by lamoey
What I meant was that a Harrier lands under close to full power, while a conventional landing is more or less a glide, under the right circumstances. Some of the talk above indicates that the harrier may have to fly around until it is around 500lbs on fuel left before it can land, but in any case it would be burning a lot the last few minutes anyway. Also if a Harrier is anything like a helicopter, the ware and tear is by an order of magnitude higher during hover, so a lot of components may have much shorter survival time if hover is used a lot. A normal landing for an F-35B, on the other hand, depending on the priority and queue on final, may be a controlled glide all the way from operational altitude, without that much fuel consumption.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2011, 01:11
by spazsinbad
lamoey, jet pilots manage their fuel to land with what is appropriate. There are several methods to do it but if less time airborne is a feature or they have to make a definite landing time "Charlie" as in a carrier landing then they will dump fuel if there is too much at time of intended landing (usually at max. landing weight in all cases because one never knows when fuel is required at last minute - I'll post a link to a barricade landing where the Hornet pilot lands with 300 lbs of fuel - phew - and he has a good explanation!).

I'm not sure of the AV-8 II differences compared to a SHAR in the respect of having water onboard available to be injected into the engine at takeoff and landing. This saves wear and tear on the engine by reducing heat and helps maintain high power settings until a heat limit is reached. So managing this extra pure water and fuel can complicate a SHAR landing but they train, practice and now how to do it (where it may seem difficult for me to explain because I have never done it). I guess I should attach the A4G/SHAR comparison PDF now in full so you get an idea. There are other 'how to land a Harrier PDFs also'.

A Harrier and an F-35B can both glide from high altitude or wherever at idle to either save/manage fuel before landing. A Harrier can quickly transition from endurance or range flying to land quickly with minimum fuel in a VL because that is what they do and practice. So the differences you perceive in your explanation above are not really there with the exception of the vertical landing at high power settings - but these are only for a short duration and in the case of the SHAR at least can be less wear and tear when using water injection.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2011, 01:22
by battleshipagincourt
spazsinbad wrote:lamoey, I'm puzzling over your question: "I don't see how an airplane that has to land under full power can use less than one that sails in on close to idle trust. How do you explain that?"


How can you not understand that?

Any F-35 could glide and land conventionally if its engine were down or the aircraft ran out of fuel. If an F-35B had to land vertically, could it do a vertical landing with a dead engine?

Compared to a conventional landing, where you're throttling the engine down (and where altitude converts to airspeed), the B variant must progressively throttle UP as it lands. Possibly the argument could be made when comparing this to a carrier landing, where it can miss the cables and require another flyby.

Conventional takeoffs and landings pretty much trump all the benefits of STOVL when you've got perfectly good runways to use.

^^^

Yes I read your reply, but your explanation of 'benefits which aren't there' simply isn't true. I see that pilots can manage low-fuel landings under certain conditions, but so too can they do exactly the same with a conventional landing... and do so without requiring any fuel or even a working engine if they have enough altitude and glide speed to make the runway. The same CANNOT be done with a vertical landing under any conditions. That engine goes dead for whatever reason and the aircraft won't be landing vertically under any conditions.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2011, 01:27
by spazsinbad
F/A-18 Hornet Barricade aboard USS Nimitz 1997 Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD_mUwzp ... re=related

"Uploaded by wsslater on Nov 15, 2009
US Marine Hornet flown to a successful barricade arrestment aboard the USS Nimitz on or about October 24th, 1997 due to nose landing gear hung in the "up" position. Captain Scott Slater was the Marine aviator flying the jet. This was the first attempted barricade arrestment of an F/A-18 in Naval history. Captain Slater's fuel state at time of landing was excessively low. Credit for the successful landing goes to both pilot and the ship's crew for endless hours of training and execution of duties in a high pressure situation. This is incident had a pleasant ending; others do not."

More details from Mr. Slater:
“Mr.Slater (the pilot) kindly answered questions about that barricade arrestment. First, his right engine rpm's started winding down during the first pass, so what we heard was 'fluctuations on [...] right engine'. And he had 300 pounds indicated in tank 3 and all others showed 0...”
&
"My low fuel state was a result of several things. 1. Dumped fuel prior to discovering my problem in order to reduce total a/c wt. I had bombs/rockets so as ordinance goes up, fuel must go down to arrive at max gross landing weight. 2. Wingman helping me had to trap prior to stripping all wires and rigging barricade 3. Barricade was tangled, so it took some time to get it ready. Meanwhile, I'm running out of fuel."

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2011, 01:32
by spazsinbad
bsac, you bring up a good point: whether the F-35 of all persuasions will be allowed to do dead engine landings (I take your jest about an F-35B doing a dead engine vertical landing). Probably that is true given the apparent 'easy handling qualities' but what services will be available with a dead engine I don't know. These parameters will be part of the test regime I guess.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2011, 02:15
by aaam
lamoey wrote:
aaam wrote:The Harrier can make a fully conventional landing, it's just they usually don't bother. Partly because the vertical landing doesn't really put that much excess load on the a/c, and arguably uses less fuel. Also, the Harrier is trickier to land than the F-35B will be, so just like with Navy CTOLs, practice, practice practice.


I don't see how an airplane that has to land under full power can use less than one that sails in on close to idle trust. How do you explain that?


Because the Harrier doesn't have to go through all the pattern, maneuvers and rollout plus taxi back. The period of time it is at high power is relatively small.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2011, 02:26
by aaam
lamoey wrote:What I meant was that a Harrier lands under close to full power, while a conventional landing is more or less a glide, under the right circumstances. Some of the talk above indicates that the harrier may have to fly around until it is around 500lbs on fuel left before it can land, but in any case it would be burning a lot the last few minutes anyway. Also if a Harrier is anything like a helicopter, the ware and tear is by an order of magnitude higher during hover, so a lot of components may have much shorter survival time if hover is used a lot. A normal landing for an F-35B, on the other hand, depending on the priority and queue on final, may be a controlled glide all the way from operational altitude, without that much fuel consumption.


No, it does not have to get down to 500 lbs before it can land. The thing is that because it doesn't need to go though everything a CTOL does and isn't as concerned about waveoffs, orbiting while waiting for landing surface availability or diverts (assuming good avionics), it can afford to get down to 500 lbs without it being an immediate emergency.

A helicopter is somewhat different. For one thing, the engine (through the rotor) is providing the lift and is at high power all the time. In the Harrier, the engine only has to provide all the lift for the portion of the flight where the wing is stalled. Otherwise, it's just a regular jet. A helicopter's rotor and control system is much more complicated than that of the Harrier, and presumably the F-35B's (although the F-35B will be more complicated than the Harrier). Extended hovers are a function of airshows, not a normal operational maneuver. There are reasons beyond just fuel consumption for this.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2011, 16:12
by quicksilver
aaam wrote:
lamoey wrote:
aaam wrote:The Harrier can make a fully conventional landing, it's just they usually don't bother. Partly because the vertical landing doesn't really put that much excess load on the a/c, and arguably uses less fuel. Also, the Harrier is trickier to land than the F-35B will be, so just like with Navy CTOLs, practice, practice practice.


I don't see how an airplane that has to land under full power can use less than one that sails in on close to idle trust. How do you explain that?


Because the Harrier doesn't have to go through all the pattern, maneuvers and rollout plus taxi back. The period of time it is at high power is relatively small.


Harrier flies essentially the same pattern as everyone else -- it just has a much wider range of options for what it does from the 180 or the FAF to touchdown. Harriers can land conventionally (ie nozzles aft) but a CL is used (intentionally) only under emergency circumstances, or when practicing landings for emergencies. Principal rolling landings are so-called 'slow landings' -- which can be fixed-nozzle/variable throttle, or variable nozzle/fixed throttle. Both options are going to use more fuel than a CL because one is using the engine to create the lift and control that the wing and aero control surfaces can no longer produce as one flies slower. Slow landings in Harrier are GW dependent but will be typically in the 100-130kt range while a CL is going to be 150+. The slower one flies, the more propulsion system lift is required.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2011, 22:54
by spazsinbad
quicksilver, thanks for info. This version has 'auto flaps' I think to make these landings easier using fixed nozzles variable throttle technique AFAIK. The USMC Harrier AV-8B NATOPS PDF here: http://info.publicintelligence.net/AV-8B-000.pdf (36Mb)

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2011, 23:33
by quicksilver
Nice find Spaz. May still be the case today, but early-on AV-8B VNSLs used auto flaps to avoid the large flap movements that occur in STOL flaps as a consequence of excessive nozzle movement. In STOL flaps below a certain airspeed and nozzle angle, flaps program with nozzle movement -- that is not the case in auto flaps. In VNSL, pilot controls AoA with nozzle movement. Excessive nozzle movement in STOL flaps for the purpose of 'immediate' AoA control typically results in large flap reprogramming, thereby defeating the intent of the VNSL which is to preserve a finite engine performance margin for wave-off. For those unaware, all nozzle movement in the AV-8B is manual.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2011, 23:59
by spazsinbad
Thanks for further explanation quicksilver, apparently the SHAR had better waveoff performance in this situation. It will be good to be able to have a similar level of knowledge about the F-35B one day.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2011, 00:29
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks for further explanation quicksilver, apparently the SHAR had better waveoff performance in this situation. It will be good to be able to have a similar level of knowledge about the F-35B one day.


Actually not. Same performance factors that give one more VLBB, also enhance wave-off margin. AV-8B was/is considerably better than SHAR. Even at just KPP performance, F-35B is better than AV-8B.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2011, 00:43
by spazsinbad
quicksilver, yes I understand about better VLBB for F-35B compared to Harriers. The apparent lack of VLBB in hot windless conditions for the SHAR killed it eventually. I don't really claim to know much about Harriers in general, especially the USMC versions and operating conditions as explained in the very long thread. I'd like to know more about the F-35B as this is the F-35 forum. I'm always glad to gain more general knowledge though, so I'm not complaining. This is why I am here. :D

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2011, 03:17
by quicksilver
Well, it's clear that general knowledge about STOVL matters is limited outside those who might have flown them, built them, or studied them. Thus, the Harrier discussion. Cutting to the chase --

For a given landing configuration and load, a STOVL jet (take your pick) in semi-jetborne or jetborne flight is going to have a higher fuel burn rate than that same STOVL jet flying conventionally. Why? Because you're running the engine at a higher power setting to create lift by means of propulsion. Thus, claims that a STOVL jet burns less fuel landing vertically is false. F-35B is no different in that regard.

AIUI, the performance margins assumed for F-35B STOVL max performance calculations are the same as Harrier. However, as is the norm for flight test of any aircraft, additional margin might be assumed/required for a given test point or block of test points.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2011, 04:22
by aaam
quicksilver wrote:Well, it's clear that general knowledge about STOVL matters is limited outside those who might have flown them, built them, or studied them. Thus, the Harrier discussion. Cutting to the chase --

For a given landing configuration and load, a STOVL jet (take your pick) in semi-jetborne or jetborne flight is going to have a higher fuel burn rate than that same STOVL jet flying conventionally. Why? Because you're running the engine at a higher power setting to create lift by means of propulsion. Thus, claims that a STOVL jet burns less fuel landing vertically is false. F-35B is no different in that regard.

AIUI, the performance margins assumed for F-35B STOVL max performance calculations are the same as Harrier. However, as is the norm for flight test of any aircraft, additional margin might be assumed/required for a given test point or block of test points.


Here's the key: The relevant period to calculate is from the point the STOVL starts its conversion to shutdown. If a STOVL is brought in using conventional procedures (which may be the norm for peacetime use) it's going to have a higher fuel burn than if it takes advantage of its capabilities. There may be reasons to do this in peacetime. What remains, though is that the STOVL can afford to come back wth a lot less fuel than the CTOL and still operate safely. Aboard ship, you want your fighter/attack to arrive overhead the ship with 25% fuel still aboard to allow for pattern, waveoffs, bolters and foul deck. Those aren't factors for STOVL.

Another interesting calculation is the amount the two types use on takeoff, from the ramp to the point where the STOVL would be fully wingborne.

Something else that may also figure in is that although it'll be easier and probably safer to operate, the F-35B, with its more complex operation may not have all the flexibility of the Harrier in this mode.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2011, 04:28
by spazsinbad
aaam said: "Something else that may also figure in is that although it'll be easier and probably safer to operate, the F-35B, with its more complex operation may not have all the flexibility of the Harrier in this mode." Do you mean in takeoff mode or VL or...?

Seems to me that the F-35B beats the Harrier in every way in general terms. What flexibility does the F-35B lack compared to the Harrier? Thanks.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2011, 04:47
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:aaam said: "Something else that may also figure in is that although it'll be easier and probably safer to operate, the F-35B, with its more complex operation may not have all the flexibility of the Harrier in this mode." Do you mean in takeoff mode or VL or...?

Seems to me that the F-35B beats the Harrier in every way in general terms. What flexibility does the F-35B lack compared to the Harrier? Thanks.


VIFFing?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2011, 05:35
by spazsinbad

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2011, 10:30
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:PoPcorn: This? :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khskxgRRFPY


What the.. :shock:

:D :D :D

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2011, 17:57
by sferrin
popcorn wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:aaam said: "Something else that may also figure in is that although it'll be easier and probably safer to operate, the F-35B, with its more complex operation may not have all the flexibility of the Harrier in this mode." Do you mean in takeoff mode or VL or...?

Seems to me that the F-35B beats the Harrier in every way in general terms. What flexibility does the F-35B lack compared to the Harrier? Thanks.


VIFFing?


I read about that back in the day but then heard they quite using it for one reason or another. Anybody have further info on that?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2011, 18:28
by flighthawk
A (very) last ditch way to force an overshoot vectoring the nozzles as a brake I understand and lose all your energy - not generally a good idea.

