F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

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

whitewhale

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2012, 15:50

Unread post10 Jul 2014, 18:11

Well, with no more sponsons to go on she is essentially as big as she is going to get and structurally complete. A hell of a lot of ancillary work of course but with flood out this month I think it's fair to say she is a ship now rather then a construction.

There are also a lot of bits of the Prince of Wales waiting at the side of the dock for Big Liz to get out of the way so construction of her should be pretty quick.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24750
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Jul 2014, 23:35

I guess when jump de ski testing starts then a separate 'ski jump' thread could be started - or an old one restarted - there are a few... [FOUND an appropriate SKY/SKI JUMP/-JUMP/RAMP thread here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14082&p=275108#p275108 ] But anyway here is one piece of info I overlooked, being reminded recently by the inestimable 'Engines' over on pPrune (who may have been the engineer responsible for this innovation - only my guess) for STOing off the SKY JUMP. I have not seen the Uhmericans mention this feature - it seems from my reading that the roll control doors are closed when not needed with the air being blocked by them. http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost8450458 Anyway....
CVF ski-jump ramp profile optimisation for F-35B
A. Fry, R. Cook and N. Revill, FEBRUARY 2009 VOLUME 113 NO 1140

"...1.4 F-35B STOVL lift and propulsion system
The F-35B has a number of unique elements that facilitate its STOVL capability, and these are critical in the optimisation of a ski jump ramp profile for the aircraft. A basic description of the layout and function of the lift and propulsion system... described below:

● a Lift Fan driven by a shaft from the main engine which provides vertical lift through a variable area vane box nozzle using louvered vanes to vector thrust between vertically downwards and partially aft.

● a three-bearing swivel module (3BSM), which vectors the main engine exhaust thrust from the core engine through vertically downwards to fully aft – the latter being the default for conventional mode flying.

● roll nozzles, ducted from the engine and exiting in each wing providing roll control and vertical lift. These are closed off during the initial portion of the short take-off (STO) in order to maximise forward thrust from the main engine, opening towards the end of the ramp in order to provide control and lift during the fly out...."

Source: http://www.raes.org.uk/pdfs/3324_COLOUR.pdf [not available now]
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24750
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Jul 2014, 10:13

F-35 and Carrier Integration: A test pilot's perspective
15 Jul 2014 BAE Systems PLC

"F-35 test pilot Pete Kosogorin reveals how our simulation facilities are playing a crucial role integrating the F-35B aircraft with the HMS Queen Elizabeth Class CarrierA dedicated simulation facility at our site in Lancashire is allowing pilots and engineers to ‘fly’ the F-35B short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft to and from the deck of the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers. The multi-million facility has been playing a critical role ensuring the smooth integration of the F-35B aircraft with the QEC Carriers. Ultimately this will assist UK pilots in landing aircraft which are expected to carry at least twice the payload of the Harrier....

...“There are various shipborne systems [Bedford Array & SRVV - Ship Referenced Velocity Vector] that will help the pilot when landing, particularly in high sea states when the conditions are challenging and the deck is moving around quite a bit – or at night when there is limited visibility.

“But the simulator work hasn’t just been about developing the flight controls software in the aircraft, it’s also about finding out how to fly and carry out certain manoeuvres, and working out various flying techniques such as shipborne rolling vertical landing. We’ve brought together a cross-section of individuals to do that, from very experienced Harrier pilots with legacy experience to US Navy conventional F18 pilots, and also Royal Navy and other Airforce pilots who have no shipborne or STOVL experience. This has ensured the design is optimised for all levels of ability.”

Source: http://www.asdnews.com/news-55973/F-35_ ... ective.htm
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24750
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Jul 2014, 23:40

A bit of a repeat but with INFO about the LSO etc....
Britain’s Queen Elizabeth Carrier Prepares for JSF Flights
15 Jul 2014 Kris Osborn

"...“We’ve been developing this concept of shipboard rolling vertical landing to enhance the bring back of the F-35B. The Queen Elizabeth Class flight deck is big enough to allow us to do a forward rolling vertical landing on the flight deck and stop using the brake,” Atkinson added.

Atkinson explained how the F-35B STOVL aircraft will have the option to hover and perform a vertical landing or perform the shipboard rolling vertical landing, or SRVL, depending upon mission requirements or operational need.

