Caution light causes F-35A to make unscheduled landing

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

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post16 Mar 2013, 18:17

johnwill wrote:
neurotech wrote:Politics. The Navy, especially Vadm. Tom Connolly, were very critical of the F-111B. Too heavy for carrier use. The F-111 wasn't suited to the "fighter" role, carrier or not. It became a successful tactical strike aircraft, and subsequently, EF-111 "Sparkvark".


Not sure why you drug the 111B into this discussion, but once again, I will leap to its defense. I posted this information about a month ago, so look it up if you want the entire post. The 111B was 2000 lb heavier than the F-14 empty. It also carried 7000 lb more internal fuel, had an internal bay for two Phoenix missiles, and a crew escape cabin. There is no way the F-14 could have handled the 111B mission (fleet air defense), so the Navy changed its mission to a much shorter ranged one.

Politics?

I apologize if I sounded unduly critical. It was politics in that Sec. McNamara was basically pushing a AF "fighter" onto the Navy, and nobody would dare criticize that decision.

Maybe the "too heavy" comment was inaccurate, but if memory serves me correctly, the F-111 had a higher approach speed than the F-14 by about 15-20kts, and wasn't easy to land on a carrier.

I don't think there is any current jet that is "easy" to land on a carrier. The F/A-18F is pretty good, and the F-35C will probably be even better. If they had strengthened the F-35A and put it on a carrier deck, with the higher approach speed, then it wouldn't perform so well, even if the visibility issues were resolved.

And you are correct that the F-111B and F-14A/B had very different roles. The F-111B would have done fine as a long-range interceptor, and was quite effective as a low-level strike aircraft as well. Your point about range is noted, the F-14A didn't exactly have very long range, compared to the F-111B.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23322
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Mar 2013, 23:16

Nevada air base begins F-35 testing; more jets to come 19 Mar 2013

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ ... M620130319

"(Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force on Tuesday marked the start of operational testing of Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 stealth fighter at an air base near Las Vegas, but one of four initial jets to be tested remained in Texas after an unscheduled landing en route to the base last week.

Lockheed officials said the fourth F-35 A-model was unable to fly to Nellis Air Force Base as planned on Tuesday, but it was not immediately clear if it was bad weather or other issues that prevented the jet's departure.

The state-of-the-art fighter jet has been parked at a commercial airport in Lubbock, Texas, since March 11
after a caution light came on in the cockpit during its flight from the Lockheed plant in Fort Worth, Texas, to the Nevada air base, requiring the pilot to land.

The incident was the latest in negative news about the $396 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, which has been grounded twice this year for engine-related issues.

Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the Pentagon's F-35 program office, said the caution light was set off by wiring connector issues with the plane's flight control system, and had been repaired. The plane was now cleared for flight, he said.

DellaVedova noted that the F-35 has redundant flight control systems, and there was no "safety of flight issue" involved when the pilot landed at Lubbock airport last week.

It was not immediately clear when the F-35 A-model would continue its journey to the Nevada air base. Aside from one night in a fenced area, the plane has been kept in a guarded hangar at the airport, according to airport officials.

Orlando Carvalho, who served as Lockheed's F-35 program manager until Monday, when he was named to replace Larry Lawson as head of Lockheed's aeronautics division, attended Tuesday's ceremony marking the start of testing at the Nevada air base.

"The work done by the Nellis team will forge the F-35 into the fighter of the future and test it to its limits. Their skilled pilots and maintainers will take the F-35's performance to new heights," Carvalho said in a statement.

Lockheed has delivered 24 conventional takeoff and landing A-model F-35s to the Air Force, and 58 in total to the Pentagon.

The Air Force squadron at Nellis Air Force Base will start testing and training with four F-35s initially, but by 2019, a total of 12 F-35s will be assigned to the base.

Lockheed is developing and building three models of the F-35 fighter for the U.S. military and eight countries that are helping to fund its development: Britain, Canada, Norway, Italy, Turkey, Australia, the Netherlands and Denmark. Israel and Japan have also placed orders for the new radar-evading warplane.

Officials from the U.S. military and the eight countries funding the plane's development are meeting in Washington on Wednesday for a twice-yearly review of progress on the single-seat, single-engine jet."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

exfltsafety

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 338
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 19:11

Unread post20 Mar 2013, 02:01

spazsinbad wrote:The state-of-the-art fighter jet has been parked at a commercial airport in Lubbock, Texas, since March 11 ...