Im sure Nigel Ward (FAA) also found another low speed thing the Harrier could do due to the air from the exhausts causing lift under the stabs.

Today I'm really not sure either have any practical application in a fight tbh or even if they had back in 82.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2011, 00:24
by aaam
popcorn wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:aaam said: "Something else that may also figure in is that although it'll be easier and probably safer to operate, the F-35B, with its more complex operation may not have all the flexibility of the Harrier in this mode." Do you mean in takeoff mode or VL or...?

Seems to me that the F-35B beats the Harrier in every way in general terms. What flexibility does the F-35B lack compared to the Harrier? Thanks.


VIFFing?


Operationally, the F-35B's capabilities definitely exceed that of the Harrier's. I was referring strictly to the engine-borne takeoff/landing phases. ON the F-35B the process is fully automated, more complex and you could almost think of the engine-borne mode as airborne landing gear. A STO takeoff in the AV-8 is nozzles aft, full power, when accelerated to the precomputed speed, nozzles to the intermediate stop selected, and you're airborne. Landing is slow to transition speed, nozzles down or slightly forward, power as needed until touchdown. F-35 is not that simple, and I'm not sure they'll have the ability to do all the Harrier can during those phases. However, that doesn't mean it won't work. Besides, this portion of a mission is a small percentage of the total flight.

VIFFing kind of faded away partly for the reasons that flighthawk mentioned, but also because it was overcome by technology. VIFF made it virtually impossible to get a gun solution on a Harrier, but in the age of modern missiles, who cared? You couldn't dodge them with VIFF, and once you did it you were low on energy. AFAIK, VIFF was not used in the Falklands War.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2011, 01:28
by spazsinbad
aaam I don't follow your reasoning here why the F-35B is deficient, perhaps we need to be patient to see what it can do. "... [Harrier] Landing is slow to transition speed, nozzles down or slightly forward, power as needed until touchdown. F-35 is not that simple, and I'm not sure they'll have the ability to do all the Harrier can during those phases. However, that doesn't mean it won't work...."

A former SHAR pilot has told me that yes VIFFing is useless as described - especially when the actual effect is known by opponent but (when unknown by Argentinians) it was talked up during the Falklands War as a propaganda ploy about the 'black art of VIFFing possesed by the SHAR'.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2011, 17:59
by bjr1028
When the opposing pilot knows to look for VIFF, it just robs the Harrier of its momentum and makes it an easy target when the other plane comes back around.

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2011, 03:35
by quicksilver
aaam said -- "Here's the key: The relevant period to calculate is from the point the STOVL starts its conversion to shutdown. If a STOVL is brought in using conventional procedures (which may be the norm for peacetime use) it's going to have a higher fuel burn than if it takes advantage of its capabilities."

I am working really hard to keep this respectful but that statement is 180 degrees away from the reality. I have no idea where you get that (goofy) idea but it is utterly untrue. The slower a STOVL jet flies, the more engine lift it has to create, and thereby it burns more fuel in the process. The fact that it has a much higher probability of landing once the intended landing area is in sight (boarding rates very near 1.0) certainly allows for far less recovery fuel. However, it does not diminish the fact that slower approach and landing speed equates to higher fuel burn rates for a given period of recovery. The offsetting benefit, of course, is that the probability of first pass recovery is far higher than conventional aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2011, 05:35
by spazsinbad
The NAVY Jul-Sept 2008 Vol.70 No.3 - The Magazine of the Navy League of Australia —
How to Fly a Sea Harrier Part 3 – The Landing by Mark Boast [ex-A4G Pilot]
“...The aim of the Rolling Vertical Landing was to achieve a minimum distance ground run consistent with avoiding the possibility of foreign objext damage to the engine and aircraft inherent in the pure Vertical Landing. The desired fifty knot groundspeed (add the headwind component to get actual airspeed) was achieved by moving the nozzles slightly aft of the Hover Stop position. The remaining small amount of wing lift only added five hundred pounds to the “bring back” or fuel/stores weight of the Sea Harrier and therefore had limited usefulness. The much larger wing and flap on the later Harrier II (AV-8B)/GR-7/9 exploited this area and quite significant “bring back” advantages could be gained. The STOVL JSF programme is also looking at utilizing this same technique for landing on large carrier decks in order to exploit the “bring back” increase to cater for expensive weapons and fuel loads that may be required when working with larger air groups.

The Creeping Vertical Landing was a very slow forward speed landing used in locations where a vertical landing was required, but FOD damage likely. By moving forward the aircraft would be clear of the majority of ground debris which would be blown behind the engine intakes. This technique was not required on FOD free flight decks and therefore was not employed on the small UK carriers where space usually precluded landing with any forward speed.

The pure Vertical Landing was set up by entering a stabilised hover over the touchdown point on land, or abeam the carrier landing spot (there were a number to choose from) at sea. The nozzles were left in the Hover Stop position for manoeuvring in the hover and the aircraft was either tilted in the pitch and roll by the control stick, or rotated in yaw by use of the rudder pedals. To assist the pilot there were low authority autostabilisers for pitch and roll and a yaw stabiliser that primarily sought to avoid dangerous sideslip. A rudder pedal shaker also warned the pilot of high sideslip rates. A very useful device in the Sea Harrier that was not incorporated in the other Harriers was the “nozzle nudge” facility that used the speed brake switch on top of the throttle to select the nozzles either ten degrees forward or aft. This useful tool enabled the pilot to move forwards or backwards without having to tilt the aircraft in the hover excessively and therefore complicate the situational awareness challenge. It also helped when matching the ship’s speed when hovering alongside.

A rate of descent was established by a slight reduction of thrust and a constant descent rate was maintained through to touchdown. At touchdown (and not before!) idle power was rapidly selected to avoid “bouncing” on the efflux that rapidly built up between the aircraft and the ground or deck surface, and the nozzles selected aft to avoid heating up the surface and [with?] engine exhaust. Whilst this technique sounds simple on paper, in practice it was moderately difficult due to the piloting tasks and situational awareness challenge of flying a pure vertical descent. Unlike a helicopter which is very responsive to control inputs in the hover, the Harrier has a sluggish response due to its relatively high mass. The pilot also has very little downward vision and therefore has to rely on both fore/aft and lateral references that can be some distance from the landing point. For this reason it was often said by some that it was easier to land on the ship due to the easily seen visual references. On a calm day with no ship movement and no one else on the deck — maybe! But the very close proximity of superstructure, other aircraft, and above all, people, never induced an air of languor in my experience.

So why have I made so much about situational awareness? As in all naval aviation, success comes down to the ability to conduct embarked flying operations not only in good conditions, but also in poor weather and/or at night. The transition from instruments to a visual hover alongside a ship is very different from the transition for a conventional landing ashore. Whilst the ship itself provides potentially excellent visual cues of direction (ship centreline) and height (masts and superstructure), the sea conditions often cause the ship to heave, roll, and sometimes weave. As the Harrier’s hovering characteristic was determined by its mass, it was very unwise to “chase” the ships motion. As the thrust requirements were already very high, any unnecessary bleeding of compressor air to feed the reaction control system for control inputs, or extra demands by the throttle to climb and descend around a moving hover point, would use up the remaining thrust available. This could mean only one thing!

The answer was straightforward and largely relied on the Sea Harrier’s very effective Head Up Display and reliable inertial attitude system. Pilots were taught to establish a stable hover at approximately 90ft (forty to fifty feet above deck height) above the water alongside the landing spot, transition laterally whilst maintaining altitude, stabilise in the hover about forty feet above the landing spot, and then descend vertically. No external commands were involved with the pilot making all decisions. Some coaching or advice was usually available from a duty pilot in the Flying Control position but usually reserved for initial deck qualifications and emergencies. An abbreviated and informal flow of “patter” was used by an experienced pilot in Flying Control to assist those making night approaches as the ships visual cues for establishing a visual hover didn’t appear until quite late in the approach. Affirmation of a good final approach through closure rate (“fast, slow, looking good”), height above the water (“high, low, looking good”), and deck issues such as movement and landing spot availability were the most frequented topics.

The Sea Harrier always flew a common visual and instrument straight in approach at night despite various attempts to devise a safe night visual circuit. The critical piloting task was to judge the point at which to commence the final deceleration to the hover. Too early and the aircraft could be left too far behind the ship with insufficient visual cues to maintain a safe hover. Too late and the aircraft would be ahead of the ship with no visual reference whatsoever! This latter error was jocularly termed an “anchor inspect-ion”. In real life it was hardly jocular and if sever required a nerve wracking transition back to wing-borne flight for a very abbreviat-ed second approach with minimum fuel. The final Hover Stop selection point was hard to reliably achieve from the curving/des-cending final approach of a visual circuit, so the best technique was to come straight in and take advantage of the relatively stable aircraft parameters to exploit information from the aircraft’s own radar and range calls from the ships approach radar controller.

To provide a solution to night and poor weather approaches, a unique approach system was installed on aircraft and carriers. Microwave Assisted Digital Guidance Equipment, or MADGE as it was called by its friendly acronym, was a digital range and azimuth finding system based on a ship based active antenna for aircraft interrogation and a passive angle measuring antenna. Aircraft were equipped with complementary avionics including backup indicators on the conventional secondary flight instruments. Developed originally as a system for helicopter approaches in poor weather and night to tactical landing sites in the land environ-ment, this system provided very accurate ILS like information including a very accurate range for deceleration cues. Additional benefits were the exchange of aircraft information such as Call-Sign, fuel weight, angle of attack and altitude to the Flying Control position. As far as most of us pilots were concerned, the other big benefit was that only the aircraft carrier had this system....”

The 'Fixed Nozzle Slow Landing' and the 'Fixed Throttle Slow Landing' for the SHAR are described in the attached PDF also. I'll look to see what else is in the USMC NATOPS about these landings.

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2011, 06:30
by spazsinbad
The attached ZIPPED text only file has all the guff from AV-8B NATOPS, only the CL Conventional Landing has been entered here as an example.

AV-8B Harrier II Conventional Landing (CL). http://info.publicintelligence.net/AV-8B-000.pdf
A standard CL, figure 7-5, requires substantially greater distance to stop than a SL or RVL. Landing distance available is a critical consideration when performing a CL. The brakes are designed primarily for V/STOL and are marginal for a CL without PNB [Power Nozzle Braking]; therefore, No PNB CLs should be used only as an emergency procedure.
Refer to Performance Data, A1-AV8BB-NFM-400, for stopping distance with and without PNB.
Approaching 180 -
1. Nozzles - AFT
2. Flaps - Recheck in AUTO
3. AOA - 10-12°
Off the 180 -
4. Adjust flight path with stick
At 30-50 feet AGL -
5. Control AOA with throttle
6. Set Attitude - Witches Hat on to 2° above
the horizon
7. Control ROD with throttle
At touchdown -
8. Throttle - IDLE
9. Nosewheel Steering - ENGAGE WHEN
ROLLING STRAIGHT AND PEDALS ARE
NEUTRALIZED
10. Nozzles - AS REQUIRED (up to full braking
stop)
NOTE
Porpoising on touchdown will normally be damped out by selection of the braking stop. Do not use wheel brakes while conducting PNB.
11. Trim - MINIMUM 2° ND
12. Throttle - AS REQUIRED (for PNB a
maximum of 60% (406) to 70% (408))
At 60 kts -
13. Throttle - IDLE
14. Nozzles - HOVER STOP
15. Brakes - APPLY
16. Water - OFF
17. Nozzles - LESS THAN 60° WHEN
SLOW
7.7 POSTFLIGHT
7.7.1 After Landing
When clear of the active runway -
1. Trim - 4° ND
2. Flaps - CRUISE FOR TAXI
3. Water - OFF
_______________________________________

Rolling Vertical Takeoff (RVTO).
An RVTO may be performed in those instances when a VTO is desired but the takeoff surface is deemed unsuitable. The RVTO requires approximately 100 feet of ground roll and should be made as nearly into the wind as possible. RVTO can be performed up to hover weight...

Conventional Takeoff.
The CTO can be used when configuration or environmental conditions preclude use of any other takeoff type (i.e., crosswinds or asymmetric loadings). The CTO is restricted to gross weights that will not cause the wheel/tire limitation speed of 180 KGS to be exceeded on the takeoff roll.

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2011, 15:43
by battleshipagincourt
aaam wrote:Here's the key: The relevant period to calculate is from the point the STOVL starts its conversion to shutdown. If a STOVL is brought in using conventional procedures (which may be the norm for peacetime use) it's going to have a higher fuel burn than if it takes advantage of its capabilities. There may be reasons to do this in peacetime.


Fuel burn is the least of anyone's worries in peacetime. The major benefits for doing conventional landings are in having the ability to bring back more fuel and weaponry than with VL, not to mention reducing wear on the fighter. If one is simply looking at fuel loss alone, then choosing VL will always mean dumping excess fuel. What a conventional landing spends in taxiing to and from the runway really pales in comparison to what is saved overall by not engaging the lift fan.

aaam wrote:Something else that may also figure in is that although it'll be easier and probably safer to operate, the F-35B, with its more complex operation may not have all the flexibility of the Harrier in this mode.


How do you mean?

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2011, 19:48
by That_Engine_Guy
One also will need to consider engine usage/maintenance.

Vertical landings will require the engine to use MUCH higher power settings than conventional or 'short' landings. This increases high-cycle fatigue, and increases the turbine operating temperatures, which in turn takes a toll on engine life. (Mainly 'cycle' tracked on today's fighter engines)

More cycles per year equates to more overhauls over the life of the program, driving up life-cycle costs. A fleet of engine overhauls done every 6-8 years is tremendously more expensive than overhauls done every 10-12. (Why do you think the USAF and others are now buying the PW-229 EEP engines with 6K Cycle overhauls?)