“The performance of the aircraft is affected by the airspeed. It is all about the matching of the wind on the deck relative to the flight speed of the aircraft. You will always have your vertical landing capability. SRVL is a quick maneuver where the aircraft does not have to hover,” Atkinson added.

Performing the SRVL will allow the F-35B to travel with an additional few thousand pounds of payload such as extra fuel or weaponry, he said.

The Queen Elizabeth carriers plan to place a trained F-35B pilot in the ship’s control room area in order to facilitate successful communication with approaching JSF aircraft, Atkinson said. A landing signal officer will be placed at a special work station on board the carrier.

“From the earliest stages, a lot of attention has been paid to the human-machine interface and precisely what is needed in order to make that flight control work in the most efficient possible way,” he said.

“The landing signal officer will be a fully qualified F-35 pilot with additional training to be the subject matter expert on the F-35.”

Since there is no arresting gear, the SRVL landing will need to succeed in achieving the correct speed, descent and glide slope while approaching the deck of the carrier so as to be able to come to a complete stop by merely using brakes.

The success of this effort will be assisted by a velocity vector [SRVV Ship Referenced Velocity Vector] placed into the helmet mounted display of the F-35 which will help the pilot know when it is time to catch a final descent down onto the ship’s deck, Atkinson explained.

Visual landing aids in the form of different colored lights are built into the tram lines on the carrier deck to help pilots land as well, Atkinson said." [BEDFORD ARRAY]

Source: http://defensetech.org/2014/07/15/brita ... f-flights/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24750
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 22:18

British Carrier Remains Controversial
18 Jul 2014 Chris Pocock, AIN Defense Perspective

"...the ACA is striving to make the carriers as flexible as possible. They can be reconfigured from the strike role, with 12 F-35Bs embarked, to a ship that can carry 44 helicopters and deploy 1,000 soldiers in amphibious or littoral maneuver operations. Moreover, “there is enough storage space to make a real difference in humanitarian operations,” Zambellas said.

Rear Admiral Russ Harding, the Navy’s senior airman, says that the QE-class “compresses a 2,000-acre airfield onto a four acre space that is moving in six axes. Therefore operations have to be intuitive, and they require intensive training.” But the UK withdrew its last (and much smaller) aircraft carrier in 2010, thus posing the danger of “skills fade.” Courtesy of the U.S. Navy British sailors have been deployed in small numbers on CV- and LHD-class warships, and pilots to F/A-18 squadrons, to keep them current on carrier operations. The French have also helped out, by offering slots on their warships, and in their carrier fighter squadrons. Meanwhile, there’s always simulation. BAE Systems provided a briefing at the Farnborough airshow this week on the simulator that it has developed, to determine exactly how the F-35 will operate from the carrier.

In his briefing at the UK’s DSEi event last year, Harding made reference to the unusual QE-class flight deck design, with ship operation conducted from a forward “island,” and flight operations from an “aft” island. Harding admitted that this was “a compromise…but I’m not as worried as some about the separation,” he said. Some have noted that the twin islands are more survivable, if the ship should be attacked. Harding further noted that the flight deck design is very flexible. For instance, there’s a ski ramp to launch the F-35s, but also an angled deck from which UAVs or UCAVs might be launched in the future....

...What is beyond question is that the B version has struggled with weight issues, sacrifices range and payload for STOVL capability and costs more to acquire and operate. For this reason, the MoD is studying a mixed fleet of F-35As and F-35Bs, a senior RAF officer told AIN, on condition of anonymity. It seems that the mandarins in the ministry don’t want to admit this, after the previous flip-flop that saw the UK switch from the F-35B to the conventional carrier-landing F-35C version in 2010, and back again in 2012. The combat radius of an F-35B on a hi-hi-hi mission is only 450 nm, versus 590 nm for the F-35C....

