New Flight Control Improves F-35C Handling Carrier Approach

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 08 Apr 2013, 20:45

double post from extended delay

velocityvector · by **velocityvector** » 08 Apr 2013, 20:52

Kind sir, would your suggestion be sky hook or similar on zeppelin or dirigible, or both. I cannot determine. Thanks in advance.

M Go Blue! Defeat Louisville. Please, for the love of god.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 08 Apr 2013, 20:59

Without Googlin' ("Keep on Googlin'" would be a great comeback song for Creedence Clearwater Revival (CCR) or at least an advertisement song for Google by just adapting "Keep on Chooglin' Chooglin' Chooglin'" - but I digress)

I would have to imagine in my mind's eye a long forgotten photo of those hapless USN Sparrows? hookin' on underneath a giant dirigible. However what I had in mind was the SKYhook as seen in a 'spitballin'' picture for the Brit Harrier to be downloaded with such a device. I believe this forum has a pic from a thread about these issues. So it is a SKYcrane on the ship with a SKYhook that retrieves the wunderairvehickle.

Here is the thread:

F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... k&start=90

Adapted for shipboard use & new flugelboid:

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 08 Apr 2013, 21:10

Here is the shortest version of the Googlin' song (you won't be able to get it out of your heads now

)

CCR- Keep on Chooglin'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB8CMN-jX_g

velocityvector · by **velocityvector** » 08 Apr 2013, 21:12

Predating that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:XF9C_ ... y_1932.jpg
"Skyhook."

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 08 Apr 2013, 21:18

Note the problematic 'arm out the window'. Will the new Fluglin' Birdie have a wind down winda?

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 08 Apr 2013, 21:25

Chooglin' "freedom" on this forum I came across this link with some 'autoland stories' or links to same: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... dom#247556 particularly "Couple Up for Safety" by USN LSOs about ACLS Mode 1 approaches etc.

By the bye let us hope that if the F-35 can be 'fogged out' that the HMDS II does not 'fog up' as well. Then that completely automatic landing WILL come in handy.

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 08 Apr 2013, 22:09

spazsinbad wrote:I'll assume that the 'high angle of attack' aircraft slotting into 'hardpoints' will be almost hovering (in the WOD) or will this aircraft be able to land with only aircraft carrier provided WOD (nil wind otherwise). If this approach landing is completely automatic then the pilot will have to be drugged somehow. OR will he be able to see through the aircraft to see/monitor the approach OR will an onboard instrument/HMDS III provide said view? I guess 'count_to_10' has the NASA F-16 high angle of attack research (or future similar?) aircraft in mind?

I think I would prefer the skycrane approach - hovering under it to be picked up by the sky hook to be deposited on deck. Some more explanation from 'count_to_10' about his idea would be nice.

No, I was thinking more of like a catcher's mitt of sorts. Something that would lock on to purpose built hardpoints on the aircraft as it is doing a very slow, high angle of attack approach behind the ship, and then slow the aircraft the rest of the way down to the velocity of the ship. For take-off, you would use the same system to catapult the aircraft at a similarly high angle up above the ship (or perhaps at an angle). That way, you would not longer need a "flattop" or "through-deck" to operate jets.
I'm not sure how fast the aircraft would have to come in -- presumably above it's stall speed, but a jet with T2W of above unity and TVC could presumably get down to anything it wanted to. The important part is that you don't have to come in level, and you might be able to actually flair to a stall.
I'm also mostly imagining UAVs here, but there is no reason it couldn't be done with a manned aircraft automatically. Just tell the pilot to suck it up and push the "land" button.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 08 Apr 2013, 22:23

I guess the robot driver is going to 'flare to stall' and the pilot will automatically eject?