Just because the airframe/engine CAN perform VL, doesn't mean it will. Just because it has an AB doesn't mean it's used every flight. Just because it CAN go MACH (whatever) doesn't mean it will very often. It's smart to have these things in the design, but the less you use them the better off your aircraft, and bottom line, will be.

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2011, 23:32
by spazsinbad
Agree that less VLs will be performed due to the 'easy to fly' and 'automatic VL push the button' features of the F-35B; as well as the easy to do conventional landing features of the same. YET... VLs need to be practiced when ashore because, for some of the time, they will be needed for the ashore / embarked ops that the aircraft is designed to do. However I will stress - compared to the Harrier family - less VLs ashore will need to be practiced for sure. But like every one else on this board I'm only guessing. :D Makes sense to reduce engine wear and tear where possible and I'm certain this philosophy will be the norm in practice for reasons described by all on this thread.

[Addition] One thing to keep in mind about 'being kind to the aircraft/engine'... A lot more 'flying' will be done in simulators to help keep the aircraft flying in tip top condition in reality, along with all the good 'aircraft health' monitoring stuff keeping it in good nick.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2011, 00:03
by butters
If it's anything like the F-22 in terms of operating costs and down time, most of the 'flying' will be of the simulated variety. Esp with the Bee model, which, IIRC, has so far achieved a sparkling MTBF rate of 24 minutes...

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2011, 00:29
by That_Engine_Guy
butters wrote:If it's anything like the F-22 in terms of operating costs and down time, most of the 'flying' will be of the simulated variety. Esp with the Bee model, which, IIRC, has so far achieved a sparkling MTBF rate of 24 minutes...


OH NO!?! not 24 minutes....

Guess that's why they're called pre-production? :doh:

Give it a chance! They've got 5 jets for the test program. Not like they're just out flying touch-and-go's or combat sorties. These are TEST sorties where 150 engineers are watching hundreds or thousands of test parameters and as soon as one person 'see's something' they need to figure out what's going on.

It's like saying the Space Shuttle Columbia only flew twice it's first year, or that it took from 1969 (program launch) until 1982 before NASA flew an 'actual mission' with a shuttle.

It took 5 years from the initial flight of the YF-16 until the USAF took delivery of the first F-16A in 1979.

See I can use numbers too.

TEG

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2011, 15:58
by butters
Yeah, the Space Shuttle - The revolutionary do-everything spacecraft that was going to make space travel and exploration both cheap and safe. Which was retired after a catastrophic failure rate of 40% (Two destroyed with the loss of all crew out of the five operational craft built) and an average cost of $1.5B USD per mission. Great example... :roll:

As for the F-16- Seems to me you're making my argument for me. After all, the X-35 (Generally equivalent to the YF-16 in that both prototypes were/are significantly different from their mass-produced counterparts) first flew way back in 2000, but now the most recent predictions state that even the simplest of the Three Little Pricey Piggies will not achieve operational status until 2018. And at a cost that has ballooned so much and fast that no one can offer any firm numbers on what the things will cost, either to buy or to operate. That doesn't sound much like the bio of the incredibly successful Viper to me...

Still, no need to go smacking yourself in the forehead. Just get some better numbers to use. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2011, 16:34
by sferrin
butters wrote:Yeah, the Space Shuttle - The revolutionary do-everything spacecraft that was going to make space travel and exploration both cheap and safe. Which was retired after a catastrophic failure rate of 40% (Two destroyed with the loss of all crew out of the five operational craft built) and an average cost of $1.5B USD per mission. Great example... :roll:

As for the F-16- Seems to me you're making my argument for me. After all, the X-35 (Generally equivalent to the YF-16 in that both prototypes were/are significantly different from their mass-produced counterparts)


I take it you don't know the difference between "X" and "Y" in aircraft designations? You might want to educate yourself.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2011, 16:45
by LMAggie
The Space Shuttle is considered by many to be one of the greatest engineering marvels in human history. If you think it was a failure I think you need to step back and recalibrate yourself.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2011, 16:51
by madrat
And it was predicted that the Space Shuttle would have a catastrophic failure ever hundred missions, something it's lived up to regrettably; traveling low earth orbit is inherently dangerous.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2011, 17:33
by shep1978
LMAggie wrote:The Space Shuttle is considered by many to be one of the greatest engineering marvels in human history. If you think it was a failure I think you need to step back and recalibrate yourself.


Indeed, I can't quite comprehend just how ignorant one needs to be to consider the space shuttle a catastrophic failure. Remarkable.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2011, 18:35
by butters
shep1978 wrote:
LMAggie wrote:The Space Shuttle is considered by many to be one of the greatest engineering marvels in human history. If you think it was a failure I think you need to step back and recalibrate yourself.


Indeed, I can't quite comprehend just how ignorant one needs to be to consider the space shuttle a catastrophic failure. Remarkable.


What you obviously cannot also comprehend is the English language. Because I did not say that the Space Shuttle was a "catastrophic failure", I said that it had a catastrophic failure RATE of 40%. Which it did. Unless, of course, you do not consider the sudden and total destruction of a craft with the loss of all on board to fit within the definition of 'catastrophic'.

And BTW, in terms of what its advocates claimed it would be - ie; a safe, reliable, and inexpensive means of transporting people and cargo into space - it was a failure.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2011, 18:41
by butters
LMAggie wrote:The Space Shuttle is considered by many to be one of the greatest engineering marvels in human history. If you think it was a failure I think you need to step back and recalibrate yourself.


So was Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose when it was built.

Marvelous engineering does not in and of itself guarantee against something being a boondoggle.

JL

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2011, 18:49
by butters
sferrin wrote:
butters wrote:Yeah, the Space Shuttle - The revolutionary do-everything spacecraft that was going to make space travel and exploration both cheap and safe. Which was retired after a catastrophic failure rate of 40% (Two destroyed with the loss of all crew out of the five operational craft built) and an average cost of $1.5B USD per mission. Great example... :roll:

As for the F-16- Seems to me you're making my argument for me. After all, the X-35 (Generally equivalent to the YF-16 in that both prototypes were/are significantly different from their mass-produced counterparts)


I take it you don't know the difference between "X" and "Y" in aircraft designations? You might want to educate yourself. Then again, judging by most of your posts seem to think you know everything already so maybe not. Troll on.


As is your wont, you take it wrong. I do know the difference between X and Y in DOD a/c terminology, and I also know that the 'X' label of the JSF competitors had as much to do with politics as with engineering or nomenclature protocols.

Did you happen to note that I made a point of explaining why I considered the prototypes to be functionally equivalent despite the disparity in their designations?

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2011, 21:39
by LMAggie
butters wrote:
LMAggie wrote:The Space Shuttle is considered by many to be one of the greatest engineering marvels in human history. If you think it was a failure I think you need to step back and recalibrate yourself.


So was Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose when it was built.

Marvelous engineering does not in and of itself guarantee against something being a boondoggle.

JL


So I guess by your definition the entire space program was a boondoggle. JFK's remarks about the space program have been forgotten.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2011, 21:46
by SpudmanWP
2 fatal accidents out of 134 flights is a "catastrophic failure rate" of only 1.49%, not 40%.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2011, 22:19
by battleshipagincourt
Comparing the space shuttle to the F-35 is somewhat accurate to the reality of both.

The original concept behind the space shuttle was to have a reusable space vehicle which could bring down the cost of payloads down to only hundreds of dollars per kg, rather than thousands. That all went to hell once the operating and other upkeep costs were taken into consideration. That didn't change the fact that the shuttle was and still remains a remarkable spacecraft. With that huge payload bay and extensive crew capacity, it was a truly versatile machine.

The F-35 is much the same way, but it pretty much went over the top to meet all its requirements that it's expected to be significantly more expensive to build and operate than they had intended.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2011, 22:48
by butters
LMAggie wrote:
butters wrote:
LMAggie wrote:The Space Shuttle is considered by many to be one of the greatest engineering marvels in human history. If you think it was a failure I think you need to step back and recalibrate yourself.


So was Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose when it was built.

Marvelous engineering does not in and of itself guarantee against something being a boondoggle.

JL


So I guess by your definition the entire space program was a boondoggle. JFK's remarks about the space program have been forgotten.


You guess wrong. And nothing in my post suggests that as a reasonable inference. Much of what the US space program set out to do was stunningly successful. It's just that the Space Shuttle, in light of what was originally promised and expected, was not. Which is not to say that it didn't accomplish a great deal, but rather, that it cost an awful lot, and killed a lot of very brave people, to do what could have mostly been done much more cheaply and safely.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2011, 22:55
by butters
SpudmanWP wrote:2 fatal accidents out of 134 flights is a "catastrophic failure rate" of only 1.49%, not 40%.


Correction: 2 fatal accidents out of 134 flights is a "catastrophic *MISSION* failure rate" of only 1.49%.


Five operational shuttles were built, and of those, two were totally destroyed because of flaws in the machines themselves. That makes the catastrophic failure rate of the vehicles a nice, round 40%.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2011, 22:58
by SpudmanWP
Cheaper, probably.. safer, not likely.

Apollo program had 17 flights with one critical failure (Apollo 13) and one catastrophic failure (Apollo 1).

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2011, 23:40
by butters
You may be right, but I suspect otherwise. For one thing, many of the Space Shuttle missions could have been just as effectively accomplished with unmanned vehicles, and with considerable savings. Savings that could have been used to fund even more missions and experiments. Or to develop safer and more cost-effective manned vehicles, for that matter.

In any case, your Apollo example is a bit of a non sequitur, given that Apollo was designed to perform a very different (and inherently more complex and hazardous) task than was the low Earth orbit- restricted shuttle. And the Apollo 1 tragedy was not an in-flight failure. The Soyuz program would be a more appropriate example (4 deaths in two incidents in 95 missions, with the last 40 yrs fatality-free)

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2011, 23:57
by shingen
Space shuttle was to keep NASA bureaucracy in business. There's a reason why so many launches are done with non-US boosters and why they wan to privatize much of NASA now.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2011, 00:31
by spazsinbad
I fail to see how any thing written lately applies to the F-35B vertical or not landings. WTF?

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2011, 14:12
by wrightwing
butters wrote: Correction: 2 fatal accidents out of 134 flights is a "catastrophic *MISSION* failure rate" of only 1.49%.


Five operational shuttles were built, and of those, two were totally destroyed because of flaws in the machines themselves. That makes the catastrophic failure rate of the vehicles a nice, round 40%.


Actually, neither of the shuttles that were lost were due to flaws in the shuttle. The first lost was as a result of an issue with the boosters, resulting in the explosion. The second shuttle that was lost, was due to damage to the tiles by debris, in the ascent.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2011, 21:51
by butters
wrightwing wrote:
butters wrote: Correction: 2 fatal accidents out of 134 flights is a "catastrophic *MISSION* failure rate" of only 1.49%.


Five operational shuttles were built, and of those, two were totally destroyed because of flaws in the machines themselves. That makes the catastrophic failure rate of the vehicles a nice, round 40%.


Actually, neither of the shuttles that were lost were due to flaws in the shuttle. The first lost was as a result of an issue with the boosters, resulting in the explosion. The second shuttle that was lost, was due to damage to the tiles by debris, in the ascent.


I said "machines' and 'vehicles', not 'shuttle' specifically. The entire assembly of shuttle, SRBs, and external fuel tank is the machine/vehicle, and furthermore, the debris that destroyed Columbia, was debris from the the fuel tank (foam insulation, IIRC). Which is part of the launch vehicle. And which was not designed to fall off, which suggests a 'flaw' to me...

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2011, 08:31
by shep1978
Stop dragging threads off topic butters. This was an excellent and very informative thread right up until the moment you wandered.

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2011, 12:31
by m
The Canberra class landing helicopter dock has got a ramp, like the Spamish type.
Quite a nice ship.

Till so far not read Australie will order the F35B.
Either build with a ramp, suppose there is a intention to order the F35B in the future?
Would be nice. Australia has had experience with aircraft carriers (Skyhawk)

HMAS Melbourne Skyhawk OPS
Skyhawk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITMKiPdH ... re=related

Grumman Tracker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0a-EYVH ... page#t=41s

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2011, 13:57
by spazsinbad
m, correct. The short answer is that for many years now the RAAF have been anticipating an order of a total of 100 F-35As. There are several threads about this topic. The very long thread here:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12631.html

mentions the possiblity that you mention but it was 'howled down' by 'some in the know' however I'll never say never myself.

What I anticipate is that once the big flat decks start visiting Australian capital cites and once USMC F-35Bs pay the LHDs a visit our country will wonder why we also do not have F-35Bs. In that case it is still unlikely that those LHDs would operate F-35Bs however in far furture we may see another LHD or two or even a spare CVF for that purpose. How likely that is depends on so many factors. If you are interested in the Fixed Wing Carrier world that ended in the early 1980s for the RAN FAA then just head to the website in my signature: www.a4ghistory.com Most of the videos at: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=bengello#g/u were put there by moi with the help of the chap who updates that site.

Many ex-A4G pilots went to the RN FAA to fly SHARS in the early 1980s when the 'fixed wing folded' - that was after my time there in the early 1970s in the heyday of that era with 2 batches of A4Gs arriving along with the S-2s to revive the fixed wing FAA that is today long been gone as mentioned. Good photo of a packed HMAS Melbourne on this page:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-15.html
___________________________

A new website has 50Mb PDF or video morsels for your delectation with the Korean War prop era about to be uploaded tomorrow:

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd63d6 ... 1.0&ppud=4

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2011, 15:32
by bjr1028
m wrote:The Canberra class landing helicopter dock has got a ramp, like the Spamish type.
Quite a nice ship.