...The British contribution continues with development for the F-35B of the shipboard rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique that was successfully employed by the Harrier [only on LAND runways however]. This increases the permissible landing weight: vertically landing F-35Bs will not be able to “bring back” to the carrier, a full (unexpended) external weapons load, especially in high temperature or low pressure conditions. SRVL boosts the landing weight by 4,000 pounds. BAE Systems F-35 test pilot Pete Wilson told AIN last week that SRVL flight trials will take place on the QEII in 2018. In the meantime, “robust” simulation of the technique has been achieved. But there is still some risk attached “since the F-35B is designed to stop and land, rather than vice versa,” he said. The U.S. Marine Corps might adopt the technique for landing F-35Bs onboard the U.S. Navy’s large aircraft carriers. (The assault ships that will routinely carry USMC F-35Bs are too small for SRVL).

Speaking more generally about landing the F-35B, Wilson noted how easy it is, compared with the Harriers that he previously flew. They had separate levers to control the throttle and the nozzle angle. “Pilots sometimes grabbed the wrong lever. In the F-35B, we’ve designed out such cognitive failures,” Wilson explained. “The F-35B holds zero groundspeed, height and lateral [roll] angle very precisely. The pilot makes only a single-axis input. There’s nothing to do!” he added...."

Source: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... troversial
Last edited by spazsinbad on 19 Jul 2014, 01:33, edited 1 time in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24750
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 22:26

Over on the 'UK MOD MUDDLE' thread [ viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=275669&hilit=IIRC#p275669 ] 'quicksilver' said this:
"19 Jul 2014 08:13

IIRC engine thrust is less than 30% within one second of WOW.

They have some opposing challenges --

1) the want to get stopped in some distance before the jet exits the bow into the water
2) they have to preserve control of the aircraft while on the flight deck at speeds nominally in the 20-40ktgs
3) they want to preserve a 'bolter' option

The first two mandate a rapid thrust reduction once the jet touches down. The third requires preservation of rapid engine spool-up time by limiting the thrust reduction at touchdown. IOW, the third puts the first two at risk.

SRVL will require its own flight/propulsion control logic."

I would agree that the SRVL if needed will have some different logic (probably hinted at in the specific posts about same from the people developing the manoeuvre - however as I have stated over and over - being now a civilian I have NO ACCESS to any information other than what is in the public domain - if I find it).

Recently the video about sim SRVL had the chap saying the aircraft stops within 200 feet. If the intention on an ordinary day (not a bucking bronco deck day) is to land 150 feet in from the back end then we have used 350 feet of a nominal 850+ feet (which will include the ski jump) for other contingencies as they may arise at touchdown. The aircraft is approaching at an approximate KIAS of 60 which when minus the 20 Knot WOD has a ground speed of 40 then things look relatively simple. However I have no access to the simulator to find out more. Previous posts (not all information can be posted I hope people realise due to the restrictions placed on my posts that no more than some part can be posted) indicate some of the reasoning about the whys and wherefores of the SRVL and how if it a FLEXIBLE manoeuvre etc. with a matrix that will calculate (via computers) what should be the correct airspeed and touchdown point in the conditions - especially when the deck is moving a lot.

I would suggest that IF the F135 via the WOW (weight on wheels) switch is at 30% RPM within one second then the acceleration via the FADEC must be good also - any ideas on that score?
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24750
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Jul 2014, 00:06

The Hairier was noted for the MASSIVE acceleration for take off - eye watering apparently. From this F-35B STO onboard WASP description recently then the same seems to happen in story below. Note the aircraft / engine accelerate from 34%. Full quote from part of the story made available recently here: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=24438&p=274982&hilit=Rusnok#p274982
Jumping Jack Flash
July 2014 unknown author AIR International F-35 Special Edition

...STO-ing...
...Maj Rusnok noted:...
...The pilot also has command of the throttle. Two power setting options are available for take-off: Mil STO and Max STO [have not read about this before], as Maj Rusnok explained: “When you taxi to the tram line you stay in mode one, the conventional flight mode. You convert the aircraft into mode four, the STOVL flight mode, and it takes about 15 seconds or so for the doors to open up and the lift fan to engage.

“Then you push the throttle about halfway up the throttle slide into a detent position at about 34% engine thrust request. It sits there and you check the engine gauges: if the readings are okay you slam the throttle to either Mil or Max position and then release the brakes simultaneously. Pushing through to max is like an afterburner detent. But it’s not an afterburner – you can’t go to afterburner in mode four.

“It’s a very fast acceleration. The closest we would spot from the bow is 400 feet, so about 175 feet before we would actually start rotating the aeroplane [at the STO rotation line]; so very, very quick.”..."

