Why the F 35 C?

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23330
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 May 2016, 04:36

Thanks - not seen that emergency hook short field arrest photo before. There is quite a bit of info about it on this forum. I see the link to photo shows it is at Edwards AFB - so I'll guess there is a story about AF-04 testing it or wotnot MAY 2016?

http://www.edwards.af.mil/shared/media/ ... 99-461.jpg
JSF tailhook testing begins at Edwards
11 May 2016 Kenji Thuloweit 412th Test Wing Public Affairs

"5/11/2016 - EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- When most people hear "tailhook" they think of U.S. Navy planes and aircraft carriers. However, almost all U.S. combat aircraft have a tailhook.

That also goes for the Air Force's new F-35A Joint Strike Fighter.

The JSF Integrated Test Force here conducted the first set of tests for the F-35A's tailhook. F-35s have landed using a tailhook before, but not at the speeds and weights being tested now.

By nature, Navy aircraft need tailhooks to catch arresting wires on aircraft carriers. The Navy's version of the JSF - the F-35C - has a significantly more robust tailhook that is designed differently for Navy purposes.

On Air Force planes tailhooks are only used to help the jet stop when landing distance is insufficient or if the jet has a brake malfunction or directional control issue. They are designed as a one-time use device whereas Navy tailhooks like on the F-35C can deploy, retract and stow.

"In the big picture, the F-35A tailhook is designed to stop the jet in an emergency primarily," said Maj. Corey Florendo, 461st Flight Test Squadron project test pilot. "We have to make sure the system works as designed and as specified. We're out there to verify the performance of the system, up to and including the worst case conditions we can possibly envision."

The initial testing included powering the F-35A at 180 knots over the ground; about 200 miles an hour.

As high speed cameras record, AF-04 from the 461st FLTS speeds down the runway. Engineers plan the time to deploy the tailhook, and when the time comes, the test pilot deploys the hook to catch an arresting cable in place to safely stop the fighter. Data is collected and the video footage is reviewed.

"There's a lot of parameters that we're looking at. Obviously, we're curious about the forces on the hook. Aside from just the numbers, we're also curious if the tailhook system is going to be safe. 'Is the cable going to do something like hook the main landing gear and not the cable?' No one has done this before, and before this happens to someone out in the Air Force, we want to see it and make sure it works," Florendo said.

AF-04 had several successful engagements with the tailhook and arresting cable, which will clear the path for additional tests coming up. Florendo said they will be looking at different "offsets" in future tests.

"Ideally you want to be in the center of the runway, but we want to also test to see what happens when the pilot is not in the center," he said.

Like most other test projects on Edwards, JSF tailhook testing requires heavy coordination throughout different organizations on base and off.

"Obviously, we're not the only program that executes here at Edwards," said Andrew Soundy, Lockheed Martin experimental test pilot. "We have the main runway that has the permanent cables attached, so if we're doing cable testing or landing gear testing, we really need sole use of the runway. If we used the permanent cables, we would severely impact the outer runway."

That's where the Air Force's 820th RED HORSE Airmen from Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, come in. RED HORSE stands for rapid engineer deployable heavy operational repair squadron engineers. The team set up the mobile aircraft arresting system on Edwards' 12,000-foot inside runway so impact on other flight operations is minimal during testing.

"I've been involved in a lot of test projects over the year, this one has probably the most input from multiple different agencies and it's great to see the way it's all come together," said Soundy.

"The big thing to me is the team effort that's been going on here at Edwards. This is a great place to be doing testing with the weather that we get here and the experience we have here; all those teams coming together to make this happen has been great."

Testing will continue this summer."

Source: http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123473739
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

35_aoa

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 506
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Unread post12 May 2016, 07:50

spazsinbad wrote:The F-35C must have excellent engine & control responses - also now there is Delta Flight Path or IDLC Integrated Direct Lift Control which with flaps/throttle moving automatically to keep the F-35C on speed and on glideslope the pilot can spend more time on accurate line up to arrest on target wire every time.