Till so far not read Australie will order the F35B.
Either build with a ramp, suppose there is a intention to order the F35B in the future?
Would be nice. Australia has had experience with aircraft carriers (Skyhawk)

HMAS Melbourne Skyhawk OPS
Skyhawk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITMKiPdH ... re=related

Grumman Tracker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0a-EYVH ... page#t=41s


The Juan Carlos was designed with the ski-ramp integrated into the bow rather than bolted on to maximize helicopter space (since it is a troop transport, not a carrier). It would have required redesigning the bow of the ship to remove, so the Aussies kept it with no plans to use it.

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2011, 15:58
by spazsinbad
Yes that mantra can be repeated endlessly - but it remains only that - a mantra "no plan to use the ski jump". For a start any capable aircraft can use it. Other visiting STOVL aircraft can use it. It may be used in the future as mentioned. Just because there is no plan today does not mean there will not be a plan in a tomorrow. For example there was no plan to buy the former 'LARGS BAY' and lookee here we have it. There will be plans somewhere about lots of possibilities that may not see the light. But if you are comforted by 'no plan' then by all means repeat it.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2011, 00:45
by quicksilver
Taking the discussion back to the thread --

Along other stuff, BSIAC said, "Fuel burn is the least of anyone's worries in peacetime." Not so. Whether one is engaged in some real world rodeo or in the local training area, one's position relative to the nearest suitable landing site and how much fuel one is going to use in order to get one's **** safely back to said site is always prominent in ones mind.

"The major benefits for doing conventional landings are in having the ability to bring back more fuel and weaponry than with VL, not to mention reducing wear on the fighter." True as long as one can keep it on the runway. If one happens to have 4K' of runway when 6 is needed, then you may have a problem.

"If one is simply looking at fuel loss alone, then choosing VL will always mean dumping excess fuel." Not necessarily. Depends on how much the jet weighs, how much load it is carrying and how much VL performance the jet has in the given conditions.

"What a conventional landing spends in taxiing to and from the runway really pales in comparison to what is saved overall by not engaging the lift fan." Would have to believe so given that they're taking power off of the main engine to run the lift fan, and aiui the lift fan creates about half of the jet's vertical thrust. (Am sure Spaz has a link to something relevant on this).

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2011, 01:49
by spazsinbad
:D Spaz has the 'royal telephone' :devil: : http://www.f135engine.com/proven-tech/e ... cter.shtml

Short Take Off and Vertical Landing
STOVL Propulsion System Design

Maximum Thrust (in pounds): 43,000 (191.3 kN)

Short Takeoff Thrust: 38,100 (169.5 kN)

Hover Thrust: 39,400 (175.3 kN)
Main Engine: 15,700
Lift Fan: 20,000
Roll Post: 3,700

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2011, 05:02
by battleshipagincourt
quicksilver wrote:Along other stuff, BSIAC said, "Fuel burn is the least of anyone's worries in peacetime." Not so. Whether one is engaged in some real world rodeo or in the local training area, one's position relative to the nearest suitable landing site and how much fuel one is going to use in order to get one's **** safely back to said site is always prominent in ones mind.


I don't get your point. For an aircraft to constantly be so desperate on fuel that they have to weigh the pros and cons of VSTOL/conventional landing... that's just bad management on the part of those who organize these flights. If a fighter is running on fumes by the time it reaches the runway, then the proper thing is to load more fuel for longer legs or in shortening the legs altogether.

quicksilver wrote:
"The major benefits for doing conventional landings are in having the ability to bring back more fuel and weaponry than with VL, not to mention reducing wear on the fighter." True as long as one can keep it on the runway. If one happens to have 4K' of runway when 6 is needed, then you may have a problem.


What difference then would it make? If an F-35B can't manage a 4K runway, it certainly as hell isn't going to land vertically. MAYBE they could perform a slow landing, but I'm unsure what their maximum bringback would be.

quicksilver wrote:"If one is simply looking at fuel loss alone, then choosing VL will always mean dumping excess fuel." Not necessarily. Depends on how much the jet weighs, how much load it is carrying and how much VL performance the jet has in the given conditions.


Yes, always. If an F-35B is fully loaded with fuel and weapons, it would have to dump enough fuel so that it could hover. It absolutely CANNOT land in VL with less than a 1:1 ratio. If there were a runway to land on, that very same fighter wouldn't have to jettison anything, as it can land without any weight limitations.

quicksilver wrote:"What a conventional landing spends in taxiing to and from the runway really pales in comparison to what is saved overall by not engaging the lift fan." Would have to believe so given that they're taking power off of the main engine to run the lift fan, and aiui the lift fan creates about half of the jet's vertical thrust. (Am sure Spaz has a link to something relevant on this).


Conventional landings involve powering down the engine as the aircraft slows down, whereas VL's do exactly the opposite. More thrust = more fuel consumption. Less thrust = lower fuel consumption. It can't be any simpler than that.

The problem now becomes measuring the fuel burn for taxiing and comparing it to the fuel burn for those moments when the engine and lift fan are pushed close to their maximum power.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2011, 05:53
by spazsinbad
bsag said: "If there were a runway to land on, that very same fighter wouldn't have to jettison anything, as it can land without any weight limitations." This is probably NOT true for any fighter aircraft but of course it depends on what the Maximum Landing Weight is for any type/variation. For carrier landing aircraft it is particularly important so as to not break the arrestor gear/barricade or the aircraft itself via breaking undercarriage.

The F-35 B & C have KPPs for this situation and in the case of the C model an airspeed (Optimum Angle of Attack) limitation for similar reasons described.
________________________

Scorecard: A Case study of the Joint Strike Fighter Program by Geoffrey P. Bowman, LCDR, USN — 2008 April — [PDF 325Kb 'bowman0558.pdf']

https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q ... nginespage

"The capability to operate from a carrier is not as easy as it sounds. Additional weight comes in the form of stronger landing gear, fuselage center barrel strength, arresting hook structure, and additional electrical power requirements. The Navy has added approach speed as a service specific key performance parameter. The threshold for approach speed is 145 knots with 15 knots of wind over the deck. This must be possible at Required Carrier Landing Weight (RCLW). The RCLW is the sum of the aircraft operating weight, the minimum required bringback, and enough fuel for two instrument approaches and a 100nm BINGO profile to arrive at a divert airfield with 1000 pounds of fuel. The minimum required bringback is two 2000 pound air-to-ground weapons and two AIM-120s.

The Navy further requires that the CV JSF be capable of carrier recovery with internal and external stores; the external stations must have 1000 pound capability on the outboard stations & maximum station carriage weight on the inboard."
&
"The USMC has added STOVL performance as a service specific key performance parameter. The requirement is listed as follows: With two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, execute a 550 foot (450 UK STOVL) STO from LHA, LHD, and aircraft carriers (sea level, tropical day, 10 kts operational WOD) and with a combat radius of 450 nm (STOVL profile). Also must perform STOVL vertical landing with two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, and fuel to fly the STOVL Recovery profile.

The Marine Corps has used the more limiting deck launch, rather than a simple expeditionary airfield, to frame its requirement."
__________________________

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... er2010.pdf

"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 - 1,000 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 AofA or Donut]."

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2011, 23:14
by spazsinbad
bsag, I think you miss the point about fuel. Military pilots monitor fuel usage meticulously. There is no fuel like fuel in your aircraft. Even another tankers fuel may be unavailable due to own or tanker problems, not known until tanking attempt made. Unlikely scenario perhaps but it happens. A jet pilot has a backup plan about fuel (as far as is possible in circumstances) to make the best with what is left as 'quicksilver' suggests. Woe betide any pilot running out of fuel, to eject out of an otherwise good aircraft. Today there will be lots of electronic gizmo reminders about fuel. Yet if these don't work, or are ignored, the pilot is always responsible. It should be possible for an aircraft to lose all fuel indications, yet the pilot return to base, or divert safely, because his mental map and knowledge of fuel usage will allow it.

In the same way if flying a prop trainer aircraft for example then the pilot needs to know where the nearest suitable field is for landing in case of engine failure (if that is possible and of course with no ejection seat). Then there are at least two things on a pilot's mind, fuel and emergency landing field. A jet pilot will have a nearest divert field in mind at all times especially on navigation or strike sorties. And on and on. What is uppermost in a jet pilot's mind is the fuel.

Monitoring / knowing fuel usage is like breathing - an autonomic process that is always in front of jet pilot's mind. For carrier pilots without a tanker in 'blue water ops' (without a divert field) this is extra important. One gets back to the carrier with the maximum amount of fuel that makes the max landing weight/for arrest or anything above the minimum fuel. And yes the USN usually has a tanker, but does the tanker have a tanker? The tanker lands last of course.

A Harrier pilot is used to going to their minimum fuel for landing in the same way an ordinary jet pilot is used to landing with their minimum fuel - and nothing less - where that minimum fuel will allow a last ditch second landing attempt. But otherwise the minimum fuel is an amount that must be there at touchdown or during same. In older aircraft the minimum fuel was extra important due to fuel gauge not being accurate in the landing configuration; so there was uncertainty about the actual amount of fuel onboard. Whatever. The minimum fuel was an amount that was not negotiable but no problem landing at that minimum.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2011, 01:25
by quicksilver
"I don't get your point."

Clearly. Let's leave it at that.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2011, 03:18
by Conan
spazsinbad wrote:Yes that mantra can be repeated endlessly - but it remains only that - a mantra "no plan to use the ski jump". For a start any capable aircraft can use it. Other visiting STOVL aircraft can use it. It may be used in the future as mentioned. Just because there is no plan today does not mean there will not be a plan in a tomorrow. For example there was no plan to buy the former 'LARGS BAY' and lookee here we have it. There will be plans somewhere about lots of possibilities that may not see the light. But if you are comforted by 'no plan' then by all means repeat it.


Still hoping against hope? Even a spare CVF now? Well why not dream. Plans may change so here's hoping Australia gets 500 JSF's, 30 air tankers, a strategic bomber fleet and a dozen AWD's and an extra 3 brigades for the Army...

All of these are as valid as your argument, when you ignore reason and rely upon the unprovable, unverifiable and rather specious "well anything may happen in the future" point of view.

All of the "changed plans" for ADF over the last decade or more have been in response to a failed or failing capability. Nowhere has a changed plan resulted in an entirely new capability (ie: not a direct replacement for an existing capability) for ADF that I can recall.

In the case of Largs Bay it is the premature, yet still failed capability of Manoora and Kanimbla.

C-17's it was the faliure of the C-130 to adequately support operations far afield.

Super Hornet for F-111. Abrams for Leopards, extra MH-60R's as a replacement for failed Seasprites and the rest as standard replacements for ageing Seahawks and so on.

There is no capability within ADF that might "fail" and require replacement by a literal handful of F-35B's operating from a ship ill-suited (by design) to operating them...

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2011, 03:31
by spazsinbad
Conan you forgot how the 24 Super Hornet 'spur of the moment about face plan' taking most by surprise. As I have stated more than a few times now on this forum in several threads: Yes there is no current plan to have any Australian F-35Bs on the LHDs. What is tiresome is the belief that 'F-35Bs will not operate from the LHDs'. As I point out of course they will, if only in an effort by the USMC/USA to demonstrate that capability, and to use it as required. And yes who knows what the future may bring.

And I have stated on the very long thread that by reason of explanations given by others (notably GF00012 whomever) that the current RAN LHDs do not have all the gubbins necessary. However for you to state that the Spanish LHDs are "...ill-suited (by design) to operating them..." is ludicrous and you know it. Perhaps you meant the current two RAN versions.

And I'll continue to be surprised by the future and I hope in a good way.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2011, 07:09
by Conan
spazsinbad wrote:Conan you forgot how the 24 Super Hornet 'spur of the moment about face plan' taking most by surprise. As I have stated more than a few times now on this forum in several threads: Yes there is no current plan to have any Australian F-35Bs on the LHDs. What is tiresome is the belief that 'F-35Bs will not operate from the LHDs'. As I point out of course they will, if only in an effort by the USMC/USA to demonstrate that capability, and to use it as required. And yes who knows what the future may bring.


I didn't forget about the Super Hornets, indeed I mentioned them and it directly confirms my point. Yes plans change, but they change when a capability fails, not because we suddenly have a need to create a massively expensive new capability (as a 3rd LHD or a second CVF and a fleet of naval capable F-35's would be).

The Super Hornets were assessed and planning undertaken by Defence to acquire them nearly 2 years before it even became public that we were going to acquire them.

They weren't a new capability, they were a replacement capability for an intended capability that was failing. That capability was the F/A-18 Hornets, upgraded and equipped wth new standoff weapons and supported by new refuellers which had been chosen to replace the strike capability provided by the F-111's.

This capability was significantly delayed and Government decided this capability wasn't going to meet our air combat requirements, given the increasing capability within our region, the delays with the Hornet upgrades and JSF's, so they added a replacement capability intended to address our failing air combat and strike capabilities.

Again if the point isn't obvious, the Rhinos are a replacement capability, not something completely new and even they aren't on the scale of investment required that you are wishing for.

USMC JSF's landing on the LHD's hardly equals automatic ADF pursuit of such a capability and the Spanish are using their Juan Carlos ship for amphibious warfare first and foremost, any fixed wing operations at sea are for training and quals, not operations. They have a purpose built carrier for that.

I hope I'm wrong, I just don't see the Government stumping up the cash for it. Especially given we have the same political party in power that canned the capability initially in the first place and the others didn't seem to keen on the idea either...

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2011, 09:24
by spazsinbad
Conan said: "The Super Hornets were assessed and planning undertaken by Defence to acquire them nearly 2 years before it even became public that we were going to acquire them." This would be news to a lot of people. Was not the RAAF hierachy disavowing this plan only weeks/days before it was announced by the then DefMin? I'm not disagreeing with the sudden plan or reasons for the change of plan BTW. It seems - unlike the general public - that you have inside information about these issues at the time?