Source: AIR International F-35 Special Edition July 2014
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3133
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post19 Jul 2014, 09:05

"Note the aircraft / engine accelerate from 34%."

...which is not where the engine is at idle, nor are the nozzles and VAVBN where they would be at touchdown on SRVL.

Think about it -- from what power setting did you start your takeoff run in your trusty A-4? Ever do a section go from a land base? What power setting did you start the takeoff roll from? Ever wonder why?

To illustrate the challenge of engine response time from idle (or some intermediate thrust condition), recommend a search for "turbofan power response curve."

Here's a link -- http://books.google.com/books?id=hbsgAw ... ve&f=false
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24750
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Jul 2014, 09:51

I'm wondering how a pair land takeoff is relevant. We talk about an SRVL bolter. I have only the information I provide. You keep talking about irrelevant stuff. The A4G (and similar models) did always a manual fuel control throttle check, or whatever it was called, at 80-85% RPM. Most pilots had just enough leg power to keep on the brakes for those few seconds and in a pair takeoff to stay a little longer before following leader into a formation takeoff where actually leader would not slam the power but bring it up relatively slowly so as to allow No.2 some leeway to stay in formation (sometimes that did not happen). In other training jets I think we could stand on the brakes at full power but I would have to think about all of that because it was a long time ago now. Still do not see relevance for an SRVL bolter.

I know only too well all kinds of (at that time) old and new jet engine throttle response times. I have mentioned already in other threads flying the GOBLIN engine Vampire which had only pilot throttle control - there was no other fuel control. This engine could be easily overfuelled when accelerating from any near flight idle condition RPM. It could be deadly to be in a no power over fuelled engine approaching the runway incorrectly (low / slow or both). One learnt fast how to get the best acceleration out of that engine without overfuelling. Then the Sea Venom had a rudimentary fuel control that was necessary for carrier flying but I never did that in the Venom at the end of its days. Then the A4G with a magic for those days fuel control which allowed the pilot to slam the throttle to get the maximum power in the quickest time and I did that once at night. Then the MACCHI had a similar but probably slightly more advanced fuel control which sadly could malfunction at the wrong time - so we had to take some judicious care. So what is the point?

We are doing an SRVL which likely will have a STOVL mode especially for that landing. So it is not likely the WOW will operate at first T/D perhaps. I do not know. Mostly the SRVL will be as easy as falling off a log. It has been described adequately already many times. Starts at 200 feet on a 6 degree glideslope at approx. 60 KIAS depending on other factors already mentioned a few times in this thread now. Then we have the knowledge that the touchdown point under most circumstances is 150 feet in from the back end. The aircraft should stop within 200 feet under usual conditions. On CVF there is at that point 500 feet of deck ahead which includes the ski jump of approx. 200 feet. Where is the problem?

Going off the ski jump at less than flying speed is fine as long as there is enough time for the aircraft to accelerate further after leaving the ski jump. Probably the danger for a bolter is going too fast up the ramp but I would guess that will be taken care of by the bolter computer technology. At any rate it seems to me the bolter is highly unlikely except in some emergency situation one could dream up.

Again it seems to me to be a no brainer - otherwise why do the Brits pursue it? They are not silly. They invent new ways of doing NavAv. Good on them and good luck to 'em.

And note this: "....“Then you push the throttle about halfway up the throttle slide into a detent position at about 34% engine thrust request...." This is not engine RPM this is thrust (my experience has only ever been with RPM and vaguely only knowing what that might be (depending on circumstances) in actual thrust from engine. RPM % is not the same as thrust %. Different engines have different percentages of RPM to provide the same thrust percentage.

From the recent quotes and many others over the years it seems to me the F135 is a very powerful responsive engine near the ground and for example in FCLP gives up and away response bar none apparently. STOVL Mode I'll guess is very good also especially with more than 500 feet in front of the aircraft with a ski jump to boot. This distance with ski jump is better than the KPP for the Brit CVN for STO distance. Sheesh. They could stop AND go again - what a demo that would be.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3133
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post19 Jul 2014, 10:19

I keep talking about issues central to "powered lift" which is what STOVL is all about. Perhaps if you read some of the stuff you post, you would come to a better understanding of it. :wink:

It's real simple -- an F-35 that goes to idle at touchdown will take a long time to spool back up to thrust levels necessary for the jet to fly at bow/ramp exit if the intent is to bolter. If it doesn't go to idle at touchdown, then the residual thrust and position of the nozzles will affect either controllability on-deck during rollout (you're making the jet lighter on the gear), or the ability of the jet to stop within the desired distance (you're repositioning the thrust direction further aft).
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24750
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Jul 2014, 20:03

How about you get hold of the documents that I am able to only post part thereof. Otherwise post some details about what you refer to - rather than just make bland statements that mean little without said details.