That's interesting. So I guess Lubbock Airport Executive Director James Loomis was either misunderstood by the press or was misinforming the press when it was written that the jet had departed same day at 5:30 PM??
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post20 Mar 2013, 02:32

exfltsafety wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:The state-of-the-art fighter jet has been parked at a commercial airport in Lubbock, Texas, since March 11 ...

That's interesting. So I guess Lubbock Airport Executive Director James Loomis was either misunderstood by the press or was misinforming the press when it was written that the jet had departed same day at 5:30 PM??
My money is on misleading the press to dissuade readers from getting too curious. No harm, no foul.
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2118
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post20 Mar 2013, 02:38

neurotech,

Thanks for your response, appreciated. My point about politics was that while the McNamara decision was political, the Navy decision to drop the 111B and switch to the F-14 was even more so.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23322
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Mar 2013, 03:27

'neurotech' said "...I don't think there is any current jet that is "easy" to land on a carrier. The F/A-18F is pretty good, and the F-35C will probably be even better. If they had strengthened the F-35A and put it on a carrier deck, with the higher approach speed, then it wouldn't perform so well, even if the visibility issues were resolved...."

The F-35C was designed to fulfil the KPP required for deck landing that also took into account the ability of the arrestor gear in use now and in future to handle the required bringback weight at or below the maximum airspeed at Optimum Angle of Attack. These considerations are not in effect for the F-35A variant however by all accounts the difference in higher airspeed for A is about 15 knots +/- a few knots with apparently not much consideration for maximum flared landing weight/airspeed except for runway length / conditions for braking.

Here is an LSO & test pilot take on it:

F-35C Approach Criteria – Maximum Landing Weight, Optimum Angle of Attack & KIAS

"The C-model is as solid as a rock and pilots land at a much slower speed—high 120s to low 130s [KIAS]."

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_arti ... tem_id=110
____________________

"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 & 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."

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html
_______________

"The [F-35C] 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].
Due to the fact that flap scheduling is completely automatic, the cockpit was designed without a flaps switch. Additionally, the tail hook retracts into the fuselage and is covered by hook doors that have an as-yet-to-be-determined airspeed limitation..." LT. Dan "Butters" Radocaj VX-23 Ship Suitability

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

Knowles says the [C] aircraft approached at 135 kt., compared with 155 kt. for the smaller-winged F-35A & B variants at the same 40,000-lb. gross weight. Takeoff rotation speed was 15-20 kt. slower, he says.

http://web02.aviationweek.com/aw/generi ... ht%20Goals
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2279
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post20 Mar 2013, 17:25

Salute!

Good links, Spaz.

I can't find the references to the flight control laws for the Bee.

At our tour last year, the Marine dude told us that they use a different approach than with the Harrier. The way I understood it was the stick controls up and down, left-right. The throttle controls forward or backward. I'll talk to my Harrier buddy about what it did ( a fellow Dluf and Viper pilot with a RAF tour in the Harrier). The Marine echoed what a USAF pilot said - looking down thru the floor made spot landings a piece o' cake.

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23322
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Mar 2013, 18:42

INcepts are the buzz word :D and a PDF can be found on this page: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... pts#242831 with a downloadable PDF from this source: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 02360.html

ThUSly: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-16982.html (1.5Mb) VACCharrierInceptsFarleyFrightGlobalpp4.pdf 2 original + 2 extra pages = 4 total pages.
________________

Plus: http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk.nyud.net/do ... -Story.pdf (25.6Mb) with a story about the INcepts inCEPTION by John Farley attached now here 10 page PDF (0.35Mb).

A V/STOL FLIGHT CONTROL JOURNEY ENABLED BY RAE SCIENTISTS by John Farley

After much testing and discussion amongst the test pilots involved the UNIFIED control laws were selected for the F-35B STOVL mode.
_____________________

Excerpt from the above story:

"ANNEX – CONTROL LAW RESEARCH USING THE VAAC HARRIER by John Farley

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk.nyud.net/do ... -Story.pdf

Two decades ago the controversial aspects of the Unified law were well appreciated by the VAAC team. This led them to thoroughly flight test various other concepts. By 1999 they were left with three serious contenders: Unified, Mode Change and Fusion.

UNIFIED. Unified was the most radical mode. Here the pilot pulls back on the stick to go up and pushes to go down, regardless of airspeed. At all speeds above 40 kt ground speed the stick commands flight path rate and so relaxing it to the centre position when the aircraft is flying level maintains height. If the aircraft is in a climb or a dive, relaxing the stick maintains the existing climb or dive flight path angle. As the aircraft decelerates through 40 kt the stick response blends to become a height rate control by 30 kt ground speed so, in the hover, with stick centre commanding zero height rate, it appears to the pilot as a height hold.

When flying up and away lateral stick commands roll rate. This blends between 130 and 100 kt to become a closed loop roll attitude control, so that relaxing the stick to centre below 100 kt commands wings level. Above 40 kt ground speed the rudder pedals command sideslip. Decelerating below this speed the pedals blend to a yaw rate command by 30 kt, providing a heading hold in the hover with feet central.

A throttle-type left hand inceptor, incorporating two detents, commands longitudinal acceleration.

Putting the inceptor in the centre detent holds the current speed. Acceleration or deceleration is selected by moving the lever forward or aft of the detent, with full travel demanding maximum available performance. Decelerating through 35 kt ground speed starts a blend and below 25 kt the aft detent commands zero ground speed. Either side of the aft detent gives the pilot a closed loop control of ground speed up to 30 kt forwards or backwards.

In summary, if the pilot centres both the stick and throttle when flying on the wings, the aircraft holds the existing speed, bank attitude and climb or dive angle. In the hover, centralising everything maintains the existing hover height, position and heading. Such hover characteristics are the stuff of dreams for every Harrier pilot at the start of their conversion although, as discussed earlier, many experienced Harrier pilots were critical of Unified...."
Attachments
A VSTOL FLIGHT CONTROL JOURNEY ENABLED BY RAE Farley Journal-35A-Seminar-the-RAF-Harrier-Story GS.pdf
(330.06 KiB) Downloaded 415 times
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: 23322
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Mar 2013, 19:35

Other references to "Unified" will get results (with more excerpts) with reference to Mike Skaff movie, such as:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ied#242760 (movie + extra excerpts from reference above)

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ied#242814
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post24 Mar 2013, 18:02

Intrigue surrounding the Lubbock divert:

http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/?p=984
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23322
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Mar 2013, 19:14

That DubleDuckMan invents stuff. For example this forum topic is here and the 14 Mar 2013 'FastFacts' PDF is still here [with updated Reuters story above]:

"...Removal of the official Press Release and website topics
...Saturday March 23, 2013 several weblogs were asked to remove the PDF and some critical statements of persons who had read the PDF.
One exemple: at the website F16-net (F35-newsforum) the main topics “program documents”, the sub topic “Lubbock Emergency landing” and a main topic about “first fligts/test progress” were removed. Why?..."

Download the same PDF that is still here here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-17263.html

Talk about get your finger in a dyke.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5997
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post24 Mar 2013, 21:32

maus92 wrote:Intrigue surrounding the Lubbock divert:

http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/?p=984


That's what passes for intrigue? The airport manager doesn't know whats going on or the press misreported it? :roll:

Years ago I was told all over the internet that LM was throwing "suitcases of cash" all over the world and this is intrigue?
Offline

gtx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 658
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 21:52
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Unread post24 Mar 2013, 22:05

Christ! Talking about clutching at straws to make up anti-F-35 conspiracies...
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post29 Mar 2013, 14:41

Here's another straw:

More Problems For F35 Jet Diverted To Lubbock International Airport
By: Allison Morrison | Updated: March 29, 2013

"A new problem for the F35 fighter jet that made an emergency landing in Lubbock two weeks ago.

Lockheed Martin officials tell us the jet tried to leave Lubbock and fly back to Ft. Worth this week, but experienced a problem with a communications channel of the flight control system and couldn't leave.

The jet has been at Lubbock International Airport since March 11th, when a warning light forced the pilot to land here instead of Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada.

The fighter jet remains at Lubbock International Airport this morning."

http://everythinglubbock.com/fulltext?nxd_id=167562


Cannot confirm the veracity of the reporting, but this seems weird.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23322
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 Mar 2013, 18:58

More weird insinuations? LordyLordy. What is weird about the aircraft being U/S? (UnServiceable) If it is broke it has to be fixed before flight - not fixed in flight. Now that would be weird.
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 14 guests