Again I'll say I'm not disagreeing with the lack of plans to buy/use F-35Bs in Australia at moment. However I'm not ruling it out for future. USMC Harriers or F-35Bs using the LHDs will not be a problem - at least initially - they will be cross decking with both parties wanting to know what needs to be done. No big deal and I'm not making it a big deal about any exploratory cross-decking. I would assume that if the USMC can get aboard the Spanish LHD first then they will go with that for sure. However my point remains we will see STOVL aircraft on the LHDs. Perhaps this will jog an initiative to acquire this capability in the future for future LHDlike flat decks. I'll maintain that at least the Spanish LHD is designed from the outset to operate F-35Bs.

Another recent thread has stated Spanish interest remains. Again no big deal. A flat deck is a flat deck for STOVL aircraft. A Spanish or Australian LHD may not be a primary base for F-35B use but certainly it will be an aid (lily-pad - sea-base) when other aircraft carriers will be their main bases. Aaaah the beauty of a long flat deck (in this case with a ski jump).

The relevance of any political party in Australia (regarding axing of replacement carrier back in early 1090s) escapes me. Surely other factors are more important. I would suggest that the reason the RAN FAA Fixed Wing was axed is a lot more complex than just any specific political party being in power. The Liberals took years dillydallying about a decision for carrier replacement whilst the new Labour Government wanted a quick decision and chose to axe it (to make money available for Hornet purchase & guarantee new Navy ships, as I understand history). One would assume that at that time neither political party wanted the RAN FAA Fixed Wing to continue.

An interesting USN LCDR has written a brief overview of RAN history from end of WWII till after the end of Fixed Wing. The history rings true for me. Download the PDF at:

The Roots & Evolution of the Royal Australian Navy by Richard D. Butler - June 2007

http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/ ... Butler.pdf

An interesting quote which may have echoes soon when two new LHDs are in use (surplus CVF in a decade perhaps?):

"...The RAN, recognising the growing difficulties associated with its new carrier plan, reverted to the strategy that had saved MELBOURNE during the 1950s. Responding to the cost and threat issues being raised, the Navy decided its new ship [later was to be ex-HMS Invincible] to be rotary wing and short/vertical take off and landing (S/VTOL) capable only. Soon after this announcement, the decision was also made to defer the purchase of the fixed wing aircraft until at least 1983, a logical step for budgetary reasons and also because at the time, the only aircraft available for purchase was the British Sea Harrier....

...In mid-1981, Great Britain determined that HMS Invincible would be designated surplus, and it was promptly offered to the Australian government for $A285 million. Although the INVINCIBLE class had not made the final cut as a possible replacement for MELBOURNE, it was hard to pass on the offer, despite the fact that the purchase would create numerous logistic, supply and equipment issues, since the rest of the surface force was primarily American-produced or indigenously sourced at that time. After a quick study, Prime Minister Fraser (Liberal Party) announced that INVINCIBLE would be purchased and renamed HMAS Australia. PMS 308 closed and a transition shop was opened in London. MELBOURNE was quickly decommissioned prior to commencing her final yard period, saving the RAN even more money.

Just when all seemed right for the Royal Australian Navy regarding carrier acquisition, the Falklands War reversed the decision of the British Government, which decided to retain INVINCIBLE... Within a few weeks of the British decision to rescind their offer, and following more bureaucratic discussion on the subject, the decision was made not to seek a replacement for MELBOURNE.

The decision was not announced until after pending [Federal] Parliamentary elections, the results of which put the Labor Party back in power. This would seem to indicate that the decision not to purchase a new carrier had, indeed, been made earlier and that the ruling Liberal Party did not wish to upset pro-military voters going into the election. A second factor contributing to the decision was that the Australian economy had just lapsed into a severe recession cycle. Purchasing an expensive piece of military equipment would be particularly unattractive politically, especially given that the cost had skyrocketed immediately after the loss of a bargain basement deal...." [pages 30-33]

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2011, 23:34
by aaam
battleshipagincourt wrote:
aaam wrote:Here's the key: The relevant period to calculate is from the point the STOVL starts its conversion to shutdown. If a STOVL is brought in using conventional procedures (which may be the norm for peacetime use) it's going to have a higher fuel burn than if it takes advantage of its capabilities. There may be reasons to do this in peacetime.


Fuel burn is the least of anyone's worries in peacetime. The major benefits for doing conventional landings are in having the ability to bring back more fuel and weaponry than with VL, not to mention reducing wear on the fighter. If one is simply looking at fuel loss alone, then choosing VL will always mean dumping excess fuel. What a conventional landing spends in taxiing to and from the runway really pales in comparison to what is saved overall by not engaging the lift fan.

aaam wrote:Something else that may also figure in is that although it'll be easier and probably safer to operate, the F-35B, with its more complex operation may not have all the flexibility of the Harrier in this mode.


How do you mean?



I've been away, and this discussion has moved on, so I'll confine myself here to just responding to your post directed to me. Also, with all respect to Spazinbad, I would posit that the relevant page for this discussion from the AV-8B Naval Flight Manual would be the one I'm attaching here.


Regarding my first point, what I am saying is that if a STOVL aircraft is made to fly the entire pattern for a CL to a runway when doing a VL, then that percentage of time spent at high power is going to be a much larger percent of the overall landing, because the savings inherent in VL have been lost through flying a CL operation. It's true that a VL requires dumping "excess" fuel, but that is true for a CTOL as well. If you want to come back aboard above landing weight, you either dump "excess" fuel or weapons.

Regarding the complex operation I was talking about, I was referring to the different ways the AV-8B and the F-35B do VL. Although the pilot has to do more, essentially VL in the Harrier is point the nozzles down, adjust your hover point, descent with throttle. You have pretty much the freedom to do almost anything during that period.

On the F-35B, first nine doors have to open in sequence, the fan has to spool up (with the FCS determining where the aft nozzle has to be and power changes required as lift from the fan rises) and the control laws change. This is much more complex, but for the pilot it's all automatic at the touch of a button (assuming the software programmers completely understood the whole process and didn't make any flawed assumptions), a much lower workload. However, my understanding is that the idea is to deliver the aircraft to a hover, and there is little freedom during this process or to reposition the aircraft once the hover is achieved, the FCS holding the a/c over the touchdown point. In fact, I believe the pilot input at this point is to move the sidestick until a stop is felt and hold it , and the the FCS controls power and everything else until the F-35B is firmly on the ground. Much simpler for the pilot, but less flexibility. I don't know how the fuel burn in this scenario goes.

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 01:24
by quicksilver
aaam, a STOVL jet flying a CL uses a fraction of the fuel that same jet will use performing a VL. It's true that one can shorten a pattern, but that's generally limited by formal convention and procedure, and pilot experience. IOW, STOVL capability does not confer complete independence from the patterns and conventions established by those who own the stuff one intends to land upon. The bottom line is that the more time one spends in semi-jetborne or jet-borne flight the higher the fuel burn rate. Jet-borne flight in Harrier yields a fuel burn rate 3-4x that burned in a CL.

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 01:53
by spazsinbad
aaam, yes the F-35B can carry out an automatic hover vertical landing and it has demonstrated that ability. However the pilot is able to control it in any phase of flight - within limits - under control of the FCS, which necessarily starts to limit what the pilot can do in certain configurations. However this computer system limits the aircraft in any other flight situation - not just in vertical landing mode. There is a good demo of a vertical landing in the simulator video online at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkWuB9wA ... r_embedded
______________________

Just Push ‘Auto-Land’: April 2011
“A Lockheed Martin F-35B short takeoff & vertical landing test aircraft last week achieved an impressive milestone, according to Warren Boley, Pratt & Whitney military en-gines president. “For the first time,” Boley said in an in-terview, “a pilot pushed a button & the [air]plane landed autonomously.” Boley joked that the pilot could fold his hands behind his head or ‘read the paper’ while the air-plane safely settled down to a vertical landing from hover. The flight was the 74th vertical landing of the F-35 test program, & the fact that the Marine Corps was willing to allow the test indicated high confidence in the airplane & its Pratt-supplied F135 engine, Boley told the Daily Report April 8.” — John A. Tirpak http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Pages/default.aspx
______________________

Former Italian F-104 pilot has a go on the F-35 Demonstrator:

How does the F-35 JSF fly and fight? by David Cenciotti – December 21, 2010

http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2010/12/21 ... and-fight/

"...Of particular interest was the opportunity to test the hovering capabilities of the aircraft, that is in fact also available in the STOVL version that interests both the Marina Militare (Italian Navy) and the Aeronautica Militare (Italian Air Force, ItAF). The pilot, by means of a switch manages the transition from conventional flight to the Harrier-style, so to speak. The aircraft autonomously directs the nozzle and reduces the speed to the IAS (Indicated Air Speed) previously set through a dedicated button on the throttle (which is also operated in automatic mode). Once in “vertical” mode, the aircraft is extremely simple to fly, even thanks to the camera underneath the fuselage that allows the pilot to see downwards, and to decide where to place the wheels. Moving the stick forward or backward the aircraft climbs or descends: with a couple of attempts, you can also manage to maintain the desired vertical speed. With the rudder, you can point the aircraft nose wherever you want and even a novice can land with some precision and without major problems.

The only difficulty I encountered during the flight was distinguishing between all the switches on the throttle, that pushed up with the little finger, allowed me to select the autothrottle. As for the rest, airplane is a real dream, extremely easy to be piloted and able to provide the pilot with all the information he might need, in the preferred layout."
_________________

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

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

"...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. Such design traits go to showcase the F-35B’s attraction for military user and industry alike. Each of the Royal Navy’s ski jump-equipped Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers will be able to carry up to 36 F-35Bs.

UK’s STOVL HERITAGE LIFTS F-35B TEST PROGRAMME
The UK became the originator of short take-off and vertical landing design when in 1960 Hawker Siddeley made the first flight of its P.1127 prototype, the aircraft that would go on to become known as the Harrier. Decades of experience in STOVL design and operation led to the UK becoming heavily involved in the design of Lockheed Martin’s F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. This differs markedly from its predecessor through the addition of supersonic performance, but crucially, also brings a generational leap in how it is flown. The man who knows perhaps the most about new-generation STOVL operations is a BAE Systems test pilot of more than 25 years experience, and who flew the Harrier operationally for the Royal Air Force. This year, F-35 lead STOVL pilot Graham Tomlinson grabbed a place in the history books by making the first vertical landing involving the type. Tomlinson describes the flying characteristics of the Harrier and JSF as being like “chalk and cheese”. “The Harrier has been, and remains, a miracle for the era when it was developed, but the aeroplane can bite you,” he says. “JSF is absolutely transformational. All the pilots say it’s [F-35B STOVL] ridiculously easy to fly, but it should be.”

BAE has around 25 personnel based at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, where flight testing of the STOVL aircraft is under way, also involving Lockheed and US Marine Corps pilots. Five F-35Bs will make around 1,900 flights during the programme’s ongoing system development and demonstration phase. 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 & considered” pace...."

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 02:20
by spazsinbad
Flight test ‘lite’:
Qinetiq’s VAAC Harrier highlights capabilities of Lockheed Martin’s STOVL Joint Strike Fighter

By Craig Hoyle on August 25, 2006

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fligh ... -vaac.html

"...While it is without question one of the greatest engineering marvels of the first century of manned flight, the Harrier is a confusing beast to fly, with more controls to take care of than the pilot has hands. With the F-35B, however, that problem will be no more, and I was assured that after no more than a quick briefing I would be able to fly and land the VAAC Harrier, this time using its so-called unified control laws. After one dummy run with a test pilot looking over my shoulder I locked myself into the domed motion simulator, strapped myself in to the unique Harrier cockpit and prepared to redeem myself in front of the professionals.

Here’s the really good news for anyone reading this who might be pondering embarking on a career as a fighter pilot within the next decade or so: it really will be easy to fly a JSF in the STOVL configuration. Forget the current requirement to control the Harrier’s attitude with the joystick, its forward speed with the throttle and (and here’s the difficult bit) its nozzle control lever to stop it from falling out of the sky. In the F-35B the left-hand will control the throttle inceptor: push forward and you accelerate forwards, pull back and you decelerate and eventually go backwards – and the bigger the input the greater the response. In the hover the right-hand side-stick will be used to control everything else: push left or right and the aircraft will jink to the left or right, push forwards and it will descend, pull back and it will climb. On my two attempts to enter the airfield circuit and land on a pad using visual markers to line the aircraft up I succeeded in getting the VAAC down safely, albeit at a snail’s pace, which did wonders for my dented confidence.

If the modified Harrier’s performance is anything to go by, the stability offered by the F-35B’s liftfan and roll posts will be truly spectacular, with only slight inputs required to manoeuvre it around an airfield or onto the deck of an aircraft carrier or assault ship. And Qinetiq has already successfully demonstrated the VAAC Harrier’s ability to automatically return to and land aboard a rolling and pitching aircraft carrier with centimetric accuracy, meaning that the F-35B’s safety record should be remarkably better than the STOVL platforms it will replace.

It’s not just in the hover that the F-35B will be different to fly. I’ve always found it difficult to maintain the determined height during a turn, but during my simulator ride I found that on each turn I was gaining a considerable amount of height, as my automatic reaction – to pull back on the stick slightly to maintain my altitude – was not necessary in the new generation aircraft. The flight control system knows how much throttle the pilot has requested and will make adjustments during the turn to make his or her life that little bit simpler and free up valuable time for system management tasks.

My initial attempts to hover the VAAC Harrier had been so spectacularly bad in conventional flight mode that my test pilot guide later quipped in an e-mail: “I’m very confident that you have got a good understanding of the differences of control between the old Harrier and where we are going with the JSF control laws!!”

But if all this technology is going to make it so spectacularly easy for a pilot to fly the STOVL variant JSF, what will the next generation of pilots for these aircraft have to boast about over their peers on conventional platforms like the Eurofighter Typhoon? “That’s easy,” says one test pilot: “we’ll still be able to hover!”

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 02:26
by spazsinbad
Full throttle: QinetiQ c.2002:

http://www.armedforces-int.com/article/ ... ottle.html

"In September 2002, the JSF Program Office announced that a novel integrated flight and propulsion control system – pioneered by QinetiQ – will be implemented in the F-35B STOVL aircraft. QinetiQ, and its predecessor organisations, have undertaken a long running programme of STOVL research with the MOD. This culminated in a three-year programme for the JSF Program Office using QinetiQ’s Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control (VAAC) Harrier, which has been configured with an experimental fly-by-wire flight control system.

“The standard Harrier is notoriously challenging to fly, which leads to considerable constraints on pilot recruitment and extra de-mands on training”, explains Jeremy Howitt, Technical Manager, Air Vehicle Operations at Bedford.

The Harrier flies like a conventional aircraft at high speed with the pilot controlling the throttle and the aerodynamic control surfaces. As the aircraft decelerates, the pilot must engage a third control lever that rotates the engine nozzles down & enables the transition from wing-borne to jet-borne flight. This requires simultaneous input on all three control sticks – which creates a high workload situation.

“There is also a significantly higher risk of cognitive failure”, explains Jeremy. “Pilots can accidentally operate the throttle when trying to engage the nozzle control and vice-versa –a problem that has caused crashes in the past.


“Recent research has focused on how to make STOVL aircraft as easy to fly as any other aircraft and that’s where we came in.”

Advanced solutions
Using QinetiQ’s ‘Unified’ control concept, the VAAC cockpit controls are linked, via the experimental flight control computer, to the engine power throttle, nozzle controls and tail surface.

The flight control software automatically modulates all three controls simultaneously to maintain the speed and flight path commanded by the pilot.

This removes the need for a separate thrust-vectoring lever and allows the pilot to maintain a simple right-hand ‘updown’ and left-hand ‘faster-slower’ control strategy throughout the whole flight envelope.

The new technology could reap huge benefits in terms of improved safety, reduced training costs, ease of operation and greater operational flexibility...."

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 02:45
by spazsinbad
Joint Strike Fighter acing tests, pilots report By Dave Majumdar - Staff writer Feb 27, 2011

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/ ... t-022611w/

"...The aviators have completed 23 vertical landings with the B-model aircraft, more than half of the 42 needed for the Marine Corps to begin trials at sea aboard an amphibious assault ship.

“We’ve done more vertical landings in the month of January” — 13 — “than we did last year. So this is coming fast now,” one of the test pilots, Marine Lt. Col. Matt Taylor, said in a telephone interview from Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.

Landing vertically in the F-35B is easy, Taylor said.

“I’ve flown a lot of airplanes. This is the easiest one there is to land,” said David “Doc” Nelson, who flies for Lockheed Martin, the F-35’s prime contractor.

Nelson said that even pilots who have never flown a vertical-landing aircraft, such as colleague Jon Beesley, have no trouble handling the F-35B.

The test pilots also raved about the JSF’s maneuverability, calling it a nimble machine. For example, the F-35 can handle better than a 40-degree angle of attack, which is related to the amount of lift...."

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 05:35
by aaam
I kind of thought I said multiple times that the F-35B was simpler for the pilot to land, it was what goes on "behind the scenes" that is more complex. As indicated in the recent posts, the computers handle the stuff, the entire slowing, hovering and landing sequence is a program, executed by the FCS, with the pilot controlling the rate of the descent from the hover.

According to a couple of sources, one recent one being the special F-35 supplement in the May, 2011 Air International, once the program takes you to the hover, it will hold the a/c in position, no doubt compensating for relative wind, and the pilot can reposition in all axes by 1 meter. It's sort of like manual vs. automatic transmission in a car. Manual gives you more control and can be more flexible, but automatic, while more complex, is simpler to operate and requires far less input.

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 05:47
by spazsinbad
aaam, I could have been clearer in my response: It was to this aspect 'of less flexibility' for F-35B mentioned. Yes I agree about complexity behind the scenes (so to speak) making life easier for F-35B pilot. You said in part:

"However, my understanding is that the idea is to deliver the aircraft to a hover, and there is little freedom during this process or to reposition the aircraft once the hover is achieved, the FCS holding the a/c over the touchdown point. In fact, I believe the pilot input at this point is to move the sidestick until a stop is felt and hold it, and the the FCS controls power and everything else until the F-35B is firmly on the ground. Much simpler for the pilot, but less flexibility." (My emphasis).

To make my life easier (looking for different quotes) I decided to put all the 'easy to fly F-35B' in one place for future reference but I was responding to the 'less flexibility issue'. One particular part of the many quotes above got me started....

Flight test ‘lite’:
Qinetiq’s VAAC Harrier highlights capabilities of Lockheed Martin’s STOVL Joint Strike Fighter

By Craig Hoyle on August 25, 2006

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fligh ... -vaac.html

"... the stability offered by the F-35B’s liftfan and roll posts will be truly spectacular, with only slight inputs required to manoeuvre it around an airfield or onto the deck of an aircraft carrier or assault ship."

How about typing out the relevant quote from the Air International May 2011 please. Or is it online?

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2011, 07:49
by aaam
spazsinbad wrote:How about typing out the relevant quote from the Air International May 2011 please. Or is it online?


OK, I don't believe it's online, so let me just type out the relevant bit, which probably won't violate copyright [Peter Wilson is an ex-RN Sea Harrier pikot and presently the STOVL lead test pilot at Pax River]:

begin quote

Commenting on the hover Peter Wilson told Air International, "It is absolutely astonishing, the aeroplane is rock solid in the hover and holds its position extremely accurately without pilot input".

The aircraft can be accurately moved left to right, fore and aft, and up and down by 3ft. [1m] at the preferred position of 100ft (33m) above the ground before descent.

end quote

BTW, they do say that the the Unified Control Law which governs control of the F-35B was developed during research on the VAAC Harrier.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2011, 09:50
by spazsinbad
aaam thanks. There is some information about development of the VACC Harrier Unfired Control Law on the 'very long thread':

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... acc#176845
&
Search for 'VACC' to get more bits. A remarkable aircraft was the VACC Harrier.

BTW I read the quote (without any other context) as saying that the aircraft can be moved with precision in increments of 3 ft. in any direction in the hover. Are you reading it that the aircraft can be moved only 3 feet? To me being able to control any aircraft with that precision in those unusual circumstances (hover) is remarkable.

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2011, 02:15
by aaam
spazsinbad wrote:aaam thanks. There is some information about development of the VACC Harrier Unfired Control Law on the 'very long thread':

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... acc#176845
&
Search for 'VACC' to get more bits. A remarkable aircraft was the VACC Harrier.

BTW I read the quote (without any other context) as saying that the aircraft can be moved with precision in increments of 3 ft. in any direction in the hover. Are you reading it that the aircraft can be moved only 3 feet? To me being able to control any aircraft with that precision in those unusual circumstances (hover) is remarkable.


As I read it, once the button is pushed the FCS automatically delivers the aircraft from a speed < 250knots to a stable hover over a designated (I don't know how) spot at 33m with 1m accuracy and holds it there, which is a remarkable achievement, The pilot can then microcorrect the final position (that's where the 1m comes in) and when ready moves the sidestick forward and holds it until the a/c senses touchdown, at which point the system brings power to idle and rotates the nozzle back for taxi. Hopefully, the system that detects touchdown is better than the one on the Mars Polar Lander! :doh:

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2011, 02:54
by spazsinbad
OK thanks for clarification of F-35B autoland 'aaam'. Also if required the pilot can 'go to manual' to make corrections or move to another landing spot with precision as described.

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2011, 03:04
by aaam
spazsinbad wrote:OK thanks for clarification of F-35B autoland 'aaam'. Also if required the pilot can 'go to manual' to make corrections or move to another landing spot with precision as described.


For sure :?:

Hopefully that's so, but then we thought you could 'go to manual' to open the canopy on the Raptor! :D

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2011, 03:08
by spazsinbad
For the F-22 these days you only need to switch off the OBOGS and then it is manual all the way..... :twisted:

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2011, 05:37
by spazsinbad
VACC Harrier First Auto Vertical Landing May 2005 .FLV video 5.8Mb

Hmmm... says Extension .FLV not allowed...

Found FREE 'FLV converter' so it has done the job now .FLV to .WMV attached 6Mb

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2011, 08:44
by spazsinbad
Second Verse Same as the First (above). The .FLV proved to be untranslatable to another video format with wot I got so here is original: All change - found FREE FLV Converter so original converted to .WMV available above also.

http://www.a4ghistory.com/VACCharrierAu ... ay2005.flv (5.8Mb)

Best to right mouse click and 'Save Target As...'

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2011, 09:38
by spazsinbad
Now here is an excerpt from the LM Guy Demonstrating F-35B functions in simulator talking about flight control computer etc. Necessarily this is only a small part of the Utube version available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkWuB9wA ... r_embedded

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2011, 14:40
by spazsinbad
Another report about Harrier 'rolling landings' and other 'how to fly' AV-8 stuff excerpt:

Jeff Ethell's Pireps - AV-8 Harrier January 19, 2010

http://www.airlandseaweapons.com/blog/4 ... 8-harrier/

“...Flying the Harrier requires an absolute mastery of vertical flight basics and helicopter experience is usually mandatory, even if a new pilot has to be given several hours in a chopper before flying the jet. The coordination required to transition from vertical to level flight, especially when accelerating away from a hover, is critical. If the aircraft gets turned "out of wind," that is, if it is not pointing into the wind, it begins to roll over and fall out from under you. A little ten cent weathervane in front of the windshield turns out to be the most valuable instrument on board, indicating wind direction in relation to the aircraft. Keep it pointing forward and everything is fine.

Take-off and landing comes in eight possible combinations...the pilot never gets bored. Take-off: conventional, short (STO), rolling vertical (RVTO), vertical (VTO). Landing: conventional, slow, rolling vertical (RVL), vertical (VL).

Since I was looking forward to the jet's vertical capabilities, my first conventional take-off in the AV-8A took me by surprise. With a combat weight of 20,000 pounds and 21,000 pounds of thrust, the Harrier has the same acceleration as the F-16 or F-15...a greater than 1-to-1 thrust-to-weight ratio. As I quickly moved the throttle forward my head was slammed back into the headrest and in seconds the Harrier was airborne, then climbing virtually straight up. The controls are immediately sensitive to the touch, so much so the jet is best flown with fingertip pressures on the stick. Important information such as speed, altitude, angle of attack, heading and thrust vector all read out on the HUD (Head Up Display) glass in front so you don't have to spend much time with eyes inside the cockpit.

My first landing was conventional, though this is actually the more dangerous way to land since four sets of landing gear have to touch down at the same time while traveling very fast. If not done right the aircraft can bounce out of control. The more stable slow landing is flown at 120 to 140 knots with 60 degrees of nozzle deflection.

The short take-off can be made two ways: accelerate to 65 knots and deflect the nozzles to 65 degrees, which makes the machine jump off the ground in a scant 300 feet...one second it's normal linear acceleration, then the thing is clawing vertically into the sky like an elevator. A quick shove on the nozzle lever to full forward and the Harrier jolts ahead immediately to accelerate away. The less intimidating procedure is to accelerate to 110 knots then pull the nozzles to 50 degrees for a longer take-off run.

Bringing the jet around for the first vertical landing can be an unnatural act for a fixed wing jet pilot since you have to ignore the fear of losing airspeed. Power is reduced to 90% and nozzles set at 90 degrees as the nose ever so gently comes up while airspeed falls below 100 knots. Before you know it the Harrier is hovering on a column of jet exhaust just above the pad. The puffer reaction controls on the end of each wing and at nose and tail operate off bleed air from the engine with thrust activated and increased as the nozzles are deflected down. Movements of stick and rudder bring quick response, much like a helicopter but with no vibration and the moment arm being below the fuselage instead of under a rotor head.

With the jet stabilized at an 8-degree angle of attack, the power is brought back slightly until a descent of about five feet per second lowers us to the pad. Here, more than ever, I had to be very light on the controls but immediate with any input. Entering ground effect is unsettling as the exhaust hits the wings and tail plane...the entire machine trembles and shakes and control inputs have to increase to the point it feels as if you are moving the stick all over the cockpit to stay level. The power then has to be increased to avoid being sucked down into the ground. With a last great rumble the jet bounces onto the ground...immediate idle on the power and nozzles full aft to avoid ingestion of any foreign objects into the engine. If there is a great deal of debris on the landing surface the best technique is a rolling vertical landing with nozzles at 70 degrees and a forward speed of 50 knots.

There is really nothing to prepare one for a vertical take-off...nozzles to the hover stop, then slam the throttle forward. The Harrier instantly rockets off the earth straight up. At 50 feet bring the power back to 95% and the aircraft is hovering again. Throttle up to 100%, nozzles gradually to full aft and you accelerate away from a midair start to over 200 knots in a few seconds at that same fabulous rate. Flying the Harrier is a unique experience in military aviation, and certainly one of the most breathtaking.”

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2011, 13:50
by Pecker
spazsinbad wrote:aaam, yes the F-35B can carry out an automatic hover vertical landing and it has demonstrated that ability. However the pilot is able to control it in any phase of flight - within limits - under control of the FCS, which necessarily starts to limit what the pilot can do in certain configurations. However this computer system limits the aircraft in any other flight situation - not just in vertical landing mode.
______________________

Just Push ‘Auto-Land’: April 2011
“A Lockheed Martin F-35B short takeoff & vertical landing test aircraft last week achieved an impressive milestone, according to Warren Boley, Pratt & Whitney military en-gines president. “For the first time,” Boley said in an in-terview, “a pilot pushed a button & the [air]plane landed autonomously.” Boley joked that the pilot could fold his hands behind his head or ‘read the paper’ while the air-plane safely settled down to a vertical landing from hover. The flight was the 74th vertical landing of the F-35 test program, & the fact that the Marine Corps was willing to allow the test indicated high confidence in the airplane & its Pratt-supplied F135 engine, Boley told the Daily Report April 8.” — John A. Tirpak http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Pages/default.aspx


aaam wrote:As I read it, once the button is pushed the FCS automatically delivers the aircraft from a speed < 250knots to a stable hover over a designated (I don't know how) spot at 33m with 1m accuracy and holds it there, which is a remarkable achievement, The pilot can then microcorrect the final position (that's where the 1m comes in) and when ready moves the sidestick forward and holds it until the a/c senses touchdown


Sorry to burts the bubble, but the F-35B has definitely not conducted an automate, i.e. hands-off, vertical landing (at least not yet). That rumour has been floating around for quite a while but, to date, no one has produced a video, photos or any other fanfare over the event. Only the Pratt&Whitney 'higher-ups' seem to think it did....go figure! Even Lockheed-Martin haven't posted anything about this amazing capability.

Whilst the FCS does (or should) prevent the pilot from performing manoeuvres that would depart the aircraft, he/she is in control as far as deceleration and flight path whilst in STOVL configuration. Definitely 'in the loop' all the way from that perspective, but the system is far more stable/controllable as far as positioning is concerned.

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2011, 14:14
by spazsinbad
Pecker, what photo or video would convince you of that news report at:

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArch ... -Land.aspx

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2011, 20:44
by Pecker
Any photo or video would do. Other than knowing that they haven't done automatic vertical landings, the most convincing thing for me is that LM aren't saying a word about it. The only person making any statement about it is a PW manager that probably doesn't even work on the base.

Put it this way, so far as i know LM photograph and video every single take-off and landing and make every effort to broadcast every single significant achievement. Here's a shortlist of all the achievements that LM have reported (you can read the rest at http://www.codeonemagazine.com/news.html?c45d5a92f8e82f15b283224ddd50524f=0&category=12):

first flight (for each aircraft)
first F-35B short take-off
first F-35B hover
first F-35B vertical landing
first taxi test (at least for CF-2)
100th flight (for fleet and individual aircraft)
100th F-35B short take-off
200th F-35B short take-off
1000th F-35 flight
1000 hours for the fleet

If they consider the first taxi test for CF-2 newsworthy, don't you think they would get all excited about the first fully-automated, hands-off, pilot-didn't-do-a-thing-but-push-a-button, computer-controlled-the-whole-shebang, vertical landing? :D

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2011, 04:06
by spazsinbad
Pecker - you can gripe to the journalist at the USAF Magazine website, thanks. Now back to the 'ease of flying' compared to Harrier stuff....

THE HAWKER ASSOCIATION NEWSLETTER | NUMBER 24 | SUMMER 2009
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hawkerassoci ... ter024.pdf

“...Dunsfold was where V/STOL became an everyday event. There things could be regularly seen that other organisations had been trying for years to achieve. Another very important flight test programme had been the VAAC Harrier. To overcome the Harrier problem of having three pilot's hand operated flight controls (stick, throttle & nozzle lever) which gave different results in V/STOL & conventional flight, & only two pilot's hands, which inevitably led to occasional confusion & accidents, the RAE pushed for a simpler arrangement applicable to more complex ASTOVL propulsion concepts. DB Harrier T2 XW175 was fitted with an adjustable digital flight control system in the front cockpit with the conventional system retained in the rear for a safety pilot.

Over 23 years of flight testing, simulating numerous control concepts, the inceptor strategy was defined. Here there are but two pilot's hand controls or inceptors; stick & throttle. No matter which flight regime you are in, pulling the stick back makes you go up, pushing it forward, down. This British system is in the F-35B & will allow any current military pilot to fly the aircraft easily. In fact, a PPL holder has flown the VAAC Harrier from VTO to VL with no practice....”
____________________________________________________

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=21300

"SLD: As a Harrier pilot, could you comment on the potential arrival of the F-35Bs [at Eglin AFB]?

Col. Tomassetti: It is ultimately disappointing constantly to see in the news all of the things that the F-35B hasn’t been able to achieve yet or can’t do & people completely missing what we’ve already achieved.

The fact is that we have a STOVL airplane that every pilot who has flown it says that it’s easy to fly. In 60 years of trying to build jet airplanes and do this, we’ve never ever been there before. We’ve never had a STOVL airplane that was as full spectrum capable as it’s conventional counterparts. We’ve never done that before in 60 years of trying.

It’s an amazing engineering achievement; [what] we’ve already accomplished is completely being missed by some observers.”

[Colonel ‘Art’ Tomassetti [USMC] flew the X-35B on the STO - Supersonic - VL mission a decade ago, 30 July 2001. Now he is vice-commander 33rd Fighter Wing Eglin. http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/news/archive/55.html]

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2011, 14:51
by Pecker
spazsinbad wrote:Pecker - you can gripe to the journalist at the USAF Magazine website, thanks.


Will do. And i'm sorry if you felt that i was on the attack, but it surprises me how easily these rumours get spread and sometimes it takes a 'shake' to pull people out from the trance and get them to look at reports with a little scepticism (only a little, mind) :wink: Kinda like when reading NewsoftheWorld or any other tabloid newspaper :D

Someone from LM posts on here as codeonemagazine (or something similar).....perhaps they could close out this issue once and for all?

As for 'ease of flying'......the Bee looks rock solid in the hover which, at least to the casual observer, is a good sign that the pilot isn't struggling.

I wonder if they'll ever mod the FCS software to permit it to perform a bow?

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2011, 18:05
by neptune
Pecker wrote:[...I wonder if they'll ever mod the FCS software to permit it to perform a bow?


Good Pilots can never resist this type of performance. :lol: Who knows when one would have to dodge (bow) a manpad (of course)?? :wink:

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2011, 19:06
by spazsinbad
Pecker, fair enough comment. However I would regard the USAF Magazine or whatever it is called as a credible magn/website. Yet reporters do get things wrong for sure. If the report is incorrect I'm surprised it has not been taken up by someone by now. Chasing every 'wabbit' (wrong thing) down every wabbit hole on the internet is folly probably. Why don't you e-mail them yourself to query their report however? Personally I don't take much on the internet too seriously - just part of the general barrage of information that gets sorted through over time. At some point the F-35B will do automatic landings amongst the many other things it will do during flight testing. No big deal when and where in my mind.

There are some test points I look forward to hearing / reading about though. Being skeptical is a good thing I remind myself - including any 'for and against' banter on this forum or elsewhere. :D

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2011, 09:29
by spazsinbad
Test Flying The Joint Strike Fighter Talk by Graham Tomlinson 9th Feb 2011

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hawkerassoci ... ghter.html

"[Graham Tomlinson came to the Hawker Centre on February 9th [2011] to talk about his last test flying job: the STOVL F-35B Lightning II.

Graham started as an RAF Harrier pilot in the 1970s based in Germany, went to the Empire Test Pilots’ School (ETPS) in 1978, and then on to ‘A’ Sqn A&AEE where he flew the Sea Harrier, Tornado and Hawk.

He was the A&AEE representative at the Naval Air Test Center (NATC) at Patuxent (Pax) River, Maryland, for the early years of the AV-8B programme. He ended his RAF service with six months back on Harrier GR3s in Belize.

In 1986 he joined BAe at Dunsfold as a Harrier GR5 test pilot and stayed until the site was closed in 2000 by which time he was Chief Test Pilot.

In 2002, after 18 months at Warton, he was posted to Lockheed Martin as the JSF STOVL lead pilot (a BAe position within team JSF). He made the first flight of the F-35B in 2008 then stayed with it through the initial STOVL testing until retiring in Oct 2010; in all some 28 years on Harriers and 31 as a test pilot.]

Graham opened by giving some basic information. The STOVL F-35B is for the USMC only (now that the UK has changed to the US Navy’s ‘C’ version). The total vertical thrust is 40,000 lb; 20,000lb from the forward mounted engine driven lift fan, 16,000 lb from the core engine via the aft vectoring main nozzle and 4,000 lb from the ‘roll posts’, downward pointing under-wing roll control nozzles.

The primary engine is the Pratt & Whitney F135 with the General Electric F136 as the alternative. There is no VIFF capability, thrust vectoring being for take-off and landing only. The maximum vertical landing weight is approximately 37,000 lb with good control margins, and the aircraft is stealthy.

The STOVL mode control system is derived from ‘Unified’ developed by the ‘RAE’ on the VAAC Harrier. The throttle commands acceleration and deceleration (or thrust on the ground and in the STO mode, and in all conventional modes); in the hover the stick moved backwards/forwards commands upwards/downwards vertical velocity (or pitch rate elsewhere); in the hover the stick moved from side to side commands bank angle (or roll rate elsewhere) and if released returns the aircraft to wings level; in the hover the pedals command yaw rate (or sideslip elsewhere).

Future development will clear full envelope autopilot/auto throttle, automatic deceleration to a spot, and TRC (translational rate command) which in the hover allows the pilot to make small positional corrections easily, and will then bring the aircraft to a standstill if the pilot releases the controls. A pilot’s helmet mounted display (HMD) is fitted instead of a HUD.

In the Harrier the pilot must obey the rules. The F-35B fly-by-wire system gives angle-of-attack and sideslip control, and departure protection. Further pilot workload reduction is given by performance deficit protection, conversion speed window protection and FOD protection warning; and flight test has a watching brief on the requirement for possible tail strike protection during slow landings (currently not considered necessary). Pilot cognitive errors (of trying to control thrust with the throttle) have been mitigated in the design. In the unlikely event of the lift fan failing catastrophically the aircraft would pitch inverted in 0.6 seconds, and the pilot is protected by auto-ejection signalled by pitch rate and attitude (derived from the YAK 38 & 141 systems).

The flying controls are powered by electro-hydraulic actuators (electric power to hydraulic pumps at the control surfaces). The IPP (integrated power pack) is a combined gas turbine and electric starter/generator. After starting the main engine, bleed air keeps the IPP spinning all the time to provide ECS and cooling air and standby power generation. Should the bleed air fail the IPP reverts to a gas turbine mode. To convert from the CTOL to STOVL mode a button push opens the necessary intake doors etc (13 in all), prepares the engine and engages the lift fan clutch which transmits 28,000 shaft hp.

Pit testing over a grid, based on the old Dunsfold design, measured thrust and pitch control power achieved through forward lift fan inlet guide vane adjustment and aft vectored nozzle area, both affected by engine RPM. The effects of opening the 13 doors in conventional flight showed buffet and more drag than expected.

For STOVL testing the F-35B was flown to the NATC at Pax River on Chesapeake Bay where there were 25 BAES flight test people (in addition to the peak number of 160 BAES staff at Fort Worth). Facilities included VTOL pads, a ski-jump, austere strips, hot pits (for refuelling without shutting down), telemetry, chase aircraft and a simulator for mission practice. Testing started with in-flight conversions, decelerating and accelerating at 5,000 ft and 210 kn, fixed throttle. There was no pitching but some mild heave. Testing then progressively approached the hover flying at 200 - 100 kn at 3-5,000 ft followed by slow landings (SL) at 130 - 110 kn ; then decelerations at less than 100 kn blending to the hover followed by SLs at 90 - 70 kn.

Apart from some intake door chatter causing a linkage distortion, and the failure of a flight test antenna, all went well. The Short take-off (STO) mode was checked at altitude followed by 100kn STO and then 80 kn STO, circuit and VL from 150 ft on 18 March 2010. Post touchdown the procedure was all automatic. There were no problems in STO.

Problems in the early development testing, which are addressed in the production aircraft, included: clutch drag in conventional flight, driveshaft length issues due to expansion/contraction, intake door structure, roll post heating (it is a continuous bleed system), sideslip in wind-up turns, nose high attitude in land-aheads from hovers, and HMD vibration and latency issues.

In the following areas where problems might have been expected there were none; hot gas ingestion, ground effects, weight-on-wheels operation (gives signals to aircraft control systems), conversion dynamics, performance, deficit protection and help from mission control.

During questions the lack of VIFF was commented on. Graham replied that nowadays FBW allows 50 deg angle of attack as in, say, an F-18. This lets the pilot generate both high lift and high drag and compensates for the lack of VIFF. On weapons carriage the primary method is in stealthy internal bays with external carriage an option when battle conditions allow. On battle damage vulnerability Graham said that the US Congress has mandated battle damage survival so survivability is a design parameter.

Barry Pegram gave the vote of thanks for this outstanding talk which had been of particular interest to the old ‘Harrier’ men present."

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2011, 01:53
by spazsinbad
An Update on F-35B and F35-C Testing 07/25/2011

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=21778

During Second Line of Defense’s visit to Pax River, we sat down with Lt. Col. Fred “Tinman” Schenk to discuss the state of testing on the USN and USMC F-35s and the way ahead.

SLD: Could you give us a sense of your job here at Pax River?

Schenk: I am Colonel Cordell’s deputy and the Government Test Flight Director here. Essentially, my responsibilities are flight test execution. I do the test plan approvals side of the business and try to stay really heavily engaged in the technical piece of the program. I deal with what’s going on with the airplanes and what issues are we working; making sure we’re safe to go execute flight tests.

SLD: How many aircraft are being tested here?

Schenk: We have F-35Bs and F-35Cs. Currently, seven are on the flight line. We have four F-35Bs and three F-35Cs. We’re hoping to get BF5, our fifth F-35B, here in the next week or two. [BF-5 arrived at the F-35 ITF on July 16]

SLD: What is your experience with the C?

Schenk: I’ve only flown the F-35C once, so I don’t have a broad experience base in the airplane. On the one flight, it flew very well. I spent most of my time in the landing configuration, and it flew quite well in that configuration.

We’re just really getting started on the C program, so CF-1 has been here now for a couple of months. We’ve started expanding the envelope. We’ve had it out supersonic already and are starting to push the speed boundary and open up more of the flight envelope of the airplane. CF-2 has been here for month and a half, maybe two.

SLD: What about the Brits? Have they started transitioning from the B to the C?

Schenk: We do have two BAE systems pilots, and we have one Royal Air Force pilot. Squadron Leader Steve Long was here and he rotated back to the UK, and Jim Schofield is his replacement. Steve was initially focused on the F-35B, and now Jim will obviously be more focused on the F-35C.

SLD: “Squirt” Kelly discussed with us the flying qualities of the B and that as an F-18 pilot he has had no difficulty in flying the B. What this may then mean is that you shift test time from just operating the aircraft to spending more time on the tactical training on the aircraft or working on the T and R manual?

Schenk: I think that’s a fair statement, and I think if you looked at the training syllabus that’s being developed you will see that.

SLD: This is an important line to cross.

Schenk: As a Harrier pilot, the F-35B is a major advance. Having grown up as a Harrier pilot and spent many, many hours doing takeoffs and landings and having the requirement to do every type of landing at least once every 30 days in the Harrier, the F-35B is a big improvement.

Because of the augmentation and the automation that’s in the airplane and the models and the simulators, we’ll find a lot less time being spent taking off and landing the airplane and spending much more time doing our mission in the airplane and being able to go get out there and take care of business and take care of the guys that are out there. We will spend more time on actual missions, rather than on re-qualifications.

The F-35 makes the basic flying task easy,
and so now you have what we would call spare capacity to devote to other things, which allows the pilot to focus on the mission and the systems of the airplane. The design of the airplane is intended to fuse information within the airplane — to make that task of managing the system easier.

You don’t have a radar giving you a piece of data. You don’t have a FLIR giving you another piece of data. You don’t have a radar warning giving you yet another piece of data.

What the F-35 gives you is a fused picture of all of that, so you don’t have to interpret separate data streams. For example, my Link 16 is telling me something is here, but my radar is saying it’s over there, and this piece is kind of telling me it’s over there, and this one said it’s a bad guy, but that one is showing it as a good guy, and on legacy aircraft you have to filter what the various systems are telling you. Now, the F-35 system is going to do a lot of that processing for you.

SLD: So you have two trajectories for the plane. One is, it is an easier plane to manage itself and then secondly, your ability to focus more on the decisions you’re supposed to take for your missions and so on and the man-machine relationship.

Schenk: Right. That’s it.

SLD: And this will create a culture shift for the pilots as well.

Schenk: I think that the challenge will change. The F-35 is going to make the flying task a little bit simpler. We’re trying to make the managing the system simpler, but now the pilots are going to be bombarded with more information and it’s sharing that information with those who need to know that information on the battlefield that will become the challenge.

SLD: What about the F-35B and the amphib fleet? What are the testing plans?

Schenk: I’ve deployed on USS Wasp and on USS Nassau. And we will be testing the F-35B on the USS Wasp this Fall.

SLD: In your view as an ARG veteran, what will be the impact of the deployment of the F-35B on the fleet?

Schenk: We will take our ten or eleven carrier fleet, and we now will double the number of capital ships that can deploy a fifth generation fighter.

I saw the media reports on Libya and those kinds of things, and now, instead of having to fly a B-2 from Whiteman Air Force Base, and get refueled to take out certain targets because we needed a stealth airplane for the mission, we’ll have the potential to have an L-class ship with F-35Bs or a CV with CFs on it, carrier F-35Cs, and be able to execute that mission without having to bring those airplanes from CONUS, air refuel them, fly all the way over and then fly all the way back.

You have a Day 1 capability on US Navy ships that you can float anywhere around the world. And that’s a tremendous capability for the Navy, the Marine Corps, and really, the nation, to have.

SLD: With the airplane going to Eglin and to the USS Wasp, the test program will enter a new phase. What are some of the next key threshold tests?

Schenk: We’ve started to get the airplane supersonic. We’ve got the B to 7gs, and I think the C has been to 6.5 or 7g already.

We’ve started to prove those pieces of the envelope. Now we’re starting to stick the airplane into its operational environment. The F-35C is going to Lakehurst here in the next month.

We’re going to start with just jet blast deflector testing, and then in July-August time frame, we’ll migrate into roll-ins, arrestments, and catapults. We’ll do our initial catapults.

We’re starting to stick the C in that environment. And then the B, of course, is focused on getting to the ship."

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2011, 01:55
by spazsinbad
Interview: Tom Burbage Executive Vice President and General Manager, F-35 Program Integration, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics | Written by: Chuck Oldham (Editor) on July 15, 2011

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stor ... m-burbage/

[F-35B Flying]
"...We felt if we could mechanize it that way it would be intuitively obvious to the pilot that he’s always controlling velocity with his left hand and he’s always controlling altitude with his right hand and the airplane would be simpler to fly and safer to fly. That was our theory.

It’s an unstable airplane like all fast jets are these days, so the fly-by-wire flight control system does a lot of cross-controlling with the control surfaces. The pilot says, “I want to go there,” and the flight controls will do whatever it takes to put the airplane there. The flight controls are much more blended in what they do.

It also has to be able to withstand combat damage, so if somebody shoots off a horizontal tail, you want to be able to reconfigure all the other flight controls to accommodate the loss of that flight control.

All that’s built in. So now when the pilot comes in for landing it goes like this. When you pass below 250 knots, you push a button that says STOVL and the airplane begins converting. You can push the button higher, but it won’t begin converting till you’re below 250.

The doors start opening and the shaft coming off the main engine engages the Lift Fan. That starts the Lift Fan turning as you’re slowing down. And now you’re transitioning from wing-borne flight to jet-borne flight; when you’re above about 120/130 knots, all your lift is coming from the wings. When you’re at zero, all your lift is coming from the engine, and when you’re in between those two numbers you have a combination of both engine and wing lift. The flight controls blend that so the pilot says, “I want to hover” at whatever altitude he wants; he just puts the airplane there. The airplane will slow down. If he doesn’t want to slow it all the way down and he wants to keep forward motion, he just tells it to do that. He selects a little switch movement and the airplane will maintain the 80 knots or 60 knots or whatever you want. You get over the landing point and it goes to zero and when he’s ready to go down, he pushes forward on the stick. The airplane comes down and touches down on the gear. There’s a weight-on-gear switch and when it connects, it pulls the engine to idle. So it’s very simple. The first time my chief test pilot flew it, he said, “You know I could have pulled out my iPad® and e-mailed my wife and told her to come out and watch me in the hover because I wasn’t doing anything.”

Well, that’s great.
I’ll tell you that all the pilots rate the short takeoffs and vertical landings. They give it a handling qualities rating, and none of the STOVL activity has had less than the top rating. Nobody’s found it to be difficult, and we’ve had a significant number of pilots fly the airplane now, including guys who were not trained to be Harrier pilots...."

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2011, 21:14
by spazsinbad
Going Vertical By Monica Keen Posted 1 July 2009

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=13

"...When a pilot gets to a slow speed during STOVL mode, the sidestick is used to move the plane up or down. When the pilot's hands are removed from the controls, the airplane simply hovers in place.

"The conversion button sets a lot of things in motion," says Graham Tomlinson, a BAE Systems F-35 test pilot who participated in early test runs on the hover pit. "But the complexity is in the airplane and the propulsion system. Converting to STOVL, which is fully automated, is a smooth transition for the pilot...."

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2011, 08:58
by spazsinbad
The F-35 Pilot 08/19/2011

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-pilot/ | VIDEO: http://vimeo.com/27918352

"We have interviewed several F-35 pilots. Most recently, we sat down with pilots at Pax River. Comments from these pilots focused on easy of operations, and the ability of the pilot to operate as a deployed decision-maker.

Among the pilots we have interviewed, Lt. Col. Fred “Tinman” Schenk underscored was the following:

As a Harrier pilot, the F-35B is a major advance. Having grown up as a Harrier pilot and spent many, many hours doing takeoffs and landings and having the requirement to do every type of landing at least once every 30 days in the Harrier, the F-35B is a big improvement.

Because of the augmentation and the automation that’s in the airplane and the models and the simulators, we’ll find a lot less time being spent taking off and landing the airplane and spending much more time doing our mission in the airplane and being able to go get out there and take care of business and take care of the guys that are out there. We will spend more time on actual missions, rather than on re-qualifications.


The F-35 makes the basic flying task easy, and so now you have what we would call spare capacity to devote to other things, which allows the pilot to focus on the mission and the systems of the airplane. The design of the airplane is intended to fuse information within the airplane — to make that task of managing the system easier.

You don’t have a radar giving you a piece of data. You don’t have a FLIR giving you another piece of data. You don’t have a radar warning giving you yet another piece of data.

What the F-35 gives you is a fused picture of all of that, so you don’t have to interpret separate data streams. For example, my Link 16 is telling me something is here, but my radar is saying it’s over there, and this piece is kind of telling me it’s over there, and this one said it’s a bad guy, but that one is showing it as a good guy, and on legacy aircraft you have to filter what the various systems are telling you. Now, the F-35 system is going to do a lot of that processing for you.

Another USMC test pilot, indeed last year’s test pilot of the year, “Squirt” Kelly told us what he had learned since our visit last year:

What I have learned for sure since your last visit is how to do a vertical landing. As an F-18 pilot, I don’t have any background in hovering or operating in that whole STOVL world. With probably fewer hours than a guy is going to have going through the training command and doing this through the simulator training to the flight, it was easy.

For guys graduating out of the training command, it was a process of learning step-by-step, follow the procedures, and hover. You can let go of the controls. It just kind of stays where you put it.


QUESTION: So it is not Harrier like at all

Kelly: Not at all. In a hover and in a vertical landing, it’s a no-brainer. It’s push the stick forward. There’s even a descent button in the stick, which you use. The airplane lands itself.

It is very much forgiving to a guy who’s doing it for the first time, and it makes him look good. In a hover and in a vertical landing it’s a no-brainer.


F-35 test flight operations occur at Naval Air Station (NAS) Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base in Texas, Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., and NAS Patuxent River, Md. The video captures some assessments from a variety of test facilities.

The video was provided by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Of course, Department of Defense pilot comments do not imply or constitute endorsement of Lockheed Martin, its products or services."

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2011, 07:30
by spazsinbad
On page 1 of this thread aaam said: "...and the Sea Harrier was trickier to land than the AV-8B-GR7/9...."

For an entertaining "SHAR" read, one cannot go past this tome (only an excerpt below).

The Harrier Story. Sunday, September 18, 2011
The Harrier Story – A Forsaken Legend By Commander “Sharkey” Ward DSC AFC, September 2011.

http://www.sharkeysworld.com/2011/09/harrier-story.html

“...11. My Air Warfare Instructor training had taught me that no matter how good you are at fighter combat or weapon delivery, if you don’t keep flight safety and survival in the forefront of your mind at all times, then you are asking for trouble. This served me well during Harrier training because there was one part of the flight envelope that could be extremely hazardous if you didn’t obey the rules.

12. This was when the aircraft was in transition from wing-borne flight to the hover. The transition commences during your approach to hover and land. The aircraft nozzles are placed in the vertical and as the aircraft slows down rapidly, power is increased to make up for the loss of lift from the wings – until eventually you are being supported entirely by the thrust of the four nozzles. During this transition period which lasts for just a few seconds, it is essential to keep the airflow over the aircraft directly in line with the fore and aft axis. A little wind vane sits on the nose of the aircraft in clear view of the pilot to allow the pilot to make sure that he is decelerating directly into the relative wind. If the air stream is allowed to drift away from the nose of the aircraft, a phenomenon known as Yaw Intake Momentum Drag can suddenly set in and without any other warning the aircraft will roll viciously upside down. This puts the pilot ‘between a rock and a hard place’: either ‘stick with the aircraft and burn as you crash’ or ‘use the rocket powered ejection seat to hammer you headfirst into the ground’. Normally there is no escape possible!

13. My superb Royal Navy Sea Harrier Squadron trials team pilots were so well tutored on the vices of the Harrier by the RAF HCU that during our first three years of trials and operations with this “difficult” aircraft, we had no accidents and achieved the best flight safety record of any jet aircraft entering service ever in the UK. And so I am eternally grateful to them. The US Marine Corps had a less fortunate experience. At that time, their attitude was that if you fly one aeroplane you can fly any aeroplane. Aircrew with insufficient training were therefore put into the AV-8 Harrier resulting in many fatal crashes.

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2011, 13:35
by spazsinbad
Repeat post from this thread but too good to not put here about 'how easy to fly F-35B in VERTICAL MODE':
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-60.html

'Vertical Validation’ by Guy Norris/Los Angeles
Aviation Week & Space Technology/October 3, 2011

“…Testing has also focused on the translational rate command (TRC) mode, which in the hover allows the pilot to make small positional corrections and which brings the aircraft to a standstill if the pilot releases the controls. “It is used to capture the current longitudinal groundspeed and is important for precise positioning in shipboard operations,” says Wilson.

On the Cooper-Harper rating scale used by test pilots to evaluate handling characteristics, pilots gave an average rating of 1.77 for descent and 2.28 for landing in baseline vertical-landing mode. For the TRC mode, pilots rated descent at 1.52 and landing at 2.04. The scale ranges from 1 to 9, with 1 representing excellent characteristics and a low workload task and 9 representing major deficiencies and intense pilot compensation required to maintain control….”

Youse will have to buy the magazine....

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2011, 03:29
by spazsinbad
At beginning of video we see a Harrier 'Running Landing' of sorts and then we see a masterful Harrier display by an expert. Pic is a screenshot from the end of video. Note cold Swiss Altitude.

Switzerland.mpg John Farley Harrier Display Switzerland 1971

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P25OJtXm ... r_embedded

"Uploaded by johnfarley115 on Nov 25, 2011"