For example we do not know under what circumstances an F-35B will be required to bolter. I could guess a few but these do not make sense to me without knowing more about SRVLs. However I would assume the pilot knows at touch down - because it has gone wrong for some reason - that he needs to bolter OR the pilot is instructed to bolter by the LSO for a reason not known at the time to the pilot. In these circumstances the pilot may touchdown and go to full power straight away so where is the problem? I can imagine that the aircraft computer controls configure the nozzles appropriately for the bolter quick smart. There is a video of the first STO showing the 3BSN moving quite rapidly along with other flight controls just before lift off. So we can gather that the nozzles/controls are not an issue to be configured for a bolter.

If as stated by a STO pilot that the throttle is slammed from 34% thrust then where is that a problem for SRVL? Which is itself a power on running landing with the engine already at some high thrust level and likely NOT going to your mythical low - is it RPM - 34% in one second. So you should read all the material on this thread and whatever is NOT on the thread in the documents/PDFs available online. You could read them for free if you download my PDFs on the matter. See my signature for clues to where they are and look for appropriate folder/file names.

And I'll repeat - to me it would seem that the SRVL is going to be a doddle in the appropriate circumstances for the ship/aircraft combination - because it is a flexible manoeuvre worked out for the weight and ship sea way / wind conditions at the time. The aircraft touches down in a zone that is safe, if the deck is moving a lot, that is within safe parameters for stopping (and I will guess for a bolter if that is somehow required). IF conditions are unsafe for an SRVL, for whatever reason, then the pilot safely drops whatever ordnance is required, to be able to the VL safely. Big deal.

You seem to make assumptions I have not made nor stated. I would think a bolter needs to occur immediately after touchdown - when there is a bolter requiring event. Once the aircraft is down and stopping safely then no bolter required. End of story.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24750
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Jul 2014, 22:34

For the record.... I had trouble earlier remembering how the Vampire/MACCHI MB326H conducted formation pair takeoffs. The aircraft (same as Vampire) being a training air force job was able to be at full power with the brakes on (unlike the A4G). So the Vampire/Macchi pair (in same type) would go to full power with leader then easing off power before signalling (in RAN - radio in RAAF) brakes off for takeoff (pilots would check engine OK in the short interval at full power with brakes on). The leader would be at about 97-98% RPM (the Vampire did not have a percentage RPM gauge but an actual RPM gauge so the leader would ease off a number of RPM - takeoff RPM was something like 10,750, shown on a three needle circular readout) - as I recall - to allow No.2 to keep up. The Sea Venom I flew was at the end of days with sometimes only one available so I never did a formation takeoff in it. Meanwhile here is a 'running landing' of some speed with STOs ashore and afloat video with a bit to show how quickly the 3BSN - and controls otherwise - can move.

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24750
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Jul 2014, 05:20

Carrier countdown
30 June 2014 Tim Robinson

"...TIM ROBINSON talks to some of the engineers responsible for putting the 'air' in aircraft carrier.

“The thing to bear in mind with the QEC,” says David Atkinson, F-35 Integration Lead, BAE Systems, “is the sheer scale of the flight deck. It is just huge — three times bigger than the Invincible-class deck.”...