Catcher's mitt huh. Will it have to be broken in like a human one? So this High Angle of Attack approach at the end will result in a hover more or less in the WOD? What is different from a vertical landing? Perhaps a smidgeon of forward groundspeed into the Mitt (will they call it a Romney approach?). Seems to me that a VL is more doable because it is being duntoday. No?

neurotech · by **neurotech** » 09 Apr 2013, 00:54

spazsinbad wrote:I guess the robot driver is going to 'flare to stall' and the pilot will automatically eject? Catcher's mitt huh. Will it have to be broken in like a human one? So this High Angle of Attack approach at the end will result in a hover more or less in the WOD? What is different from a vertical landing? Perhaps a smidgeon of forward groundspeed into the Mitt (will they call it a Romney approach?). Seems to me that a VL is more doable because it is being duntoday. No?

They have barricade nets on carriers to stop aircraft that are unable to trap. I'm guessing with a Short Rolling Vertical Landing, a barricade engagement becomes an option if they come in too fast.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 09 Apr 2013, 01:28

'neurotech' said: "...I'm guessing with a Short Rolling Vertical Landing, a barricade engagement becomes an option if they come in too fast." I see no sign of that at moment on CVFs (CVNs OK). A barricade engagement is not like a pre-wedding variety. Sure the damage may be minimised if barricade engagement optimal but it would be for an emergency (and no sign of any installation on CVFs). The barricade uses an arresting gear engine OR there may be another method for a non-arresting engine CVF barricade (maybe that is where the velvet glove catcher mitt comes in?).

I'll wager that if an SRVL is viable on CVF that no barricade will be required. IF there is a 'no brake' emergency then VL. If that means jettison valuable stores then so be it; rather than risk some kind of non-existent barricade SRVL on CVF. Perhaps if a CVN nearby the UK or USMC or whomever F-35B could SRVL trundle into a barricade. I can hear the pen pushers now.

I wonder if a trial barricade arrest by an F-35B in various configurations at NAS Lakehurst will be trialled?

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 09 Apr 2013, 02:22

Maybe the smart guys at DARPA can figure something out for their TERN initiative. How to recover a Predator-sized UAV onto a LCS or frigate. A giant batcher's mitt made from aerogel perhaps..
https://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx ... 32ce68c8fa

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 09 Apr 2013, 02:49

spazsinbad wrote:I guess the robot driver is going to 'flare to stall' and the pilot will automatically eject? Catcher's mitt huh. Will it have to be broken in like a human one? So this High Angle of Attack approach at the end will result in a hover more or less in the WOD? What is different from a vertical landing? Perhaps a smidgeon of forward groundspeed into the Mitt (will they call it a Romney approach?). Seems to me that a VL is more doable because it is being duntoday. No?

Vertical landings require a lot of extra weight and volume. What I'm talking about would be a way of offloading the landing gear to the ship, and could be done for aircraft with lower thrust to weight.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 09 Apr 2013, 03:05

How much does the landing gear and associated equipment weigh? What about landing ashore? Sounds like the 'rubber deck' problem from the beginning of the jet age in the RN with a Sea Vampire driven by Winkle Brown bumping along the rubber deck sans wheels. It did not fly. No one bothered to figure out how to land ashore perhaps catapulting from a trolley (ala jet unmanned Jindivik remote controlled target doing a runway takeoff & landing back on a skid on a conventional runway) was OK but then....

neurotech · by **neurotech** » 09 Apr 2013, 05:32

spazsinbad wrote:How much does the landing gear and associated equipment weigh? What about landing ashore? Sounds like the 'rubber deck' problem from the beginning of the jet age in the RN with a Sea Vampire driven by Winkle Brown bumping along the rubber deck sans wheels. It did not fly. No one bothered to figure out how to land ashore perhaps catapulting from a trolley (ala jet unmanned Jindivik remote controlled target doing a runway takeoff & landing back on a skid on a conventional runway) was OK but then....

Not much. Pilots have crash landed after ripping off the landing gear, and the weight reduction is minimal.

I actually think the F-35 lift-fan is optimal.

Part of the reason why the X-32 was designed ended up the way it did was because Boeing were directed to use a F119 engine, and adding a bypass turbofan would have been difficult without redesigning the engine.