You had me at "DLC"……seriously, that will be huge and I am glad someone aside from Grumman has given that concept a rebirth. I have been known to use a little "Hornet DLC" here and there, i.e. a little rocking/wagging of the wings from in close to at the ramp, but that technique can get a guy in a lot of trouble real fast if they aren't careful, especially in a combat loaded F/A-18C at max trap in the persian gulf. Couple IDLC with "magic carpet" and I think there will be a lot of kids out there who won't have to suffer through the school of hard knocks that you or I did behind the boat at night. Which in my opinion is a good thing. Landing shouldn't be the biggest thing on your mind when you are still over bad guy land at night or as the sun goes down and you know you are about to head home.
Offline

aquietguy

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: 11 May 2016, 19:39

Unread post12 May 2016, 08:36

Thanks for all the responses. I wondered about that after learning about the excellent slow speed handing.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23330
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 May 2016, 08:59

Mention NavAv (Naval Aviation - especially conventional) and I'll have a Video or PDF or two about it from my research/own experience now a long time ago. Searching the F-35 forum for IDLC will find some good results such as: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=28046&p=311220&hilit=IDLC#p311220

Only a few years ago now a lot of good NavAv info was taken offline for whatever reason. APPROACH magazines of yore have gone offline also which is a real shame for the old bastards like me. So my PDFs have info/stories (from APPROACH) that is no longer at the URLs of origin. Delta Flight Path would be another F-35 forum search term.

There are some good videos about IDLC/Delta Flight Path - I'll post some of them below - usually from TAILHOOKs.

















[youtube[X-pWG4T65f0[/youtube]





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

35_aoa

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 506
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Unread post12 May 2016, 09:49

I've said it before, but I will say it again Spaz…….you need to carve out some time in your life to come to 'Hook. It is worth the 15 hour flight. There is even an A-4 admin, mostly manned by old grey haired guys, but at least sometimes visited by lost much younger ladies :)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23330
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 May 2016, 10:01

:doh: Freck :devil: :mrgreen: Who do you think I am but an old grey haired bearded git?! :roll: Thanks for the invite but as mentioned at beginning of this year I had a health scare which may be an issue; whilst I was not likely to travel to TAILHOOK - except virtually (with the ladies virtue intact). :twisted: :shock: Probably about a decade or more ago now one of our most senior experienced RAN FAA pilots went to TAILHOOK (he had flown Sea Furies in Korea off HMAS Sydney, then became CO of 805 Sea Venoms off HMAS Melbourne then the first CO again now with VF-805 off MELBOURNE in 1969). Anyway he said he was 'overwhelmed'. :wink:

I spent a month at NAS Miramar with VFP-63 back in early 1973 (not flying though) and I was overwhelmed at the 'O' Club also. :mrgreen: Not to mention visits to NAS Cubi Point early 1972 and NAS Barbers Point late 1971 with VF-805 so I have experience at the 'tired and emotional' aspect of it all. :) These days I need to be healthy to HARANGUE people here. 8)

A lady on the MAGIC CARPET.

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: 23330
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 May 2016, 10:45

Pity we ended up with this F-35A emergency hook testing on an unrelated thread so bear with... THEN ZOOOOOOMMMMM!

http://www.edwards.af.mil/shared/media/ ... 99-413.jpg

SO TO COMPENSATE here is the video which shoulda bin in the other list above.
F-35 New Flight Control Software
Published on Jul 24, 2012 NAVAIRSYSCOM

"A F-35 Joint Strike Fighter test pilot discusses new flight control software
to aid in carrier approaches. Video courtesy of Lockheed Martin."

Attachments
160505-F-ZZ999-413.jpg
F-35AedwardsHookTestZoom.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2305
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post13 May 2016, 16:54

I understand that the F-35C will have more drag and weight, but why wouldn't an F-35C body built with USAF-specific kit (internal gun, boom receptacle, etc.) be a better all around option? The F-35A has a bigger internal bay, but at Max loads it's going to be hard on its gear and it's fuel burn is going to be relatively high with it's higher wing loading. The level acceleration difference should be much less different at those weights, too, because the A is going to be in higher trim. As the program matures and the available engine power gets further opened up, it would seem the bigger wing will only be more of a plus.
Offline

slapshot!

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 162
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 00:26

Unread post13 May 2016, 17:02

madrat wrote:I understand that the F-35C will have more drag and weight, but why wouldn't an F-35C body built with USAF-specific kit (internal gun, boom receptacle, etc.) be a better all around option? The F-35A has a bigger internal bay, but at Max loads it's going to be hard on its gear and it's fuel burn is going to be relatively high with it's higher wing loading. The level acceleration difference should be much less different at those weights, too, because the A is going to be in higher trim. As the program matures and the available engine power gets further opened up, it would seem the bigger wing will only be more of a plus.


Because the F35A is built to what the Air Force actually wants.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23330
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 May 2016, 18:41

The F-35B has the smaller internal bays compared to the same same F-35A & C bays AFAIK - same load capacity anyway.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7703
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post13 May 2016, 20:48

Because the F-35C is going to weigh more and you are paying by the pound. The extra weight does not add any significant capability to the AF but the cost burden would add up and almost certainly result in a smaller fleet.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6001
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post13 May 2016, 23:42

madrat wrote:I understand that the F-35C will have more drag and weight, but why wouldn't an F-35C body built with USAF-specific kit (internal gun, boom receptacle, etc.) be a better all around option? The F-35A has a bigger internal bay, but at Max loads it's going to be hard on its gear and it's fuel burn is going to be relatively high with it's higher wing loading. The level acceleration difference should be much less different at those weights, too, because the A is going to be in higher trim. As the program matures and the available engine power gets further opened up, it would seem the bigger wing will only be more of a plus.


[/quote]


If anything I would be curious to see if the gun pod is more attractive over time and the gun removed on later A variants <shrug>
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3283
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post13 May 2016, 23:49

XanderCrews wrote:
madrat wrote:I understand that the F-35C will have more drag and weight, but why wouldn't an F-35C body built with USAF-specific kit (internal gun, boom receptacle, etc.) be a better all around option? The F-35A has a bigger internal bay, but at Max loads it's going to be hard on its gear and it's fuel burn is going to be relatively high with it's higher wing loading. The level acceleration difference should be much less different at those weights, too, because the A is going to be in higher trim. As the program matures and the available engine power gets further opened up, it would seem the bigger wing will only be more of a plus.



If anything I would be curious to see if the gun pod is more attractive over time and the gun removed on later A variants <shrug>

Well, how much would have to be re-tested for an 'A variant with the B/C fuel tanks instead of a gun?
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

yeswepromise

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 143
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2014, 03:32

Unread post14 May 2016, 01:00

perhaps i should have put af04 in its own thread huh
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23330
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 May 2016, 13:11

:mrgreen: This is a tricky forum eh but what the hey... HERE is some more INFO on why the F-35C IS SOOOO HEAVY - MAN. :devil:
The C at Sea: The F-35 Aboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower
02 Oct 2015 USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN-69)

"...Jim Gigliotti, a Navy Veteran whose 28-year Naval Aviation career included aircraft operations and test tours of duty as well as Command of the Aircraft Carrier USS Harry S Truman.... gave us a few more details about DT-II.

Tough Enough
A standard airframe for a fighter jet is made out of the lightest but strongest materials possible. But for the F-35C, those standard materials won’t cut it. Carrier-based operations are very unforgiving to an aircraft because of the roughness of arrested landings and catapult takeoffs. Aircraft not specifically designed for ship operations would be unable to cope with the harsh carrier environment and would not survive the loads and stresses put on the vehicle. So the airframe, or the “skeleton,” of the F-35C contains a significant amount of titanium, one of the strongest metals available.

As a result, the F-35C weighs 5,500 pounds more than an A variant
, which is designed to perform conventional takeoff and landings – on land. The B-variant (which is also capable of ship operations) contains titanium as well, but because the short takeoffs and vertical landings it performs aren’t as stressing as arrested landings and catapult takeoffs, not as much titanium is necessary.

In addition to needing a sturdier airframe, the F-35’s stealth coatings must be capable of standing up to the harsh and sometimes unpredictable weather conditions in an at-sea environment. So how does the F-35’s stealth coating hold up?

“For almost the last decade, we’ve been putting panels that are made the same way F-35 panels are made on legacy aircraft that are deployed at-sea,” explains Gigliotti. “This was meant to check just that – how well do the coatings wear on this aircraft?” In addition, climactic tests have been conducted on the aircraft to ensure it can withstand extreme heat, cold and moisture...."

Photo: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... _main.jpeg

Source: https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/the ... eisenhower
Attachments
F-35CspaghettiCVN.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Previous

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: usnvo and 24 guests