...Leveraging simulation
Integration of the F-35 with the QEC, in particular, has harnessed the growing power of simulation and synthetic modelling to de-risk the process. Inside a F-35 motion simulator at BAE Warton's facility, test pilots can assess the aircraft in the landing pattern, develop CONOPS (CONcepts of OPerationS) and take-off and land on a ‘virtual’ HMS Queen Elizabeth. The simulation is not bound to the F-35B and QEC either — it can also emulate F-35C and CVN characteristics. Additionally, to enhance realism and develop procedures for take-off and recovery, other multiple ‘virtual’ F-35s can be inserted into the simulations — to allow the pilot to assess how a formation of aircraft would recover to the ship. Says Atkinson: “There is a unique capability here in the UK at BAE Systems at Warton, which is to simulate operation of the F-35 with our, or anybody else’s, aircraft carrier who provides their model to us.” He observes: “It is the result of many years of [flight simulation] experience in the facilties at Warton which has resulted in the leading edge that we have and can bring to bear on these two hugely important programmes.”

Though the F-35B’s advanced fly-by-wire flight control system has taken much of the hard work out of vertical landings — the simulation has already proved its worth in helping test the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) manoeuvre, which is a UK-specific landing technique that allows higher ‘bring-back’ (several thousand pounds additional weight) of weapons and fuel — especially in hot climates. SRVL sees the pilot land in hover mode but with forward speed — enabling the wings to generate useful lift. Unlike a traditional carrier approach at 130kts, where the pilot is prepared to ram the throttle open in case of a 'bolter' — the SRVL ends with the aircraft automatically moving the propulsion system to idle and the pilot applies the brakes. Input from test pilots in the simulator has also added SRVL-specific symbology — a ship-referenced velocity vector to the pilots HMDS (Helmet Mounted Display System), to better judge the approach path using this recovery technique.

Lights, camera, action
Indeed the SRVL concept has also made another change in the F-35/QE integration — that of a new stabilised lighting system or ‘Bedford Array'. Independent of the two glide path indicators (for both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft) in the port catwalk, this proprietary system, developed by QinetiQ and manufactured by AGI Ltd uses LED lights in the deck tramlines to provide a gyro-stabilised glidepath alignment cue and a forward and aft limit line to F-35B pilots carrying out SRVL approaches. The ‘Bedford Array’ approach lighting was trialed with QinetiQ's VAAC Harrier testbed in 2008. Indeed, work on the QEC visual landing aids goes back even further, to the very start of the CVF programme and these aids have been progressively developed using the Warton flight simulator.

The lighting on the QEC is innovative in other ways. Giant TV-style ‘departure boards' on the side of the islands allow information (and even video) to be viewed by flight deck personnel or aircrew sitting in readiness. It can also, if needed, project white light, acting as floodlights for maintenance or other operations at night.

Not your father's ski-jump
The QE-class's ski-jump, too, has been carefully designed and engineered from the beginning... The QEC's ski-jump is longer (200ft) than the Invincible-class (150ft) and designed so that the aircraft has all three (including the nose) wheels in contact right up until the point where the aircraft leaves the deck — giving positive nosewheel authority throughout. Additionally, the F-35Bs smart flight control system ‘knows’ when it is going up a ramp and will pre-position the control surfaces and effectors to launch at the optimum angle to avoid pitch-up or down.

Thermal challenges
However, the biggest engineering challenge in F-35 integration, says Atkinson, is the aero-thermal environment surrounding the hot-exhaust gas of the F-35B and its 40,000lb thrust F135 engine. This challenge is not novel to the F-35 but has been known about since the 1960s and the Hawker Siddeley P.1154, when it was realised that any supersonic P.1127/Harrier follow-on would need extra effort to tackle this problem. Indeed, a scale F-35 hot-gas test rig has been used at Warton for some years to explore the aircraft's external thermal environment.

For the QE-class this has been dealt with in the development of a thermal metal spray to protect the flight deck against high-exhaust temperatures. This says Atkinson, was a unique challenge — while thermal metal spray existed, for use on an aircraft carrier it had to combine heat-resistant properties with those needed by a flight deck — for example the friction characteristics needed to grip aircraft tyres in wet conditions. Thermal proofing measures such as higher temperature resistant paints and shields also extends to the catwalk and liferafts. Says Atkinson: “The historic STOVL knowledge and experience that was developed throughout the 60s to 80s has allowed UK understanding of ground erosion and hot gas to be brought to bear on this aircraft's ship interface.”..."

Source: http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blo ... -countdown
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24750
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Jul 2014, 22:23

There are some odd grammar constructions or howlers in original text - only some corrected below but a worthwhile look at what goes on for the SRVL in it.
BAE Systems use simulation to refine F-35 and QEC integration
21 July 2014 Berenice Baker

"...To optimise the interaction between the aircraft and the ship, BAE Systems uses the simulator to try out the positioning of lights, lines, cameras and information systems to enable the jet to perform the best it can.

The company's F-35 simulator facility at Warton has the same capabilities as the Lockheed Martin simulator at Dallas Fort Worth as part of the integration contract, but for the Ministry of Defence (MOD) it has integrated the ship model into the simulator.

"We've taken all the hydrodynamic data from the Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA) to ensure the motion of the ship is simulated correctly, and we've been able to trial them the latest design information of any options that have been running in the ACA in conjunction to being able to fly this aircraft as close to reality as possible," says Atkinson.

Visual landing aids
Each trial phase has involved six to eight test pilots, including team JSF integrated test pilots from Pax River & Fort Worth, to ensure the decisions that have been made can offer the capability they need form the ship when it goes into service.

"Since around 2003, we've been working on the visual landing aids on the flight deck, firstly the colour of the lights to catch the pilot's attention, how far apart, what the pilot sees out of the cockpit and side, hover height, cues the pilots would pick up on to position himself in the right place to conduct recover and launch from the ship," says Atkinson.

The ship motion can go from nothing right up to the maximum requirement for the ship - sea state 6 - enabling the BAE Systems team to push the limits through the whole programme to ensure that genuinely we will be able to operate the aircraft can be operated up to the requirement that the MOD has for the ship.

"As well as the pilot's point of view, we've extended the simulator to show what the guys in Flyco - flight control - see the situation and aircraft when it's hovering alongside the ship," says Atkinson.

The team has also been exploring option like deck floodlighting for maintenance activities. While the UK prefers using aircraft carriers in the dark, that is not universal among other navies, so this adds flexibility to interoperability. Having different lighting schemes that do not necessarily focus on the Royal Navy's needs enables operators from other navies whose pilots are used to different ways of illuminating flight decks.

ACA and team JSF support have together developed a fully-integrated set of visual landing aids for the QE class of aircraft carriers which will be installed on QE at Rosyth dockyard....

...LSO integration
To this end, BAE Systems is integrating its Warton simulator with a new LSO simulation facility that is part of the same virtual world so the LSO can sit at his workstation and interact in real time with a pilot flying the F-35 simulator.

"Scenarios can be presented to really stretch the limits of the interaction between the LSO and the pilots, including night, bad weather, the ship moving significantly or aspects of the aircraft or ship not quite working properly," says Atkinson. "We can explore that in a virtual environment and ensure we optimise that interface from day one."...

..."When we developed that it was unique in the world. We found our friends at NAVAIR picked up on that and they're now doing LSO-in-the-loop on their simulators as well," says Atkinson.

Developing new manoeuvres
The integrated simulation is now so comprehensive it can be used to develop new manoeuvres, including not just the ability of the aircraft to do the manoeuvre itself, but also the concept of operations, the visual landing aids needed on the ship, and what the LSO's feed from Flyco.

"For the MOD we're been developing this concept of ship-borne rolling landing to enhance the bring-back clearance for on the F-35B to the QEC flight deck," explains Atkinson. "The QEC flight deck is big enough to enable us to do a forward-rolling vertical landing to the flight-deck then stop using the aircraft's own brakes..."

Source: http://www.naval-technology.com/feature ... n-4321576/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24750
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Jul 2014, 07:23

On the 16th July 2014 a similar article (more or less the same) was pubbed by BerryNICE so in the above artickle these last two paras were missing. I like 'em - so here they are....
INSIGHT – BAE Systems uses simulation to refine F-35 and QEC integration
16 Jul 2014 Berenice Baker

"...Cues in the pilot’s helmet-mounted display will indicate that it is time to catch the final descent path down to the ship. This is a critical stage in the manoeuvre from a ship integration point of view, ensuring the pilot has all the necessary information to land, and conversely the ship needs to check from its point of view the pilot is on the correct path and can confidently allow the aircraft to land on the ship.

BAE Systems’ integrated simulation system is doing more than preparing pilots and shop crew for the first real flights of the F-35B from the QEC carriers, it is also revealing new ways in which aircraft and ship can be better used together."

Source: http://www.strategicdefenceintelligence ... and_qec_i/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests