F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2011, 20:22
by neptune
F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing :D
Posted by Amy Butler at 6/28/2011 1:25 PM CDT

F-35 CF-2 arrived June 25 at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst, NJ, to begin a series of tests in preparation for carrier trials in 2013.

During JBD testing, a Naval Air Systems Command team will assess deck heating, JBD panel cooling and vibro-acoustic, thermal and hot-gas ingestion environments, according to Navy officials.

Arrival at the center is a step toward several testing milestones through which prime contractor Lockheed Martin can earn award in 2011.

Meanwhile, a test team is conducting "maturity flights" on AF-6 and 7, two conventional F-35 variants, at Edwards AFB, Calif. These are in preparation for clearance to begin an operational utility evaluation, which will allow professional testers a hands-on look at the F-35 prior to the commencement of formal training, slated for this fall.

Source: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

RE: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2011, 20:40
by Asif

F-35 carrier variant CF-2 flies to NAVAIR at Joint Base McGuire-Dix from NAS Patuxent River on June 25th, 2011 for Jet Blast Deflector testing. [Lockheed Martin photo by Michael D. Jackson]

RE: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2011, 13:16
by spazsinbad

RE: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2011, 20:22
by spazsinbad
F-35 Jet Blast Deflector Testing Underway at Lakehurst

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/pres ... ector.html

"LAKEHURST, N.J., July 7th, 2011 -- F-35C Lightning II carrier variant aircraft CF-2 is performing Jet Blast Deflector (JBD) tests at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey. The JBD, located behind the catapults aboard aircraft carriers, deflects high energy exhaust from the engine to prevent damage and injury to other aircraft and personnel located in close proximity. JBD testing is one portion of the tests required to ensure the F-35C is compatible aboard the aircraft carrier. Testing continues with varying distances between the aircraft and JBD, and at power settings up to and including maximum afterburner power. CF-2 arrived at Lakehurst on June 25 for JBD tests. (Lockheed Martin photo by Andy Wolfe)"

BIGpic: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/asse ... 306_29.jpg

Image
________________________

& Thanks to 'solomon' at SNAFU! more BigPics:
[also here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedma ... 63/detail/]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Yye811NtreI/T ... 6e7c_o.jpg
&
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bh9wh7TaMeg/T ... 84e6_o.jpg

Image

Image

RE: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2011, 03:18
by neptune
Racking Up the test points! Bad day for the nay sayers! :D

RE: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2011, 23:54
by spazsinbad
F-35C completes first jet blast deflector testing

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=4691

"NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – Using F-35C test aircraft CF-2, the F-35 integrated test force based at Naval Air Station Patuxent River collaborated with the aircraft launch and recovery engineering team at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst to complete the first jet blast deflector (JBD) testing July 8.

The JBD testing collected data on the effects of the F-35C engine exhaust on fleet-representative 4- and 6-panel JBD units and the flight deck in front of the JBDs, measuring temperatures, pressures, sound levels and velocities to collect environmental data and validate a JBD cooling panel configuration model.

“From an aircraft perspective, the testing went without a hitch,” said Tom Briggs, air vehicle engineering lead. “We adjusted to weather delays to complete 40 test points on schedule, all because of the teamwork between the ITF, Lakehurst and industry crews.”

Each Nimitz-class aircraft carrier has a JBD for each of its four catapults. The size, cooling configuration and angle to the catapult vary slightly between the four, so the test team had to repeat various tests – military and limited afterburner power takeoffs – for the various JBD configurations.

“We’ve learned a lot and our technical capabilities have expanded immensely since the original JBD testing for the F/A-18 about ten years ago,” said Kathy Donnelly, senior executive for aircraft launch, recovery and support equipment engineering at Lakehurst. “We’re able to bring in a lot more rigor to the F-35C testing so the fleet will be well prepared for its introduction.”

With greater technical capabilities today, the single aircraft JBD testing will be repeated with an F/A-18 to collect the same data. This will allow for comparison between the two aircraft and the development of a combined cooling model for the entire fleet.

The test team also collaborated with Naval Sea Systems Command during the testing to measure the effects of heat on the flight deck.

Future carrier suitability testing is scheduled for later this summer, including JBD testing with two aircraft, catapult launches and arrestments in preparation for initial ship trials in 2013.

BIGPic: http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/ ... 59_001.jpg

Image

RE: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2011, 04:19
by spazsinbad
JBD Testing A Key Step For Joint Strike Fighter Aviation Week & Space Technology Jul 18, 2011 p. 84
by Amy Butler | Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/lakehurst/nl ... esting.pdf (125Kb)

"Jet-blast deflector tests set stage for carrier-based F-35 cat/trap work
Not Just Hot Air


The multinational Joint Strike Fighter drew fire last year from all sides, including its international customers, the U.S. Congress and—most publicly—then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates owing to ballooning cost, delayed deliveries and unacceptably slow testing progress. Gates admonished prime contractor Lockheed Martin by withholding more than $600 million of award fee, fired the project’s two-star general officer, and slowed the development and production portions of the F-35, the largest single aviation program in Pentagon history. Seven months into 2011, Vice Adm. David Venlet has begun to express cautious optimism about the numerous steps needed to begin pilot training in the fall, progress toward ship-based trials of the F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) Marine Corps variant, and improvements in the overall pace of testing. These are key strides toward fielding the stealthy, single-engine F-35 in the U.S. and abroad, but years of work still lie ahead. Senior Pentagon Editor Amy Butler was given exclusive access to view a portion of the trials at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J., designed to validate models for the interface between the carrier-based F-35C and the jet-blast deflectors, which are used for catapult launches from ships.

Early results from testing the interface of the F-35C and ship-based jet-blast deflectors (JBDs) are easing the minds of experts in the field about how the new fighter will operate at sea.

Use of the F-35C with JBDs is only one of many pieces that must be validated prior to shipboard trials on a U.S. aircraft carrier in 2013, but the results so far are promising, says Kathy Donnelly, director of engineering for aircraft launch and recovery equipment at Lakehurst. “If you got asked a year ago [about this interface], we would have been much more pessimistic,” she told Aviation Week as the F-35C’s F135 engine roared only yards away during a test run.

Jet-blast deflectors facilitate rapid catapult launches of carrier-based aircraft on a deck by allowing operators to line up and launch in quick succession.

Thus far, the testing is validating computer models that provide detailed predictions of how much heat a JBD must withstand to support routine operations of the F-35C at sea. JBDs are panels on the decks of aircraft carriers used to physically divert the hot exhaust as aircraft take off for missions. As an aircraft is prepared for flight, it rolls over the JBD into position on a catapult and the JBD is then hydraulically lifted at an angle behind it. The deflectors protect the deck from excessive heating while allowing for other aircraft to line up behind the launching aircraft; this supports rapid takeoffs, which are especially critical for surveillance and strike missions.

At first glance, JBDs do not look sophisticated; they appear as panels of concrete and metal. However, their design is based on precise engineering, says Donnelly. As new jet fighters are introduced into the fleet, engineers must validate the JBD design against the hot emissions of the new engines; modern fighter exhaust can reach temperatures of 2,300F or higher.

Water veins are designed in a precise pattern in the JBD to keep it relatively cool and to allow for more rapid aircraft launch tempos—in this case, simulating up to six successive launches. The most recent JBD design was crafted to support introduction of the Boeing F/A18E/F Super Hornet onto the decks of U.S. carriers. With its two General Electric F414 engines, this aircraft emits a different heat signature from that of the single Pratt & Whitney F135 on the F-35. While testing is aimed at exploring whether changes need to be made to the cooling-vein pattern on the JBD for F-35C operations, another goal is to determine if these deflectors can support both types of aircraft.

CF-02 was flown to Lakehurst June 25 for roughly two weeks of the F-35-only phase of JBD testing, which wrapped up July 8. The aircraft returned to NAS Patuxent River, Md., to join the carrier-version test fleet. CF-01 was originally slated to conduct the JBD testing, but its sister aircraft was substituted in at the last minute owing to a maintenance issue; CF-01 remains at NAS Patuxent River, Md. Alex Cadiz, a Navy chief aviation structural mechanic, says switching out the aircraft was seamless. CF-02 was outfitted with microphones on its vertical tails, as one of the goals of the trials is to examine the acoustics around the aircraft as it launches from a carrier. This will aid in crafting ear-protection devices for deck crews if new equipment is needed.

During the test runs, CF-02 is tethered; actual takeoffs and landings do not take place. The aircraft is planted at varying distances from the JBD and at different angles to simulate actual launch positions, says Tom Briggs, the flight-test engineer overseeing JBD testing. The trials are also designed to understand how common deck problems, such as a catapult malfunction, could affect the JBD; in one scenario, the launching aircraft blasted hot exhaust onto the JBD for a longer duration than a simple aircraft launch.

Lockheed Martin test pilot Dan Canin commanded different levels of engine power for various intervals. One example of a cycle is 10 sec. of standard military power, 30 sec. of limited afterburner and another 60 sec. at idle.

Ambient temperatures exceeded 90F with extremely high humidity during the JBD testing. This, however, is well within the normal operating temperatures on carrier decks. Briggs notes that carrier decks can reach 120F in some areas, such as the Mediterranean Sea.

Lakehurst is the only land-based facility of its kind in the world that is able to conduct detailed data collection of this sort, says Jonathan Myers, the lead JBD site engineer here. The JBD facility had been virtually dormant since the Super Hornet was tested during its development. As part of a year-long preparation of the site for JSF, officials procured six JBD “panels” and added instruments to collect data. Each aircraft carrier has three catapults operating with six-panel JBDs, and a single position—the outermost from the control tower—functions with four panels. The test configuration can be adjusted to collect readings on both types.

New for the F-35 testing was the installation of a 30,000-gal. water tank, designed to cool the fluid being fed into the JBD veins. While at sea, ships have an unlimited supply of cool ocean water to circulate through the JBD. But during Super Hornet tests, engineers were forced to stop and start the trials owing to problems with keeping the JBD water supply cool, Myers says.

Available instruments were also limited in number and function during the Super Hornet JBD trials. The instruments placed on intricate scaffolding behind the JBD have roughly doubled for the F-35 work. And Myers says these sensors are more sophisticated. During F/A-18 E/F trials, the sensors could measure only temperatures and wind in a single direction, says Tony Favorito, an aerospace engineer at Lakehurst. The sensors today can “measure anything coming at them” and take pressure readings from various directions. This is optimal because air behind the jet engine is “typically turbulent,” he notes. These readings are providing data on the air temperatures as well as helping to shape a more reliable picture of how air behind the F-35 will behave during actual launch operations at sea.

Even without the more extensive data provided by today’s sensor array, Super Hornet engineers gained valuable experience during JBD trials that led to a change in how the aircraft is launched. During testing, hot air was inadvertently recirculated into the air intake of the Super Hornet, prompting a “pop stall,” or hiccup in the airflow for the propulsion system. The result was a dangerous fireball coughing from the back of the Super Hornet, says Briggs.

The design fix was the creation of a limited afterburner setting for launch. Engineers crafted software such that the engine is at 122% of military power when a pilot sets it to afterburner. By the time the jet reaches the edge of the deck, the system automatically opens the throttle to full afterburner at 150% of power without intervention by the pilot, says Briggs.

Having completed the first phase of JBD trials with a single F-35C, engineers are eager to test a more realistic scenario with one aircraft in front of the deflector and one behind.

Because of this lesson, the limited afterburner setting was designed into the F-35 in its infancy.

Thus far, Myers says, “I hate to say it [but] it has been very uneventful in terms of bad things happening” during testing. “We haven’t had any significant problems.”

Engineers are examining the data to figure out how, if at all, the pattern in the JBD’s cooling veins may need work. Additionally, engineers are paying close attention to whether side-panel cooling will be needed, especially on the second and fifth panels in the six-panel configuration, says Myers. The JBDs in the fleet today have side-panel cooling only on the middle two panels.

In the meantime, officials are shifting their focus to trials using a Super Hornet in JBD testing to revalidate older models. Ultimately, the goal is to conduct a final round of JBD tests with two aircraft, one emitting heat in front of the deflector and one behind. Officials have not yet decided if that will involve two F-35Cs or if there will be a mix of the Super Hornet and JSF.

Finally, the F-35C will begin catapult launch and arrested landing tests in early August. The goal is to conduct early trials at Lakehurst, shift to Patuxent River and then return to Lakehurst late in the month for a final round of trials using “degraded” catapults, says Myers. This would simulate when a launch system malfunctions or fails to produce the optimum amount of steam for takeoff.

As of June 30, Lockheed Martin officials say the F-35 program has accomplished 18% more flights than the planned 378 and 30% more test points than the planned 2,996. They break down by variant as follows:

•F-35A conventional version with 208 flights (180 planned).

•F-35B Stovl with 170 flights (138 planned).

•F-35C with 70 flights (60 planned).

Test-point statistics are:

•F-35A with 1,578 (1,533 planned).

•F-35B with 1,528 (1,072 planned).

•F-35C with 765 (391 planned).

The Stovl version has also executed 116 vertical landings to date."

RE: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2011, 00:07
by spazsinbad
F-35C test aircraft validates catapult launch connections 25 July 2011

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=4708

"NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – Navy test pilot Cmdr. Eric “Magic” Buus brings F-35C test aircraft CF-3 into launch position on a test catapult July 19. The test demonstrated proper catapult hook up in preparation for the first launches at Lakehurst, N.J., scheduled for later this month. CF-3 is the designated carrier suitability test aircraft. The F-35C carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is distinct from the F-35A and F-35B variants with its larger wing surfaces and reinforced landing gear for greater control in the demanding carrier take-off and landing environment. The F-35C is undergoing test and evaluation at NAS Patuxent River prior to eventual delivery to the fleet. (Photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin)"

http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/ ... 59_001.jpg

Image

Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2011, 01:05
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:... Navy test pilot Cmdr. Eric “Magic” Buus brings F-35C test aircraft CF-3 into launch position on a test catapult July 19. ...]


http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm ... y_ID/22015

PATUXENT RIVER, Md., April 6th, 2011 -- Navy F-35 flight test aircraft CF-1 approaches the TC-7 catapult at Naval Air Station Patuxent River March 22. With U.S. Marine Corps test pilot Lt. Col. Matt "Opie" Taylor at the controls, CF-1 completed functional checks and performed the first test hookup of the F-35C to the catapult.

Will the F-35C make its first "Cat" launch from PAX on TC-7 (30,000+ launches) or on the C-13 at Lakehurst? :?: The program seems to be progressing faster than current schedule. :)

RE: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst For Tes

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2011, 03:34
by spazsinbad
:cheers: I'll celebrate when the C goes EMALS! :cheers:

Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst For Tes

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2011, 10:26
by nam11b
neptune wrote:Will the F-35C make its first "Cat" launch from PAX on TC-7 (30,000+ launches) or on the C-13 at Lakehurst? :?: The program seems to be progressing faster than current schedule. :)


First "cat shot" should be this week at Lakehurst. Not sure why, but there are no immediate plans to use TC-7 for launches. I am with Spaz, should be pretty freakin cool to see EMALS in operation with the JSF

RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst For

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2011, 14:55
by neptune
NAES at Lakehurst has the instrumentation to advance the test points for the F-35C on both the launch and the recovery of the a/c. Taking the load and launch data will confirm the computer programs and validating the arresting and again taking data to confirm the program results. Both of their new systems under test; EMAL and AAG will confirm and provide additional data for test points and develop "settings" for the conventional cat and wire activities. When arriving in the fleet for "boat" tests the Lakehurst data will be invaluable to the ship systems as well as the F-35 JPALS program. I suspect that TC-7 will make many F-35C launches in "requals" later in the SDD program. Lakehurst should be quite busy taking data from the "other" tail hook planes for the EMAL/ AAG development effort.

RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst For

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2011, 14:14
by spazsinbad
F-35C Back At Lakehurst Test Center by Amy Butler at 7/27/2011

"The U.S. Navy is moving forward with specialized testing of its F-35C, which is designed for use on aircraft carriers, at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ.

Jet CF-3 arrived yesterday at the Navy’s testing center there to begin catapult assisted takeoff and arrested landing testing, says Joe DellaVedova, Joint Strike Fighter spokesman for the Pentagon. Catapult testing for the single-engine, stealthy Lockheed Martin fighter could begin as soon as today.

Next week, the service plans to continue work on jet-blast deflector (JBD) testing. Trials earlier this month focused on validating jet-blast exhaust models for the F-35C as they interact with the deflectors used on aircraft carrier decks.

The next step in this series of trials, which will follow the cat/trap testing, is to replicate operations on a ship. This will call for placing the F-35C and a Super Hornet in front of and behind the JBD as they would operate on the ship. This will ensure that the cooling vein pattern on the JBD can adequately protect both the deck and the aircraft in line behind the JBD in advance of a rapid launch of carrier aircraft.

Following this phase, the Navy will begin “degraded catapult” launch testing at Lakehurst, Dellavedova says. During theses trials, the Navy will use catapults with varying levels of steam to simulate various levels of service by the system on the ship."

Source: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst For

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2011, 23:53
by spazsinbad
NAVAIR AIRWAVES: 18 August 2011 Video Utube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvlWIfzV ... _embedded#!

"Uploaded by NAVAIRSYSCOM on Aug 18, 2011
In this edition of Airwaves, the Marine Corps demonstrates the capabilities of the F-35B, the Jet Blast Deflector at Lakehurst ensures safety on the flight deck, a new robot gives a helping hand to engineers at China Lake and the first operational Growler squadron returns safely from deployment."

RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst For

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2011, 03:39
by jetnerd
I still don't see the harm in putting CF-3 on the EMALs prototype while it's there at Lakehurst. A program spokeswoman had responded bascially that it wasn't the time to do it (understandable). But even if there's no need to address any issues that may happen to be found with EMALS (i.e. the EM environment and all of the '35's sensors, complex systems) at least it givess a longer time to think/plan about it.

RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst For

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2011, 06:25
by munny
The EMALS prototype would fall into the critical path for F-35C testing. I'm sure the F-35 program managers would like to avoid more dependencies if possible.

Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2011, 09:58
by batu731
jetnerd wrote:I still don't see the harm in putting CF-3 on the EMALs prototype while it's there at Lakehurst. A program spokeswoman had responded bascially that it wasn't the time to do it (understandable). But even if there's no need to address any issues that may happen to be found with EMALS (i.e. the EM environment and all of the '35's sensors, complex systems) at least it givess a longer time to think/plan about it.


you don't test two experimental systems in overlap, plain and simple, no matter how good their test records are.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2011, 11:23
by popcorn
Not much to gain but too much to lose if something went awry.

Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2011, 18:26
by neptune
jetnerd wrote:.. in putting CF-3 on the EMALs prototype while it's there at Lakehurst. ....


Who knows?, CF-3 was fit checked onto the CAT before it was later launched. That fit check could be done on the EMAL as well, without planning (committing) to a launch. Electrical interference in all spectrums could be detected at that time. It would give a "heads up" to both programs. :idea: :!: :!: :shock: :)

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2011, 01:15
by jetnerd
Who knows?, CF-3 was fit checked onto the CAT before it was later launched. That fit check could be done on the EMAL as well, without planning (committing) to a launch. Electrical interference in all spectrums could be detected at that time. It would give a "heads up" to both programs.


Exactly what I was thinking in my original comment. The increased lead time / "heads-up" on possible EM issues could potentially save on future efforts when they might have to be addressed.

F-35 program looks like it's in for yet more rough waters in Congress despite testing success, due to current budget problems, so I can understand the delicacy of the situation with respect to any possible negative results. I also understand at least some of the reasons for sticking to schedule. But this idea seems like a very inexpensive effort that could yield potentially useful advance knowledge. Neptune, like you said a simple fit check could tell a lot. And if everything happens to go okay, a "no issues found with preliminary EMALS fit checks" would be a useful feather in their caps at this time.

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2011, 06:10
by spazsinbad
F-35C completes jet blast deflector testing Aug 22, 2011

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=4736

"NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – The F-35C is another step closer to initial ship trials on an aircraft carrier at sea.

The F-35 integrated test force completed jet blast deflector (JBD) testing at the NAVAIR facility in Lakehurst, N.J. Aug. 13 with a round of two-aircraft testing. F-35C test aircraft CF-1 along with an F/A-18E tested a combined JBD cooling panel configuration to assess the integration of F-35s in aircraft carrier launch operations.

“We completed all of our JBD test points efficiently,” said Andrew Maack, government chief test engineer. “It was a great collaborative effort by all parties.”

The government and industry team completed tests that measured temperatures, pressures, sound levels, velocities, and other environmental data. The combined JBD model will enable carrier deck crews to operate all air wing aircraft, now including the F-35C, as operational tempo requires.

“We came out of testing with no surprises,” said Maack. “The fact that we’ve collected all the data required to validate our requirements is a testament to the talent on the team and all of their pre-testing preparation and simulations.”

Future carrier suitability testing is scheduled throughout this year, including ongoing catapult testing and the start of arrestment testing in preparation for initial ship trials in 2013.

The F-35C carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is distinct from the F-35A and F-35B variants with its larger wing surfaces and reinforced landing gear for catapult launch, slower landing approach speeds, and deck impacts associated with the demanding carrier take-off and landing environment."

http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/ ... 59_001.jpg

Image

RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst For

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2011, 14:36
by neptune
Production F-35s to stay parked for IPP fix

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... p-fix.html

DATE:23/08/11

Production F-35s to stay parked for IPP fix

By Stephen Trimble

Lockheed Martin F-35s resumed flight testing over the weekend, but two production aircraft remained grounded while US Air Force safety investigators continue scrutinising their power and thermal management system.

Flight tests included at least three catapult launches of an F-35C carrier-based variant from a runway at a naval base in Lakehurst, New Jersey, according to the joint programme office.

The navy has also completed jet-blast deflector testing, moving the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variant one step closer to shipboard trials.

The catapult launches were among the first flight operations for the F-35 test fleet since a grounding order was lifted on 18 August, after a 16-day hiatus.

The joint programme office suspended flight operations on 2 August and the Air Force safety oversight board launched an investigation after conventional take-off and landing flight test aircraft AF-4 experienced an "explosive event" during a routine ground test.

A control valve malfunction caused the Honeywell integrated power package (IPP) to fail after starting up the F-35's engine. The IPP is used to start the engine, and then powers the system that cools the F-35's power supply.

Flight operations are limited to the 12 aircraft flight test fleet, which are heavily instrumented and can be monitored in real-time.

As many as eight completed production aircraft, including the AF-8 and AF-9 models delivered to Eglin air force base, Florida, remain grounded while the safety investigation continues.

The production aircraft are expected to return to flight after a series of hardware and software fixes are installed, expected in September and October.

RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst For

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2011, 20:46
by Lightndattic
The navy has also completed jet-blast deflector testing, moving the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variant one step closer to shipboard trials.


The JBD testing on the C has to be complete before the B can do to sea?

Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2011, 21:13
by neptune
Lightndattic wrote:
The navy has also completed jet-blast deflector testing, moving the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variant one step closer to shipboard trials.


The JBD testing on the C has to be complete before the B can do to sea?


The JBD at Lakehurst is heavily instrumented and the datalogging from those tests yield data that is applicable to the test and cooling systems on the WASP. It will help verify the endpoint parameters for measurements, making them more accurate and therefore more useful. The interaction of the lift fan with the jet exhaust and the roll posts exhaust will generate a significantly different (and probably lower temperature) temperature pattern from those measured on the JBD. :wink:

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2011, 22:21
by spazsinbad
Surely that is a typo in the Trimble story? "The navy has also completed jet-blast deflector testing, moving the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variant one step closer to shipboard trials." Substitue C for incorrect 'B' in the 'Tremble' story. Sea? My bad - another typo. :roll: :oops: :P I guess writing about two models in one story with unrelated threads (IPP & JBD testing caused confusion - or was it IBP & JPD testing? I dunno).

I don't see how any JBD testing of the 'C' is applicable to the USS Wasp. The 'B' has been tested extensively not only at Pax River but earlier in the 'hover pit' which itself is heavily instrumented. A lot is known about any heat/blast effects of the 'B'.

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2011, 03:57
by spazsinbad

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2011, 15:10
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Camera technology is amazing

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2011, 21:10
by spazsinbad
Lockheed Wraps Up F-35 Structural Testing Sep 20, 2011 By Amy Butler [for brain dead my 'comment' is in bold] :D

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... ng&prev=10

"...Separately, the F-35 test team and the U.S. Navy conducted a series of jet-blast deflector trials. These were designed to assess the effect of flight operations, including catapult launches, on the ship’s jet blast deflectors, which shield the ship and other aircraft from hot exhaust. Burbage says no changes are required for the jet blast deflectors to introduce the F-35C into the carrier fleet. The F-35C will begin testing on an aircraft carrier next spring, Burbage says...."

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2011, 12:56
by spazsinbad
F-35C Jet Blast Deflector Testing [VIDEO]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbyebvc3 ... r_embedded

"Uploaded by LockheedMartinVideos on Jul 13, 2011
F-35C Lightning II carrier variant aircraft CF-2 performing Jet Blast Deflector (JBD) tests at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey. The JBD, located behind the catapults aboard aircraft carriers, deflects high energy exhaust from the engine to prevent damage and injury to other aircraft and personnel located in close proximity. JBD testing is one portion of the tests required to ensure the F-35C is compatible aboard the aircraft carrier."

At the end the stealth steps can be seen....

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2011, 13:10
by spazsinbad
Info posted NOT for the video (already seen elsehwere) but for the factual information as shown:

F-35 Flight Test Video Posted 13 July 2011 Video posted 27 July 2011

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_ ... item_id=60

First Cat Launch For F-35
Navy test pilot Lt. Christopher Tabert took to the sky on 27 July 2011 in an F-35C test aircraft launched by a steam catapult for the first time at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey. Aircraft carrier catapult launches accelerate the F-35 to takeoff speed with full fuel and ordnance over a short, 300-foot power stroke, transmitting more than 250,000 pounds of pull force through the F-35’s nose gear launch system and structure. The test aircraft, CF-3, arrived from the primary F-35C test and evaluation site, NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, the day before this first launch. This was Flight 8 for CF-3."

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2011, 01:10
by jetblast16
Driving home from work, I have seen and heard the F-35C on three separate occasions. If you are familiar with the area in question, it was on Route 539 South in the McGuire/Fort Dix area, where they put up that new repair depot facility. On all three occasions it was within 1-2 miles of this new facility that is directly visible from Route 539. I can say that the jet is pretty loud; definitely military sounding, which of course it is. The engine seems to produce a more thunderous noise, even at a distance. On one of the occasions, he must have been about 1,500-2,000 feet away from where I was at about 800 feet AGL. He had his gear and flaps down and was turning ~SE to shoot an approach to Lake Hurst Naval Air Station. The interesting note is that on all of the occasions, I was able to hear the aircraft, even with the wind/road/engine noises at up to almost 65 mph. One of the passes over the road was quite loud as he must had a higher throttle setting selected. Talk about being lucky! These incidents occurred as recently as two to three weeks ago from the date of this post and almost exclusively occurred within the 5:45-6:10 PM EDT time range.

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2011, 02:48
by spazsinbad
Better Quality Front On View of first F-35C steam catapult along with some talking heads including Lt. Tabert:

NAVAIR Flight Crew: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Test Pilot

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... E9C213A6B0

We get to see a good view of the layout of the centre steam catapult and on the right of the photo below we see the EMALS catapult

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2011, 06:22
by neptune
How about an arresting gear test landing? :)

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 04:23
by navy_airframer
Probably not untill the redesign is done. Not worth risking an entire airframe on somthing they know wont work.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at L

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 05:38
by neptune
navy_airframer wrote:Probably not untill the redesign is done. Not worth risking an entire airframe on somthing they know wont work.


in another thread; http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk ... inter.html

The tail hook mechanism failed all eight landing attempts in tests and requires significant and, apparently, challenging redesign of the system and perhaps the aircraft structure itself. “If this change is not successful there is risk for significant airframe structures redesign and or impacts to overall” radar signature, the report said.

generally speaking "What Happened?, 8-0 :( ".

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up"

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 09:18
by alloycowboy
@Neptune, I am not expecting any news on that till January or Febuary.

Just to give you an idea on how difficult it is to design a tail hook system check out this old document. Don't worry about the equations, just check out the pictures in the back, which will give you some idea of how difficult a task this is.

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/2980.pdf

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 09:45
by popcorn
I'm sure it looked good in the computer design and simulations otherwise they wouldn't have built the thing.. nothing like actual testing in the real world though.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up&qu

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 16:28
by neptune
[quote="alloycowboy..Just to give you an idea on how difficult it is to design a tail hook system check out this old document. ...[/quote]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

..wading thru BS's bs you can stumble upon a piece of info;

...1- hook profile; The arrester hook issue has been reported. In the first round of tests, the hook failed to catch the wire once. The QLR notes that tests of a minimal modification - a reprofiled hook with different damper settings - set for April "represent only the initial stages leading into full carrier suitability demonstrations."

2- hook location; Studies are already underway of changing the hook's location - the basic problem is that the designers put the hook closer behind the main landing gear than that of any current or recent Navy aircraft, ....- but that will have "major, direct primary and secondary structural impacts".

:?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks U

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 18:30
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'neptune'.
The POGO PDF mentioned via AvWeek post immediately above may be downloaded here:
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 331#210331

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter | Concurrency Quick Look Review | 29 November 2011

specifically: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-15184.html (5Mb)

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at L

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 18:59
by maus92
neptune wrote:
navy_airframer wrote:Probably not untill the redesign is done. Not worth risking an entire airframe on somthing they know wont work.


in another thread; http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk ... inter.html

The tail hook mechanism failed all eight landing attempts in tests and requires significant and, apparently, challenging redesign of the system and perhaps the aircraft structure itself. “If this change is not successful there is risk for significant airframe structures redesign and or impacts to overall” radar signature, the report said.

generally speaking "What Happened?, 8-0 :( ".


Wasn't designed as a naval aircraft from the start....

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up"

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 19:12
by arkadyrenko
Question, and a serious one at that, we know that the Navy has been the least gung ho service about the F-35. They've maintained F-18 development (Growler) and have continued to express interest at the F-XX (look at Boeing's fairly desperate efforts to push a F-XX for the Navy, Boeing would only do that if it felt that the Navy was going to be more sympathetic).

Here's the kicker: does this report, particularly the rather serious section on the tail-hook, make the USN go for a different airplane? Its happened before, look at the F-111 which morphed into the F-14. And, remember that the F-35 isn't as well suited to the Pacific theater as it could have been.

Does this report make the Navy want to strike out on its own, build a dedicated carrier fighter with the F-35 tech but not the structural problems? There are obviously pros and cons to this question, but given the severity of this report, I wonder what people think now.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up"

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 20:05
by spazsinbad
Text about the F-35C HOOK is from the report cited above (cites some of the diagrams/photos seen above).

FOUO//US ONLY
Arresting Hook System (CV variant): There are significant issues with respect to how the CV variant’s AHS interoperates with aircraft carrier based MK -7 arresting gear. Roll-in arrestment testing at NAWC-­AD, Lakehurst, resulted in no successful MK-7 engagements (0 successes in 8 attempts). Root cause analysis identified three key AHS design issues: (1) the aircraft geometry has a relatively short distance between the aircraft’s main landing gear tires and tailhook point (when lowered), (2) tailhook point design was overemphasized for cable shredding features versus ability to scoop low positioned cables, and (3) tailhook hold-down damper performance is ineffective to support damping of small bounces relative to runway/deck surface profiles.

As shown in Appendix Figure 8, page A-9, the F-35C’s main landing gear to tailhook point distance is 7.1 feet. Accordingly, when the aircraft’s main landing gear rolls over the arresting cable, the responsive dynamics are such that the cable lies nearly flat on the deck. Comparing similar geometries with other, currently operating carrier based aircraft which range from 30.2 feet (C-2) to 14.6 feet (T-45), the F-35C is an outlier. The current F-35C tailhook point design (Appendix Figure 9, page A-10) was based on the F/A-18E/F design which has a blunt face to better provide cable shredding protection versus scooping. However, the F/A-18E/F’s geometry places the distance of its main landing gear to tailhook point at 18.2 feet; a much longer distance than the F-35C. Since there is more distance in the geometry, the trampled cable has enough time to respond and flex back toward its original setting position by the time the tailhook point intercepts for arrestment. The hold-down damper contributes to overall aircraft arresting gear poor performance by allowing the tailhook to bounce excessively.

To address these issues, the program is designing modifications to the tailhook point and hold down damper components. The proposed hook point redesign in Appendix Figure 10, page A-11, both reduces the blunt face geometry with a more pointed front end and lowers its apex point by 0.5 inches (68%) such that it is now below the arresting gear cable centerline to better enable scooping performance. The proposed hold down damper redesign will consist of modifications to the AHS actuator damper such that a lesser number of orifices will temper tailhook bounce dynamics (Appendix Figure 11, page A-12). The AHS redesigned components will undergo Monte Carlo probability of engagement analysis as a lead­ing effort for design review which is scheduled in December 2011. Following successful design review, the plan is to manufacture the redesigned components and then conduct rolling engagements at NAWC-­AD, Lakehurst in April 2012.

With corrective action still in development, the AHS is considered an area of major conscquence. If the proposed redesigned components do not prove to be compatible with MK-7 arresting gear, then significant redesign impacts will ensue. Accordingly, the program is conducting a formal trade study to assess options beyond AHS redesign. One option includes adjustments of AHS airframe location. However, since arrestment loads are significant and the aircraft has certain constraints with respect to engine location and survivability considerations, any readjustment of AHS location will have major, direct primary and secondary structure impacts.

Since rolling engagements in April 2012 represents only the initial stages leading into full carrier suitability demonstrations of the F-35C, complete knowledge of how truly compatiblc AHS redesigned components perform under nominal and off-nominal approach to engagement conditions will not be realized until well into the program’s developmental test timeline. This issue represents a major concurrency risk which would have a significant retrofit impact to LRlP aircraft already delivered a large re-adjustment to the current F-35C production process build-up flow and, in many aspects, invalidate previously obtained developmental test and evaluation data.

Conclusion: Major Concurrency Risk – Significant redesign risk and options are unknown at this time.”

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up"

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 20:41
by sufaviper
Be sure to look at section I. There is a very important statement in there. Also, don't forget what happend to the C-17 around this time in it's testing.

Sufa Viper

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up"

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 21:14
by spazsinbad
sufaviper, thanks for getting us to read all the very important statements in section 1. Which one is it?

Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 21:58
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:...... If the proposed redesigned components do not prove to be compatible with MK-7 arresting gear, then significant redesign impacts will ensue. ......”
:lol: :lol:

It looks like the hook was well designed to "NOT" engage the cable; 8-0 (rather effective!).

Whether the MK-7 or the AAG is used, the cdp lays on the deck, in all worse cases. Looks like we will have to wait to April to see if the sky is falling! :lol: :wink:

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 22:30
by alloycowboy
@Neptune, funny how all of a sudden their is an abundance of information on the tail hook problem. It's like the information Santa came early. Thanks Spazsinbad!

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up&qu

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 22:57
by sufaviper
spazsinbad wrote:sufaviper, thanks for getting us to read all the very important statements in section 1. Which one is it?


It was section I (sounds like eye, I know it can be tough to differentiate between a 1 and an I), which reads as follows:

"I. The team identified no fundamental design risks sufficient to preclude further production."

Which is to say that the current ~30 per year rate is good, or at least that is how I read it.

Sufa Viper

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks U

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 23:01
by spazsinbad
sufaviper, thanks. Yes it is a capital I which I did not differentiate. I'll get my glasses adjusted. :D

Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2011, 23:08
by neptune
alloycowboy wrote:@Neptune, funny how all of a sudden their is an abundance of information on the tail hook problem. It's like the information Santa came early. Thanks Spazsinbad!


It's better than a bag of switches or a lump of coal! :lol: :lol:

In retrospec, why would we expect LM or Boeing to make a "tailhook" that would work? :shock:

MD is certainly sitting back having a big laugh. :lol:

It will be embarrasing if Gruman's hook is problematic on the X-47, Ha! :lol: :lol:

RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 01:43
by spazsinbad
Amy Butler story from Aviation Week & Space Technology p.38 Dec 12, 2011 has this item.

RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 03:26
by navy_airframer
The F-35 hook point looks like the front edge is quite a bit higher then a Hornet hook point. The changes needed look pretty small to me though. Small changes to the hook point and a few changes to the damper. Once those issues are delt with everything else should be fine. I dont see the distance from the gear to the hook as being a big deal.

RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 03:35
by arkadyrenko
I don't know, I think that the tail-hook could be the end of the F-35. Its about half the current distance from the rear wheels to the hook, according to the report, which implies that its marginal at best and may need to be moved.

If that's the case, it could be nearly impossible to make the tail-hook fit the current airframe and could require a very expensive redesign of the F-35C. This problem exists because of the F-35C's stealth shape, any new tail-hook location has to have its stealth shaping rechecked and certified.

At that point, program cancellation becomes an option if the Navy doesn't like what it is seeing.

RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 03:39
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I like the comment about LM not knowing whats up with tailhooks. And as far as Boeing, they may own McD, but only the old McD guys know. I have always believed that Grumman = Carrier Aviation, let them fix it.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 05:57
by alloycowboy
Just looking at the A4 Skyhawk it also has its tail hook close to its main landing gear. So hopefuly the fix for the F-35 is to just correct the tail hook profile and up the damping.

Image


Image

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 06:01
by navy_airframer
From the look of the second picture it looks like the main gear isn't on the deck. It also looks like the hook shank is longer then on the F-35.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 07:59
by spazsinbad
Naval Aircraft land hook then main wheels then nosewheel (as arrest/landing takes place). Every Naval Aircraft lands at Optimum Angle of Attack to ensure best approach speed below maximum landing weight (so as weight increases not greater than Max.Land.Wt.) the airspeed will increase at the Optimum Angle of Attack which ensures the aircraft lands as described.

The A-4 had phenomenal long tall undercarriage, best to carry an huge amount of stores underwing me dear.... :D

The hook to eye distance is a measure of how the pilot sees the centre ball in the IFLOLS (today) and the 'hook to ramp' clearance will be a minimum height for an aircraft to safely clear the ramp during a carrier approach. Because the hook tip will be below the main wheels at Optimum Angle of Attack, the hook in effect dictates all other aspects of the carrier approach. In effect the pilot lands the hook into the wires. This is a very short summary of what can turn out to be a complicated topic compared to an ordinary land landing with flare/float and gentle touchdown.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 08:11
by alloycowboy
spazsinbad.... Some day we are going to have to sit down with a couple beers and your going have to explain to me how you know all this stuff.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 08:17
by spazsinbad
Easy, I have over one hundred deck landings (very few at night because the A4G did not have much to do at night but had to be able to launch before dawn and land after dark). This was now 40 years ago. Carrier time on a single carrier in the RAN was at a premium so some people in their careers were able to get more, depending on circumstances. I was a junior pilot at the start of the A4G era so got pushed back in the queue - to the FarQueue in fact. :D

However for the last few years I have been researching 'How to Deck Land' to explain to Ozzies unfamiliar with the process using not only old material but up to date info including for the F-35C and B models. You can see the results in the URLs in my signature below this post. Best place to go is:

http://www.adf-history.com/adf/?cat=7
OR
http://alturl.com/4a4ko

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 08:42
by navy_airframer
spazsinbad wrote:Naval Aircraft land hook then main wheels then nosewheel (as arrest/landing takes place). Every Naval Aircraft lands at Optimum Angle of Attack to ensure best approach speed below maximum landing weight (so as weight increases not greater than Max.Land.Wt.) the airspeed will increase at the Optimum Angle of Attack which ensures the aircraft lands as described.

The A-4 had phenomenal long tall undercarriage, best to carry an huge amount of stores underwing me dear.... :D

The hook to eye distance is a measure of how the pilot sees the centre ball in the IFLOLS (today) and the 'hook to ramp' clearance will be a minimum height for an aircraft to safely clear the ramp during a carrier approach. Because the hook tip will be below the main wheels at Optimum Angle of Attack, the hook in effect dictates all other aspects of the carrier approach. In effect the pilot lands the hook into the wires. This is a very short summary of what can turn out to be a complicated topic compared to an ordinary land landing with flare/float and gentle touchdown.



I understand the way a aircraft lands on an aircraft carrier, but I guess I didnt explain my thoughts thorough enough. The point I was trying to make was that with the main gear was off the deck i.e. not running over the cable and compressing it on the flight deck. That was causing part of the problem with the arresting gear trials as the distance between the landing gear and hook wasn't far enough to allow the wire to spring back away from the deck before the hook passed over. The F-35 also looks to have shorter arresting gear and a lower stance then the A-4.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 08:48
by alloycowboy
Oh, right the HMAS Melbourne. I forgot the Ozzies had a flat tops too. In fact they were the same kind of Majestic class carriers Canada had. But you guys were smarter and kept your longer. That was before Caanda's dark ages and Pierre Trudeau.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 08:49
by spazsinbad
The photo of the A4G painted in VC-724 tail colours for their 'RamJet' Aerobatic Team for an air display at NAS Nowra in the late 1970s is one of the best A4G photos around. Sometimes VF-805 would go on a cruise with A4Gs taken from VC-724 at the last moment because they were serviceable whilst the one perhaps painted in any VF-805 paint scheme was not serviceable for embarkation. Anyway the photo shows the hook catching one of the five wires set out where No.4 was the target wire although more often than not only 4 or a minimum of three wires were set due to unserviceability. If four wires set then No.3 was the target wire same same USN. Aim is to plonk the hook midway between No.3 & No.4 wire if No. 4 is target.

We cannot see the 'AoA lights' in the port wing root but judging by the leading edge slats that A4G is a little slow perhaps (meaning a higher angle of attack slightly - hence exaggerated landing attitude slightly). Which means the hook is now lower than usual, hence more easily able to catch a wire perhaps if the geometry is OK and there is no 'hook slap' or other contretemps. Always best to land at Opt AoA, in the middle of the Glideslope and lined up - nothing else will do. The LSO knows all though and there is no fooling the LSO. A good old school LSO Utube movie is here: [the movie will explain A Lot I hope)

F-570 The Landing Signal Officer 24 min Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vRstczn-yw

"Uploaded by sdasmarchives on Oct 12, 2011
A United States Training film on the Landing Signal Officer. From the archives of the San Diego Air and Space Museum http://www.sandiegoairandspace.org/research/
Please do not use for commercial purposes without permission."

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 09:27
by spazsinbad
navy_airframer, sorry for delay but in the middle of computer OS rebuilding so sometimes things are slow here. I guess the F-35C HOOK testing has to include every conceivable situation including ashore for both long and short field arrests, not just onboard. From what I have read in that report the fix may be easy but then again - who knows.

The F-35C will have an Optimum Angle of Attack (known from an LSO newsletter elsewhere on this forum) which ensures the same thing. The hook tip will be slightly below the main wheels when 'on speed'. As explained about the A4G it is slightly slow (in the photo illustration) thus exaggerating the 'nose up' landing attitude which puts the hook tip even lower than required - not always a good thing. For example in the USN the minimum 'hook to ramp' vertical clearance was 6.5 feet whereas HMAS Melbourne had a 6 foot clearance, hence landing slightly longer on the shorter deck to No.4 of 5 wires (in the Sea Venom era there were 6 wires).

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 09:41
by navy_airframer
Is the hook point for the A and B the same as the C model? Aren't field arresting gear elevated off the runway?

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 09:50
by spazsinbad
No. There is a thread about the A model 'emergency hook' which is not as robust as the C model (link to follow) and the B model has no hook. Yes field arresting gear is elevated usually (although may not be if not working properly). Tramping is an issue for sure and not just for carrier capable aircraft. Latest field gear wires can be lowered into the runway so as to be invisible to ordinary aircraft but raised on request as needed.

Arresting F-35s & Brake Testing Scroll down

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ncy+arrest

http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/f_ ... um_289.jpg

Image

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 10:08
by spazsinbad
alloycowboy, you would be pleased to know that parts of BONAVENTURE lived on slightly elongating the 100 foot catapult to 110 feet approx. in MELBOURNE. Then they went to CHINA for study. :D

Another thing about the two Skyhawk photos. The first one with the civvie white A-4 side on is not at optimum AoA but fast probably at around 180 KIAS I estimate. The leading edge slats started to crack open just below the landing gear max speed of 225 knots. At Opt. AoA the slats are open by about 1/4 to 1/3 depending on who is looking at them (pilot or outside observer such as the LSO). However as indicated in the olde LSOe movie the Optimum Attitude is gauged by the LSO in a way appropriate to his viewpoint.

In effect the first photo (hook up) shows a fast approach and the second photo shows 'a little slow - nose cocked up' (perhaps) at the ramp, in the wires but probably safe. Only the LSO has the correct criteria (what the pilot thinks doesn't count). :-)

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 20:49
by spazsinbad
Because A-4s were used to illustrate a point I'll continue to use them. The rear quarter photo below shows a USN Skyhawk about to arrest with hook point below main wheels. Similarly this photo shows the Super? Hornet hook:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... an2007.jpg

And to add to Opt AoA example the last photo shows (I think) the correct landing attitude of a Skyhawk (note LE slat position) at Opt AoA (sadly no hook).

And lastly an illustration of Carrier Glideslope Geometry from: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA087012

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2011, 22:44
by spazsinbad
Excellent Slow Motion Carrier Catapult and Arrest Video especially for the Approach / Arrest at end here:

VFA-137 Cruise 2010-2011 'Music Video'

"Uploaded by aophil on Apr 13, 2011
Compilation of a Tanking Mission around the boat (CVN-72) on Cruise 2010-2011. I used a Samsung point and shoot with for the slow motion, and a ContourHD helmet camera for the 'over the shoulder' in-flight video."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... OA8#t=192s
_____________________

Photos illustrate some aspects of hook/wire/arrest forces:
http://www.villanova.edu/artsci/assets/ ... imized.ppt
__________________

Last photo series from InstaPinch who may be off the air now, anyway I'll look again later to see if there is any extra info: http://instapinch.com/?p=2280

InstaPinch Text from the photo/.gif graphic below:

“The wire itself is, understandably, rather stiff and inflexible when laying in repose upon the wire brackets that support it between 2 to 5.5 inches above the flight deck. This is to ensure there is room for the aircraft tailhook to grab the wire. If it were laying flush on the deck, the tailhook would be unable to grab a’holt of it.

A split second later the steam hits from the friction of the tire on the deck and the reaction of the wire hitting the deck in such a rude manner!

So, now that we’ve gone through how absolutely intense these crossdeck pendants have to be and how robust and manly and strong and all they are, THIS pic is all the more amazing. I had the trusty Canon 50D set to the fastest shutter speed possible and had it snappin’ pics at the 10 frames per second (or whatever it is). What you are seeing is the instantaneous deformation of the CDP by the nose gear of a Hornet as it lands and passes over the wire at 135knots.

And a split second after THAT….the wire-b-gone as the tailhook snatched it!”
http://instapinch.com/?p=2280
_________________________

Lucky Last Photo shows wheel smoke point (perhaps indeterminate) but nice action photo anyway.

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2011, 03:01
by alloycowboy
@spazsinbad...... Nice pictures and it's intersting to know that the wire is suspended above the deck, I always wondered about that. So the worry with the F-35C is amount of time the wire has to straighten back out once the main gear roll overs. Gee, that would be neat to see in high speed camera.

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2011, 03:16
by spazsinbad
alloycowboy, apologies, I thought that the arrestor wire is suspended was well known. I guess not. No worries. One reason why istarted on the 'How to Deck Land' and the A4G in RAN FAA (plus their other fixed wing) PDF was to help explain all these details. The USN calls their Naval Aviation stuff different names often which I am not so familiar with nor do I use. For some reason 'the wire' as I call it is named the 'Cross Deck Pendant' CDP. Which is fair enough. The Septics - Septic Tanks - Yanks probably rail at the OzRAN/UKrn usage also for various items. So for the life of me I forget what the 'springs' are called in the USN but they raise the wire some inches above the deck for arrested landing ops. Once complete these springs lower the wire to deck level. Otherwise they are quite hazardous when left raised (easy to trip over etc.).

On a runway ashore the long or short field gear (or long field emergency arrest) is permanently raised on rubber grommets. New fangled arrestor gear wires can be hidden under the runway to alleviate the problems for some civilian aircraft not able to 'trample' over them quickly either during takeoff/landing or during taxi. Often these aircraft will land beyond the short field gear for example.

And yes sometimes these wires can be flat on the deck or runway but this is a worst case and not likely. With the exception being the situation highlighted in the F-35C hook report as described (caused by trampling by main gear before hook arrives). But the fix is in and some of us hope it works.

For 'alloycowboy': BTW some ex-Canuks transferred to/joined the RAN (some had also served in the RN during wartime). One such was LCDR Fred Goodfellow ex-Banshee pilot also AEO (Air Engineer Officer) on VC-724 back in 1968-9. He did not fly that often then being just about to retire he had a serious accident landing in a Vampire with a thunderstorm near the airfield. In those days we did not know about microbursts so it is likely one slammed him into the ground. He was in a wheelchair permanently subsequently.

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2011, 10:17
by alloycowboy
spazsinbad.... as usual your a walking naval aviation encyclopedia, thanks for the info, learning a lot. I left some new pictures on the other thread. Check them out let me know what you think. Cheers!

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16554-start-45.html

Oh wow, just checked the wiki on the Banshee the plane was a widow maker for Canada. They lost 30% of them in service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_F2H_Banshee

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2011, 12:01
by spazsinbad
This TA-4J 'moment before arrest' photo is a classic and can be found on Wikipedia and the US Naval Aviaton/DOD website I think. One can see the long hook on deck well before main wheels. Angle of Attack at Optimum looks correct from this perspective.

Anyway it is also or used to be here: http://www.skyhawk.org/5e/g158073/html/158094p.htm

A-4 Association have changed their website recently with new URLs for stuff. Photo taken on 02 May 1998 aboard USS J.F.K.

"Description: right front view of Eagles Skyhawk BuNo 158094, A-700, with the hook on the deck 2 feet before 3 wire while 700 is still in the air."

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2011, 12:09
by spazsinbad
Yes landing any jet aircraft on a small fleet carrier in any kind of sea was exciting as they say. Must have been horrendous in the North Atlantic. Flew with Fred on a test flight in a Venom in the right hand 'observer' seat (no flying controls there) just to get a look at it before going solo. Fred went on to have a very successful career in Canberra as a lawyer.

We were puzzled by events that day (I was not at the airfield but out in the bush on a survival exercise; being drenched by same thunderbumper). Learning about microbursts and other unknown hazards then - later - helps explain a lot. Of course there is a lot more detail not revealed but Fred sure was unlucky but lucky that day so to speak.

Have commented about the F-35 pics/movie at that link:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-45.html

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2011, 00:43
by spazsinbad
ON PAGE 3 of this thread 'alloycowboy' cited a very old but very good PDF about designing 'arrestor hooks and damping them satisfactorily' from 1954. Yes a lot of water under that bridge since then but a good insight into the difficulty as 'alloycowboy' correctly suggests. Usually all arrestor wires are held inches above the surface either by 'fiddle bridges' (on carriers) or 'rubber grommets' (on runways). However the weight of main wheels trampling the wire down flat before the arrestor hook arrives can be an issue as discussed in the recent F-35C report about that. Anyhow I thought it useful to excerpt some text from the old PDF document:

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/rep ... m/2980.pdf (3.3Mb)

A Study of the Aircraft Arresting-Hook Bounce Problem
By J. THOMLINSON, Ph.D. May 1954

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/rep ... m/2980.pdf

SUMMARY: The kinematics of an arresting-hook unit are studied in order to determine, within the limits of the assumption of a perfectly rigid hook unit, the damper force necessary to control hook bounce. The necessity for a smooth deck and the desirability of small trail angle for the hook unit are demonstrated from several aspects. The design requirements for a hook damper unit are discussed in all their functional aspects and methods are given for determining the up-swing motion of an arresting hook unit immediately following engagement of an arresting wire. The behaviour of arresting wires after being depressed by the passage of aircraft wheels is also outlined.

1. Introduction. The operation of deck landing depends to a large degree on the ability of the aircraft arresting hook to engage a cross-deck centre-span. of an arresting gear. It is most desirable, for many reasons that the hook upon coming within reach of the deck shall engage the first centre-span which crosses its path; or expressed another way, the hook on reaching the deck shall not bounce, or if this ideal is unobtainable then the bounce (in terms of clearance between the deck surface and the underside of the hook) shall be measurable only in fractions of an inch. If this objective is achieved then the arresting wire will be engaged by the hook before the aircraft wheels touch down and disturb the arresting wires, since a hook installation is usually designed so that the hook lies some 2.5 ft or more below a line which is tangent to the underside of the main wheels and parallel to the deck or ground, when the aircraft is in its approach attitude. If, however, the hook, having failed to engage an arresting wire before the main wheels touch down, is then confronted by a wire which has been disturbed by the aircraft wheels, then the chances of the hook engaging such a wire may be greater or less than that of engaging an undisturbed wire (see Appendix V). In the case of a nose-wheel aircraft with its main wheels on the ground or deck, the chances of engaging a wire are greater when in a nose-up attitude than when in a nose-down attitude, because in the nose-up attitude the hook suspension is trailing at a smaller angle with respect to the deck, than when in a nose-down attitude, with a result that the hook is in a more favourable attitude for engagement with the wire, since the small trail angle is less conducive to hook bounce. This condition is one of first importance when considering arresting gears as an overshoot safety measure on land runways.

One has only to witness a few deck landings of aircraft fitted with hook installations having, alternatively, good and poor anti-bounce properties, in order to appreciate the existence of a problem having a fundamental bearing on the safety of deck landing operations. However, the factors which contribute to this bounce phenomena are not at all obvious, and realistic theoretical treatment becomes most intractable....

...Fig. 1 illustrates a typical layout of a hook installation and shows the parts with their names as will be used in the subsequent text. The element known by common usage as the hook damper, is not necessarily a damper in the strict mathematical sense, and in the U.S. Navy is known by the more lengthy but more exact title of: Arresting-hook shock absorber and hold-down device....

...It is clear therefore that the bounce properties of an arresting hook during landing cannot be explained in terms of the simple percussion examples described above, these effects, if any, making only a small contribution to the hook bounce behaviour. The next section shows that the initial hook bounce is caused by a wedge action between the hook suspension and the deck, the ‘wedge’ being the angle between the deck and the descent path of the aircraft....
__________

...Finally, a plea is made for simplicity of design with due regard for ease of servicing, maintenance and inspection, bearing in mind that with the aircraft in a static attitude, whether it be a nose-wheel or a tail-wheel layout, the hook in the ‘down’ position is not at the limit of its travel, particularly with a tail-wheel aircraft....

...During arresting proof strength testing, when the aircraft is taxied at speed into an arresting gear (on a land installation), an indication of the effectiveness of the damper can be seen during the taxying run with the hook down. However, under these conditions it is usually not possible to get the hook into its fully down position, since the wheels must be clear of the deck or ground to achieve this.....

...11. Conclusions:— With the ever increasing approach speeds of successive generations of deck landing aircraft and in consequence of this, the reduced area of touch-down following on which satisfactory arrested landing can be made, it is imperative that arresting hook bounce shall be reduced to an absolute minimum in order to insure engagement with an arresting wire within this limited area. A critical and searching examination of the hook bounce problem shows gaps in the knowledge of the fundamentals of the problem.

The probable use of arresting gears on airfields again makes it essential that the understanding of the hook bounce problem shall be developed to as high a standard as possible.

Two clear-cut conclusions emerge from the present study, namely, that the trail angle of the hook should be as small as is reasonably possible, certainly not more than 65 deg if possible, and that the surface of the touch-down area shall be free from obstructions. Both these factors have become self evident in a qualitative manner, particularly the latter, from experience during the past years, and the present study, it is considered, enables quantitative values to be established for the purpose of design and general assessment. The study also demonstrates that even though the above two conditions are met to a high degree, the absence of bounce can only be assured if high damper loads are employed.

No conclusions are submitted here concerning the effect of the flexibility of the hook suspension....
_________________

...There is a danger with contemporary aircraft and arresting-wire layouts that the time of recovery of the arresting wire maybe longer than the time for the hook to reach the wire after the passage of the aircraft main wheels. Under such circumstances the hook will only engage the wire if the hook is in contact with the deck (which demands good anti-bounce characteristics) and even then only if the traiI angle of the hook is small. Fortunately this latter condition is fulfilled in a tail-down landing but not so in the case of a nose-wheeled aircraft rolling on all three wheels. This last point is of importance when considering arresting gears as overshoot preventers at the ends of runways.

In order to ensure recovery of the cable before the arrival of the hook–for a given engaging speed–it is obvious that the cable tension should be as high as possible; the distance between rope supports as small as possible; and the wheel track and wheel axis to hook distance as big as possible. Practically all these requirements are in conflict with requirements in respect of other considerations. Thus the only recommendation which can be made with certainty, in the case of a carrier landing, is to ensure engagement with a wire before the wires are disturbed by the aircraft wheels. The hook suspension is usually of a sufficient length to ensure this happening providing the hook does not bounce after first contacting the deck. Hence a further emphasis is placed on the requirement of a ‘no bounce’ hook installation.

A tail-wheeled aircraft having its arresting hook aft of the tail wheel is a common configuration of special interest. If the tail wheel is rolling on the deck and depresses the wire then engagement of hook and wire is only possible if the hook is in such an attitude that the hook beak is able to ‘scrape up’ the cable off the deck. There are contemporary aircraft where this is not possible, but the occurrence of the tail wheel depressing the wire before hook engagement is considered to be so rare with conventional layouts during deck landing that it can be neglected; the aftermost position of the hook installation being most desirable in its ability to prevent excessive pitching during the subsequent arrested motion. Nevertheless when considering an arresting gear for runway overshoot conditions the hook position aft of the tail wheel is undesirable and may be unacceptable unless the hook suspension tail angle is sufficiently small."

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2011, 02:55
by spazsinbad
Post from elsewhere on this forum repeated here for illustration purposes....
To continue with the Skyhawk theme here is an RNZAF A-4K Skyhawk short field arresting at NAS Nowra NSW Australia where No.2 RNZAF (Skyhawk training) was based for a decade from 1991-2001. Anyway perspective is a little odd because the runway (21) goes downhill steeply from threshold viewpoint. Gear would have been BLISS BAK-9 AFAIK (runway arrestor gear has been upgraded in last several years).

RNZAF NAS Nowra A-4K Skyhawk Short Field Arrest Demo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MdtnzNv ... 4Z-VgVUpmd

"Uploaded by SpazSinbad2 on Sep 8, 2011
Aircraft probably from No.2 Squadron RNZAF lands further down runway 21 at NAS Nowra (NSW Australia) than usual with hook extended to engage the short field arrest wire (with a much longer pullout than A-4Gs experienced onboard HMAS Melbourne - 1000+ feet compared to 250- feet)."

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2011, 09:12
by alloycowboy
Hey Spazsinbad.....

After the F-35 main landing gear rolls over the cross deck pendant (cable) it is the spring rate of the these leaf spring "risers" that may ultimately determine whether the F-35 traps or not.

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2011, 09:33
by spazsinbad
Please 'alloycowboy' if you can delete the links in your post immediately above this one then free space will become available to show this post? Wiki or FlickR probably don't allow hotlinking that is why the moderators request any images be upload/attached as seen here. Thanks.

The two photos don't show so they are attached in ZOOM proportion with links:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... hanics.jpg
&
http://www.flickr.com/photos/18842924@N ... otostream/

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2011, 10:11
by spazsinbad
This news item may be just a repeat of what is the the recent report (I have not had time to word check) however it will do to illustrate what apparently has been found so far.

New Articles and Information on the F-35 (Source: Center for Defense Information; issued Dec. 14, 2011)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ubles.html

"...F-35C Arresting Hook Problems Could Require Aircraft Redesign (excerpt)
(Excerpted from InsideDefense.com, Dec. 13, 2011)

The arresting hook system on the carrier variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is too short to reliably grab the cable on carrier decks upon landing and will require extensive modifications to fix -- and the aircraft may need a structural redesign if those don't work. (…/…)

The arresting hook system (AHS) for the F-35C, which failed on all eight attempts to connect with the cable in recent roll-in arrestment testing at Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division Lakehurst, NJ. And, with rolling engagements looming in April leading into full carrier suitability demonstrations of the F-35C, the report states that the program doesn't know how significant of a redesign will be needed.

"There are significant issues with respect to how the CV variant's AHS interoperates with aircraft carrier-based MK-7 arresting gear," the report states. "Root cause analysis identified three key AHS design issues: (1) the aircraft geometry has a relatively short distance between the aircraft's main landing gear tires and tailhook point (when lowered), (2) tailhook point design was overemphasized for cable-shredding features versus ability to scoop low-positioned cables, and (3) tailhook hold-down damper performance is ineffective to support damping of small bounces relative to runway/deck surface profiles." (end of excerpt)" ENDS

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2011, 10:20
by spazsinbad
Perhaps a 'telescopic' hook will allow it to lengthen when released from present situation? Perhaps that won't be needed if otherwise the hook point is redesigned to work properly. Not sure if a telescopic hook has been used before but it could lengthen in a fail safe way and shorten by a mechanism if hook is brought up again - on a bolter to bingo perhaps. Funny story about that when an A4G bingoed at night with pilot forgetting to raise hook so he surprisingly or not short field arrested (also did not check hook state before landing) back at NAS Nowra. I'm not privy to all the details because it was not I.

I guess a telescopic hook would make the entire hook structure unnecessarily bendy so it is not a good idea eh. Damper performance should be easy to fix. We wait and see - as always.

It is not only the hook catching performance onboard that is vital but also in the short/long field arrest situations. The aircraft carrier flight deck springs probably can be adjusted somewhat; but there is always a limit for the aircraft tyres etc. The rubber grommets that hold up the shore arrest gear have a limit also most likely. Only 'roll-in' tests have been done so far which is not a 'carrier arrest simulation' at all but it does point to issues. The hook has to work in all required situations. IF the hook doesn't work in one then it is no good at all.

Certainly the springs help a great deal with the hook hitting the deck before the main wheels hit so that the hook is catching a wire undisturbed by the wheels. Life ain't like that though as we have seen from the reports and photos. Probably the situation more serious ashore due to the fixed nature of the wire with the aircraft not flying into the wire (although I had to do that once) with usually the aircraft rolling along the ground immediately before the short (or long) field gear. Another thing to keep in mind is that the hook is not strong enough to be trailed along the runway too much because it might fail - that was a consideration in the A-4 for example so NATOPS warned to aim to 'fly into' the short field gear if possible and to not drop the hook too soon if planning to hit the long field gear. I cannot say today how long it takes a hook to drop but probably as long as a penny (or shoe as the Yanks say). :roll: :lol:

The excellent videos of the successful F-111 no wheels arrest at RAAF Amberely had me horrified at the time because the hook was dragged through the dirt and over the concrete lip of the runway before making a successful arrest. I guess the F-111 hook was good for that treatment. Alls well that ends well. No further complaints from me.

Pic below shows 'grommets' - I'll add links later to info on the graphic.

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2011, 12:49
by spazsinbad
Two fore and aft photos of the same TA4G approaching the short field arrest gear for a demo arrest at NAS Nowra May 1980 - Photos by Wal Nelowkin:

http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6481741&nseq=211
http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6488872&nseq=202

In the first photo the orange light in the wing root near fuselage indicates the TA4G is at Optimum Angle of Attack. The only way to fly. Last photo shows and A4G in 1969 on way to threshold of RW 21. The TA4G is short field arresting on the same runway (in other words it will arrests using the BAK-12 gear shown). The info about ashore arrest gear limits is from the T/A-4G NATOPS of that era c. 1970s.

The 2nd last photo montage clearly shows at top the effect of RAAF Hornet hook dragging along the runway at NAS Nowra (after the A4Gs had departed for NZ).

The last photo by Don Simms (recently published a book about A-4K) shows moment of short field arrest on RW 21 NAS Nowra. Inset shows a fast slow flyby dirty before going around again for the arrest.

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2011, 17:25
by marksengineer
At 140 knots or 233.33 feet per minute (if my math is correct) the time it takes to travel 7 feet is 0.03 seconds. From posts on the thread we know that the cable can spring back up far enough for the hook to engage it in twice that time as the Skyhawk has 14 ft between wheels and deployed hook. The question is where will the cable be after .03 seconds? Would assume that the spring rate is dependent on cable tension. In any event the correct postioning of a high speed camera should provide the data. The problem may be that the spring rate is non-linear taking more time to move the first inch or so than the rest of the travel. Any ideas?

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2011, 19:51
by spazsinbad
marksengineer, AFAIK from above post about the 'roll in' runway arrest tests ashore that failed - these would have been done on the 'grommet held' arrestor gear as shown above. I don't know if Lakehurst has 'spring held' carrier arrestor gear installed. They may well have so I'm only guessing. Onboard there are other variables such as the 6 degrees of movement of the ship - the most important I guess would be the up/down motion of the back end and heave. In that small time frame mentioned though that would be not so much. Onboard USN aircraft carriers I don't really know anything about the CDP tension or springs etc. other than what can be googled. Their system of info in Aircraft Recovery Bulletins ARBs has a lot of detail but I"m not able to access that system. I'll look around - meanwhile here is an USN arrestor gear onboard cutaway diagram & Mk.7 Mod.3 details from:
[Mystery solved about 'Wire Supports' as they are now called in USN - see diagram/text from same source below]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /14310.pdf (mentioned with edited version downloadable elsewhere)

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2011, 00:45
by alloycowboy
@ spazsinbad...... Thanks for the help, I was working on a post when the power went out, I just assumed that post was lost.

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2011, 00:51
by spazsinbad
alloycowboy, the post without the pics is on page 5. You can leave the question and just delete the links that don't work to free up space. The edit function has many more minutes these days.

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2011, 01:05
by alloycowboy
Thanks Spazsinbad..... Done!

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2011, 02:01
by spazsinbad
On the previous page 'alloycowboy' asked: "After the F-35 main landing gear rolls over the cross deck pendant (cable) it is the spring rate of the these leaf spring "risers" that may ultimately determine whether the F-35 traps or not."

There are many variables. Probably ideal (as we see in many photos) is that the hook catches a wire after the main gear passes overhead before touchdown. Often you will see photos (the super hornet is a classic) with the aircraft still airborne by inches but already decelerating due to beginning of arrest. All measured in micro inches and high camera shutter speeds though. I'm not describing an 'inflight arrest' which is altogether different. Just an ideal normal arrest. See pic Zoom...

Then the variations will start if for example there is a hook skip over a wire to catch the next one which may or may not have been 'trampled' already. How the aircraft lands can affect hook behaviour with different aircraft having different 'hook' characteristics. For example in the A-4 'wing waggling' in close (last second line up change) would set the hook swinging, decreasing chances of a good arrest and possible bolter. One thing to consider with a long hook but perhaps today different hook attachments help minimise any swing. Then at least on HMAS Melbourne the A4G hook could bounce enough to miss one or two wires for a bolter. However often there might be once bounce over a short wire to catch a long wire for example. The pilot only knows about this via the LSO afterward. The USN have had the benefit of PLAT tapes since around the early 1960s to see playbacks of approaches from different angles. However the quality is poor so being able to see these minute events is not likely in a freeze frame. Probably new PLAT today [ILARTS] is very much better.

IF an aircraft touches down main wheels before the first wire No.1 then that is referred to as a 'Taxi 1' (taxi up to the first wire) and would be grounds for much consternation by all and sundry. Too many of those would see a pilot being beached. Luckily the big USN carriers have a lot of flight deck before the one wire (all relative though). On smaller carriers a 'taxi 1' is extremely dangerous. So that is an example albeit extreme of how the main wheels can touch down before a wire is caught. A hook may bounce over a wire, then main wheel touchdown then hook catches next wire that has just been run over. Or the next one. And so on. I don't believe it is much of an issue with USN aircraft today but apparently - by all acounts - the F-35C has a problem.

Anyway back to the question. I don't believe the 'risers' depress much at all. As long as tension + riser keep the wire at required height. I have not examined high speed film to know the behaviour of this system in minute detail. The wire is temporarily deformed by main/nose wheels as we saw in the InstaPinch photo series. However we consider main wheels because they touch down first. If we are considering nosewheel then likely the aircraft is beyond the wires boltering. But then again USN carriers are quite lengthy in the flight deck. :D

This sort of 'riser' arrangement could only be considered ashore if the wire could be guaranteed to rest on the runway when not in use. In fact some civilian aircraft will not land before a wire on grommets but land long to avoid running over it. The BAK-14 has an arrangement that will hide the wire below the runway when not in use AFAIK.

[Addition] Keep in mind that the ship may have equipment changed (such as AAG Advanced Arresting Gear) but the F-35C must be able to fit in with equpment restrictions planned to be in use. The equipment is set ideally for today's USN aircraft.

Pic Zoomed from previous page and here: http://www.villanova.edu/artsci/assets/ ... imized.ppt

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2011, 02:34
by spazsinbad
T-45C Goshawk Trap - nosewheel still to hit deck with main wheels making smoke at touch down point after the arrest wire being caught by hook:

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 5G-001.jpg

"040417-N-4565G-001. Atlantic Ocean (Apr. 17, 2004) - Lt.j.g. Julin Rosemand, assigned to Fixed Wing Training Squadron One (VT-1), completes a successful landing in a T-45C Goshawk aboard USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67). VT-1 is going through Carrier Qualifications (CQ) as Kennedy is completing her final training prior to a scheduled upcoming deployment. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate Airman Tommy Gilligan."
__________

And a hook swinging turkey waddling arrest photo from beyond....
______________

And an arrested Hornet...
___________

Good illustration hook before wire before main wheels in the wet....

Story here: ‘Whisper: Still Life’ By Whisper, on March 6th, 2011
http://www.neptunuslex.com/2011/03/06/w ... /#comments
http://www.neptunuslex.com/wp-content/u ... 0087-1.jpg
________________

Lastly Hornet No.3 wire arrest (if no hook skip)....

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2011, 02:50
by spazsinbad
Always instructive to know how tuff youse boing is:

F-18 Catch and Bouncy Ride

http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/ ... 575058001/

"Posted Feb 07, 2007 by William Benner An F/A-18 E in a mid air engagement of the arresting gear onboard caught by ILARTS system."

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2011, 03:19
by spazsinbad
Video Utube shows A4G hook swinging due aggressive late lineup corrections HMAS Melbourne in late 1970s:

http://youtu.be/yXnwHyIHQvM

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2011, 05:09
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Ouch, that last F/A-18 vid looked like an attempted bolter turned into a 4-wire (or is it 1-wire, don't know which way they count) and I would be shocked if that oleo didn't burst.

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2011, 05:58
by spazsinbad
There are some comments about the approach here (only from ILARTS/PLAT which will not be the same view the LSO will have):

Rhino Cut to an IFE By lex, on May 16th, 2011

http://www.neptunuslex.com/2011/05/16/r ... to-an-ife/

"A late wave-off causes a Super Hornet to engage the one wire while coming up to fully power in this Military.com video....

PLAT LSO says, “C: (LULX-IM) _NEPSAR_ _TT1_”

Bet that was a wild ride."

NepLex LSO comments are then translated by him: "Cut Pass – A little lined-up left start-to-in-the-middle, not enough power settle at the ramp (underlined), taxi, taxi one wire (underlined)"

Cut pass means 'epic fail'. You see the notorious 'taxi 1' term also. I don't have sound so cannot hear and cannot be certain if the aircraft is waved off to then catch an IFE InFlight Engagement.

NOSE (LSO also as is Lex) comment: "Nose May 17, 2011 at 3:44 am
Fred, it is never too late to waveoff an unsalvageable pass. They were afraid this guy was gonna hit the rounddown [ramp]. However, if your implication is they hit the pickle [activate waveoff lights (or call 'waveoff')] a little too late, I may agree with you. Not having audio on the PLAT makes it harder to tell...."

Then Lex recomments: lex | May 17, 2011 at 5:44 am
Nose is exactly right (of course), you’d hate as an LSO to jump into the net and not have the wave-off lights witnessed on the PLAT tape. It’s just bad form.

Like a lot of bad landings, the guy was looking pretty good right up until the moment when he wasn’t (people who aren’t looking good from the start to in-the-middle get to try it again) [WAVED OFF!]. For whatever reason he ran out of smack [power] and the LSOs did what they could to keep him off the ramp.

I didn’t see him pull the nose up on a wave-off, which is also bad technique as it can cause an inflight engagement by “extending the hook.” No, it appears to me that he was fully landed and somehow managed to get the jet airborne again after having grabbed the ace [no.1 wire I assume?]. - Ugly."
_________

No carrier pilot wants to bolter deliberately. It is not a bad thing if happens due to 'hook skip' but 'bad' if pilot induced (like any carrier approach there are degrees of good/bad). A bolter means hook has missed the wires for a reason. IF hook not down then that is a touch and go and counts as a deck landing. Wires counted from ramp (back end) with No.1 first and No.3 is target wire.
___________

ADDITION: BTW the carrier approach glideslope is set for each aircraft type so that the hook will hit the deck midway between No.2 & No.3 wire (to catch 3). Graphic from here: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA469901

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2011, 07:52
by spazsinbad
I think this illustration comes from an older version of the PDF mentioned many times on this thread. Graphic illustrates some other forces at work on the aircraft during arrest.

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2011, 09:32
by alloycowboy
Here is one for you spazsinbad, although you might need a Richard's Red after watching it.

NIGHT CARRIER LANDINGS , (Rock & Rolling Deck)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcxv2qBOXJw&feature=related



Image

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2011, 10:46
by spazsinbad
Thanks, it is a great story and illustration of USN NavAv today. As mentioned earlier the CO does the right thing by the junior pilot. And let us hope that the F-35 DAS and HMDS issues are fixed to allow better night vision for night carrier landings as indicated elsewhere in this forum for the F-35B & F-35C.

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2011, 03:52
by spazsinbad
Back on page 3 of this thread about 'hook design issues and fixes' it perhaps is not clear exactly where the F-35C hook is located etc. From: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/m ... 7_6698.jpg

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2011, 09:59
by spazsinbad
Another 'carrier approach view' graphic showing wire numbers from:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... erdeck.gif

Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2011, 15:44
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:.. And let us hope that the F-35 DAS and HMDS issues are fixed to allow better night vision for night carrier landings as indicated elsewhere in this forum for the F-35B & F-35C.


Sensor Fusion is the greatest "Hat Trick" that the F-35 has going for it! The individual systems on the "teens" have been evolved into one of the best day/ night visualation displays that exists in technology today. DAS(IR), EOTS and SAR fused into a 360 deg. field of view will give the aviator the clearest, brightess most informational display for landing on an a/c carrier that has ever existed or...... they can let JPALS and the auto-land function flying today in the "test" F-18 for the X-47B make the landing for them. Either way, "Coming Aboard" in the F-35 is going to be the best that aviation has ever achieved. Wish I could be there, :D

One hopes that the recent landings on the Wasp have "ship tested" JPALS with the "Bee" and further tests at PAX and Edwards will refine any additonal requirements for "auto-landing" on all F-35s.

RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2011, 22:21
by marksengineer
I'm learning much. Interesting that the tailhook points are as different as the aircraft they are installed on. Think that since it's a time-limited part they would have standardized on one for all aircraft. Must be that the operating parameters are different enough to preclude that. Since the initial design failed wonder if they would test the different points from the F-18, F-14, etc.. on the F-35 to see which if any works while they're manufacturing the new design?

Think a telescoping hook would be a very complicated design. Whatever would power the extension and retraction would need either hoses or cables attached to the device and a means of isolating the cylinder or ball screw from the bending forces in the hook. A better solution may be to extend the hook whatever distance the airframe can accomodate. At most that probably would not buy you more than a hundreth of a second more for the cable to rise.

RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2011, 22:55
by spazsinbad
Yes, the telescopic hook has many drawbacks but if we are talking about feet then perhaps there is an inkling of merit (depending on the actual hook length - but still a bad idea as I think I indicated? On previous page: "...I guess a telescopic hook would make the entire hook structure unnecessarily bendy so it is not a good idea eh....") Different aircraft have different length hooks and placement, all to buy time people are saying for the wire to spring back to some height above deck. I cannot say because my eye/brain does not work that quickly. :D Will be fascinating to see not just still photos of a hook/wire engagement but a super slomo video. I'll look.

Anyhoo, without being privy to USN aircraft maintenance manuals (but I'll look) AFAIK the hook is use limited. When an A4G hook reached the arrest limit (all recorded in aircraft logbooks) it would be replaced by a new one and the old one would disappear faster than a in a blink of an eye. :D There are (or used to be) plenty of old/new/used hooks for sale online.

Another bad idea I have is to mount the hook attachment point in reverse of present position. That way when the hook extends it will be offset aft by whatever the diff. ??? :D They don't pay me anough. :D Perhaps mounting the hook that way (on a strong pivot of course) it may be possible to then extend the hook length forward. I must be 'Heath Robinson II" (the Rube Goldberg of his day).

http://www.chrisbeetles.com/gallery/ima ... 3231-b.jpg

RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2011, 05:57
by spazsinbad
A look at the A-4 Hook + text from an ex-A4G maintainer who had to: “...reproduce a radius on the toe of the hook with a 'rasp' after frequent contact with the deck wore it to a knife edge which, to the consternation of the 'Stokers' responsible for the 'trap', were required to replace arrestor wires which had been cut.”

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/ind ... 9830&st=60

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk10 ... 530509.jpg

RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2011, 11:54
by spazsinbad
Great overview of all the 'bibs & bobs' of NavAv (in the USN). At around the 13 minute 35 second mark there is a short segment zoomed showing the arrestor wire being snagged. I'll try to get a screenshot. One of wire support (+ LSOs).... then wire snag. Now a wire trampled.

Flight Deck Safety Awareness Video Guide From: NavalSafetyCenter | Dec 15, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/user/navalsafety ... w_bgL1MwUQ

"The Naval Safety Center has provided a printed magazine on flight-deck safety for many years. A few years ago, we produced this video to be used in the training of flight-deck personnel. Although a few years old, the information still is valid and is a good tool as a refresher for those familiar with flight-deck operations or for new people not accustomed to the flight deck. This video has been distributed on CD-ROMs for several years, but it is now being made available on the internet."

RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2011, 14:04
by spazsinbad
Wire Trample Video Clip at one/eigth speed from above video + screenshot of trample instant. Right click on the attached .WMV video screen (when playing) to select 'ZOOM' 'full screen' for the full CineRama Experience. :twisted: :D

Now on Utube also:

Arrestor Wire Trample Behaviour HD at one/8th Speed

http://youtu.be/Y-jVVj73Xg0

RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2011, 08:19
by spazsinbad
F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts 01 Nov 2011

http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/ ... 1-2011.pdf

"* As of Oct. 31, F-35C jets had executed 59 successful catapult launches and three arrestments." QUE?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2011, 09:25
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts 01 Nov 2011

http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/ ... 1-2011.pdf

"* As of Oct. 31, F-35C jets had executed 59 successful catapult launches and three arrestments." QUE?


Those have to be the 3 arrestments made during early tests BEFORE the decision was made to redesign the tailhook.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2011, 00:16
by spazsinbad
OLD wire tech with supports and a familiar story perhaps.

AM-1 Mauler: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_ ... em_id=1614
The Martin AM-1 carrier-based ground attack aircraft entered Navy service in 1948 after some teething problems during development. The Mauler had four 20 mm cannons and fifteen underwing and fuselage hardpoints for weapons. In 1950, the 151 aircraft built were reassigned to Naval Reserve squadrons, as the Navy had chosen the AD Skyraider as its primary carrier attack aircraft. Fifteen Maulers designated AM-1Q were later modified for electronic warfare. The Mauler was retired in 1953.

BIG PIC: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/m ... 7_8609.jpg

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2012, 03:28
by spazsinbad
An arrest video at one-eigth speed. Tried to slow it down more without success. Anyway this arrest would be an 'ideal' example with the main wheels not touching the arrested wire before the hook gets there. As one can imagine though there are many, many variations from 'taxi 1' (main wheels or all wheels touchdown before number one wire to then 'taxi' to an arrest) to main wheels hitting or touching down before the arrest wire or subsquent arrest wire to cause perhaps a 'trample' issue but - whatever.

Same video - same speed - Utube:

Arrestor Wire Arrest 1/8th speed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCzO4G8wbXk

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2012, 04:39
by spazsinbad
Checkout the TAPE DRAGON: (I received only a card - seen below) :twisted: :D CheePPatards! :D :twisted:

tapedragon.wmv

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

"Uploaded by ravenarrestor on May 16, 2011
With successful development of the Barrier Arrestor Kit, and in culmination to a bit of crafty public relations, E.W. Bliss ADEC established the Grand Order of Tape Dragons in 1962. Nobody wants to crash and burn and a hook and cable didn't rest well with a weary pilot during these early years of land-based arresting systems. But then came along the BAK (Barrier Arresting Kit) and the need for some good PR to change the norm and reverse the fear.

Many articles discussing aircraft arresting, safety and awareness appeared in both mainstream media in magazines such as Aviation Week, and a buzz was created around military installations across the world about the "Bliss Barrier." If an installation had one of these systems that pilots could depend upon; and Heaven forbid, if an emergency occurred, the pilots felt much more comfortable sticking it out (not ejecting) and bringing the aircraft down to the ground and hitting the barrier. The barrier saved aircraft and it saved lives. This wasn't always the case!

Aircrew safety program initiated through Bliss PR campaign.
The Grand Order was a unique appreciation of an air safety problem. Membership to the club was restricted to pilots and passengers of aircraft which engaged on land-based runway overrun arrestment equipment under emergency conditions. If someone qualified, Bliss conveniently sent out application cards to major installations across the globe, along with posters announcing the club. Applicants only needed to fill out the card which asked for dates and installations where the engagement occurred. Bliss would send a plaque, medallion clip and wallet card free of charge, of course. Within ten years; Bliss had compiled a list of about 3000 names of aircrew that had successfully engaged an arresting barrier..that is good PR! Many pilots wrote of the details of their engagement and sent their stories into the company.

Tape Dragon Oath:
"I believe in the Grand Order of Tape Dragons as an excellent way to call attention of all airman to the great value of arresting equipment. By virtue of my experience, I am an enthusiastic salesman for this kind of safety equipment. I faithfully pledge that I will make loud, highly effective, disapproving noises if I see any barrier being misused, mistreated or improperly maintained. I further pledge that I will actively advocate that all aircraft be protected from the primordial ooze of overruns by suitable arresting equipment and that all arresting equipment be steadily improved to the greater safety of all airman". -- Veryl Vary
Article courtesy of Gary Ell"

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2012, 04:48
by spazsinbad
ARRESTING SYSTEMS.wmv

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsSzP40R ... re=related

"Uploaded by ravenarrestor on Jun 28, 2011
Engineered Arresting Systems (ESCO), a division of Zodiac Aerospace is the manufacturer of aircraft arresting systems and energy absorption products. ESCO's headquarters and main production facility are located in Aston, Pennsylvania immediately adjacent to Interstate 95, approximately 15 miles south of the Philadelphia International Airport. For more than 50 years, Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation, the cornerstone of Zodiac's Emergency Arresting Systems Divisions (EASD), has harnessed mechanical energy to provide customized arrestment and containment solutions for aircraft and transport vehicles. To learn more visit, www.esco.zodiacaerospace.com

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2012, 11:16
by spazsinbad
Youse prolly wondered why the solution to the F-35C hook problem looked familiar? No? Compare the A-4 hook with that of proposed solution (A-4 hook also seen more betta on page 7 of this thread: :roll: :twisted: :D

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-90.html

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2012, 13:18
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:Youse prolly wondered why the solution to the F-35C hook problem looked familiar? No? Compare the A-4 hook with that of proposed solution (A-4 hook also seen more betta on page 7 of this thread: :roll: :twisted: :D

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-90.html


Would it be possible to lower the apex point of the hook even closer to the deck?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2012, 14:56
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I dont think you could without risk of sharpening it to the point of a safety issue or degradation of the leading edge.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2012, 15:52
by spazsinbad
There has to be a blunt radius at the sharp end otherwise if the 'axe' hits the wire either a big chunk will be taken out or wire break. Elsewhere an A4G maintainer describes 'blunting the axe' with a file because too many deck strikes tends to sharpen it (depending on many other factors also).

“...reproduce a radius on the toe of the hook with a 'rasp' after frequent contact with the deck wore it to a knife edge which, to the consternation of the 'Stokers' [Navy slang for old coal fired boiler stokers now deck machinery workers] responsible for the 'trap' [arrestor wires], were required to replace arrestor wires which had been cut.”

Where's my Tape Dragon pin/certificate?

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2012, 16:33
by Gums
Salute!

Great discussion, Spaz.

Hard for me to believe that the shoe design wasn't more carefully engineered.

OTOH, I fully appreciate the angles after having skipped a wire on the departure end one night with a slick runway - an A-7D, which had the identical design to the USN version ( A-7E). I put the hook down and eased off the brakes, which weren't working all that well due to the anti-skid. Ground crew said they could see sparks for 1,000 feet before I had the dreaded "hook skip". So still at 70 knots or so, pull hard on stick to get nose up a bit and grab the no sierra tape dragon on the overrun. Whew!!

So I appreciate the discussion of the angles - approach. contact and the hook shoe itself.

Next time was hydraulic failure and I engaged the approach end cable with no problems.

Finally, lest anyone think those "wires" are made of "unobtaniium", they are not and can be cut with a certain landing technique/sharp hook/or my frozen wheel. Brakes locked up due to bad control valve and then ground down right wheel and had an inadvertant engagement at the mid-field barrier ( Korat RTAB). After a few hundred feet the frozen wheel rim cut the wire loose and I continued to slither down the rwy with sparks flying and an eventual fire, Whew!

Again. great thread.

Gums sends...

RE: Where

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2012, 20:10
by spazsinbad
Thanks for your input Gums, are you now a TapeDragon? :D Korat does not sound too hot! Nice it turned out well I'll assume because you are still walking and talking? :cheers:

Some Say that the Hornet hook/shoe design was used/adapted for the F-35C. I think THE STIG should have been involved from the beginning (courtesy of TOP GEAR). :devil:

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos ... 45-679.jpg

RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2012, 23:02
by spazsinbad
HiRez example of the InstaPinch 'nosewheel? over wire' effect here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 3-wire.jpg

Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2012, 01:02
by Orangeburst
spazsinbad wrote:HiRez example of the InstaPinch 'nosewheel? over wire' effect here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 3-wire.jpg


Spaz..

That instantaneous picture is amazing. I never really thought about the effects of the nosegear traversing the wire. That picture looks so odd seeing so much sag with the wire that there is excess laying on the deck, to the point of looking deformed (all of the lag within just a few feet of the strike point). I guess those riser thingys settled upon wheel impaction, causing laxation in the wire...but the picture would indicate those risers had already returned to their normal state..hmmm. What makes the wire taught again for the the tailhook, which is obviuosly only miliseconds away? Does the arrestor system snap back in place quickly enough? They only lose minimal steam psi intially and it reverts back to taught very quickly. This may be why you would want some certain distance (or Time) between the initial strike and the the tailhook.

Could they not just change the height of the riser thingys to allow for successful arrests for the C? Of course this opens up a can o' worms for other aircraft types ( Hornet C, Hornet E, C-2, E-2) or even the arrestor equipment itself (especially at the end points over the deck), but maybe an inch or two be probable that would allow all types sucess. Yet this may require re-cert of all types, but who knows.

Sorry, just thinking (or not) outloud. I cannot help but think about the time the transport truck was stuck under an overpass and the engineers could not figure out how to dislodge the truck (myth..I dont know) and it took someone to just tell them to let the air pressure out of the tires.
OK, I am now in official looney land.

RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2012, 01:21
by spazsinbad
The picture is probably necessarily cropped via zoom lens. Possibly in the instance seen the aircraft may have already caught a wire and be in the process of arresting. If so then extra weight is brought to bear on the nosewheel during that process. Without a bunch of supporting information in particular about that photo it is difficutl to say. I would not be too worried because Naval Aircraft Hook Designs have been catching arrestor wires for a very long time. Yes there may be hiccups at beginning but soon sorted. Critics make much ado about nothing methinks. But "What me Worry" as Alfred E. Neumann is wont to say. :D

Perhaps and I stress perhaps the other non-issue about main wheels to hook point distance may become important. I say wait until hook redesign tested before having conniptions over it. Consider this: a lot of hurdles overcome in the F-35 design already. This is but a speed bump.

And I'll remake this point. The aircraft 'needs to want to change' and not any other supporting equipment including aircraft carriers and land based arrestor gear. OK? ;D

It will be fine - supa fine. How many LM engineers does it take to make this work? :D

Re: RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2012, 01:51
by Orangeburst
spazsinbad wrote:The picture is probably necessarily cropped via zoom lens. Possibly in the instance seen the aircraft may have already caught a wire and be in the process of arresting. If so then extra weight is brought to bear on the nosewheel during that process. Without a bunch of supporting information in particular about that photo it is difficutl to say. I would not be too worried because Naval Aircraft Hook Designs have been catching arrestor wires for a very long time. Yes there may be hiccups at beginning but soon sorted. Critics make much ado about nothing methinks. But "What me Worry" as Alfred E. Neumann is wont to say. :D

Perhaps and I stress perhaps the other non-issue about main wheels to hook point distance may become important. I say wait until hook redesign tested before having conniptions over it. Consider this: a lot of hurdles overcome in the F-35 design already. This is but a speed bump.

And I'll remake this point. The aircraft 'needs to want to change' and not any other supporting equipment including aircraft carriers and land based arrestor gear. OK? ;D

It will be fine - supa fine. How many LM engineers does it take to make this work? :D


NM

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2012, 06:18
by alloycowboy
Here is a news article from the NavyTimes:

Design blamed for F-35C tailhook issues


http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/01/dn-design-blamed-for-f35c-tailhook-issues-011712/

“The good news is that it’s fairly straight forward and isolated to the hook itself,” said Tom Burbage, Lockheed program manager for the F-35 program. “It doesn’t have secondary effects going into the rest of the airplane.”

Moreover, the rest of the design of the tailhook system, which include the doors and bay that conceal the device and other ancillary hardware, is sound, Burbage said.


Tests with the newly modified tailhook should start at Lakehurst, N.J, in the second quarter of this year, Burbage said.


Burbage dismisses claims that the F-35C will be unable to land on a carrier as falsehoods.

“That’s patently not true,” he said.

Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., said the claim that the F-35C could never land on a ship was always highly dubious.

“They turned the YF-17 into a carrier plane, why couldn’t they correct carrier-hook problems here?” he said. “This does not appear to be a killer problem.”

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Chicken Little Runs Amok!!!

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2012, 06:31
by spazsinbad
Thanks - good find - alloycowboy. :D

Re: RE: Where

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2012, 00:40
by navy_airframer
spazsinbad wrote:Some Say that the Hornet hook/shoe design was used/adapted for the F-35C. I think THE STIG should have been involved from the beginning (courtesy of TOP GEAR). :devil:


Just for the record, the F-35 hook point looks nothing like a Hornet point. :cheers:

RE: Re: RE: Where

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2012, 02:54
by spazsinbad
Just for the record: QLR Page 11/12 has this quote: "...The current F-35C tailhook point design (Appendix Figure 9, page A-10) was based on the F/A-18E/F design which has a blunt face to better provide cable shredding protection versus scooping. However, the FIA -18E/F's geometry places the distance of its main landing gear to tailhook point at 18.2 feet..."

QUOTE repeated here also: http://theaviationist.com/tag/boeing-fa ... er-hornet/

"...Although the current F-35C tailhook point design was based on that of the Hornet, the F-18 geometry places the distance of its main landing gear to tailhook point at 18.2 feet..."
_________________

And here: http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/12/br ... esign.html

"...so that the current hook point (which was based on the proven F-18 design) ..."
___________________

Some Say I'll look for some Hornet Hook close ups. :D And WickedPedia is closed today (for naughtiness?)

http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/vmhalme/hor ... finnaf.jpg
______________

+ ZOOMs from:

http://ipmsnl.netfirms.com/walkarounds/ ... G_3681.jpg
&
http://ipmsnl.netfirms.com/walkarounds/ ... G_9054.JPG
&
http://ipmsnl.netfirms.com/walkarounds/ ... G_8405.JPG
&
F/A-18F Super Hornet:
http://ipmsnl.netfirms.com/walkarounds/ ... G_8405.JPG

RE: Re: RE: Where

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2012, 04:28
by alloycowboy
Are you sure Spazsinbad (aka captain hook) they look different?.....

Image

Image

RE: Re: RE: Where

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2012, 04:33
by spazsinbad
As you can see I have been looking for the perfect photo. I made the claim that 'Some Say' remember. Now I don't have either an F/A-18 series of hooks handy to just go take the perfect matching photo - so I have to scour the internet looking for same - if only for my personal interest. I make no claims otherwise. Youse can see for youseselves. OK?

Proably the Super Hornet Hook more closely resembles the F-35C current design that does not work. So now I'll look for more SUPER HOOKS! Please bear with me - or not. :twisted: :D

One has to look at the last photo in the first series above which is the only Super Hornet Hook. Also that HOOK is UP whilst the photo of the F-35C shows it on the deck. I could rotate the photo of the Super Hook but it will still not match the side view, so youse can rotate the hook in youse mind's eye. OK? :roll:

The Super Hook is from this walkaround series here:
http://ipmsnl.netfirms.com/walkarounds/ ... 8F-CH.html

So to be clear:
F-35C
http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f_35cho ... ew_520.jpg
&
F/A18-E/F
http://www.f-16.net/attachments/superho ... om_786.jpg

Image
Image

RE: Re: RE: Where

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2012, 04:46
by spazsinbad
From same Super Site above here is the rear hook view + ZOOM:
http://ipmsnl.netfirms.com/walkarounds/ ... G_8408.JPG

RE: Re: RE: Where

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2012, 04:54
by spazsinbad
Another WALKaround Joint is here:
http://www.arcair.com/awa-archives/walk-jet.shtm

SuperDooperHornetHook Rear View:
http://www.arcair.com/awa01/601-700/awa ... ran/09.jpg

RE: Re: RE: Where

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2012, 05:01
by alloycowboy
@ Spaz.... I definetly agree that the design is similar but disagree about them having a similar profile.

RE: Re: RE: Where

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2012, 05:05
by spazsinbad
For interest sake perhaps (and remember this Growler is likely NOT flying at Optimum Angle of Attack - so the nose is lower in coomparison - thus hook point higher in relation to main wheels). Anyway Pic + Zoom:

JAMMIN' WITH THE GROWLER

http://www.combataircraft.net/reports/growler.php

http://www.combataircraft.net/reports/i ... owler5.gif

RE: Re: RE: Where

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2012, 05:08
by spazsinbad
allowcowboy - to compare hook profiles one would need to have these profiles to compare. We do not see a Super Hornet or even Hornet Hook profile for comparison - yet. One may be found to do so eventually.

RE: Re: RE: Where

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2012, 08:59
by spazsinbad
An F-14 hook was brought into the discussion earlier. Here is a good scale comparision couple of pics + ZOOMs:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3088/2640 ... 73be_b.jpg
&
http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1329/9930 ... z.jpg?zz=1

RE: Re: RE: Where

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2012, 09:18
by spazsinbad
Lots of tailhook action in this collection:
http://flickrhivemind.net/Tags/tailhook/

Photo suggests only an F/A-18 hook but whatever (only Zoomed shown):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/yodamon/50 ... otostream/

RE: Re: RE: Where

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2012, 10:34
by spazsinbad
Some perspective...

F-35 Tail Hook Risks? Meh. 19 Jan 2012 by SMSgt Mac

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... s-meh.html


Some stuff already mentioned at beginning (worth going to read though) then this:

"PS: I’d discuss the technical challenges of successful arresting gear development in more detail, (beginning with the fact that when it comes to an aircraft system interacting with the ship system what we are talking about is essentially a chaotic meta-system) but most people’s eyes would glaze over before I was finished. OK, I admit it, since I deal with this kind of stuff from 9 to 5 it would be no fun for me either. The article linked above covers what may be the critical bits in this case anyway.
Just think about ALL the variables that might be involved and you’ll get the idea."

Re: RE: Re: RE: Where

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2012, 12:34
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:Some perspective...

F-35 Tail Hook Risks? Meh. 19 Jan 2012 by SMSgt Mac

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... s-meh.html


Some stuff already mentioned at beginning (worth going to read though) then this:

"PS: I’d discuss the technical challenges of successful arresting gear development in more detail, (beginning with the fact that when it comes to an aircraft system interacting with the ship system what we are talking about is essentially a chaotic meta-system) but most people’s eyes would glaze over before I was finished. OK, I admit it, since I deal with this kind of stuff from 9 to 5 it would be no fun for me either. The article linked above covers what may be the critical bits in this case anyway.
Just think about ALL the variables that might be involved and you’ll get the idea."




Interesting that Grumman actually built a double-jointed hook arm. So if ever it came down to needing a longer arm, they actually have experience with a folding arm to fall back on.

"A" model hook

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2012, 18:26
by Gums
Salute!

Talked with the F-35 folks at Eglin yesterday and they said the "A" hook works just fine on the basic USAF abort or approach end engagement.

That sucker is submerged, so I couldn't get a good pic of it. It's also a very short distance from the main gear, so maybe the thing just workd better ( or designed) for the typical USAF use versus a carrier landing. I also suspect that the basic USAF cables work better due to the "donuts" versus those wire doofers on the boats. In other words, the cable stays up off the deck for the hook to engage.

The pic shows how short the thing is. It's almost to the exhaust nozzles and behind the power package exhaust in this pic. Sorry I couldn't get a better view.

Image

My after action report on our F-35 tour on another thread when I get time.

Gums sends...

RE: "A" model hook

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2012, 19:17
by spazsinbad
Gums, thanks for the pic. The F-35A hook arrangement is quite different. Until I saw this F-35A emergency hook drawing graphic below I had wondered why the arresting photo of the F-35A seemed to make the hook / shank invisiible. I guess it is a 'stealth' hook. :D Would like to know more about it but for the moment the graphics will have to suffice. Also I would suggest that the 'wire supports' onboard steel deck aircraft carriers are actually better than the rubber grommets ashore.

A lot is made of the wire being flat on the deck (after/during the trample momentarily). It seems obvious to me that the new hook point design will scoop up a 'flat on the deck trampled cable' (compared to original design). We'll see eh.

This thread has A-4 hooks which to me look like the new hook design for the F-35C. The A-4 hook worked well and was also had short main wheel to hook point length compared to some other USN aircraft. I don't think the sky is falling - unlike elp/Goon for example. :D

And perhaps not obvious - until close-up made of the hook point/shoe of the F-35A emergency hook - one can see the similarity between F-35C intended redesign and also A-4 hook. All good. No? Now only a slightly retouched F-35A hook does look like an A-4 Hook eh.

http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f_35cho ... ig_145.gif

Image
_________________________

Arresting F-35s & Brake Testing for more info on F-35A AA-01 testing

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-14400.html

http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f_35azo ... um_289.jpg

Image

RE: "A" model hook

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2012, 21:09
by spazsinbad
And a compilation of hook shoes... and the bleedin' main wheel hook distance chart from:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2 ... report.pdf (~18Mb)

I note this and a few other charts are not in the Aviation Week Version here:
Got to this page first:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/extra.jsp
Then download from link named:
"December 2011
(Dec. 14) DOD F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Concurrency Quick Look Review"

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/awst_pdf/ (~18Mb)

It is likely the last URL above cannot be used directly so get to it as recommended above.

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2012, 23:27
by Gums
Salute!

I can't find a good dimensional diagram of the A-7D hook distance, but it looks like about the same distance as the A-4 from mains to hook shoe.

Our hook was the same as the Navy version, and not the spring-looking thing depicted above for the "A" model. We also retained the wing fold and such from the Navy design.

WRT to the donuts..... Seems to me that the donuts cause the wire to bounce back up quickly after the mains pass over. The ones depicted for the boats would seem to allow the wire to slide forward and may not get back up high enough for a short hook to engage. But what do I know? Only had one skip outta three attempts, and was below flying speed.

When I get the next tour at Eglin, I'll get better pics and talk about it with the pilots and crew chiefs. We should be flying within the next month, according to the Wing king and others there yesterday.

Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2012, 23:36
by spazsinbad
Gums, Thanks. As the thread here suggests [http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-15767-start-120.html] the arresting systems are chaotic [http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2012/01/f-35-tailhook-risks-meh.html] (and different as you suggest).

What the F-35C hook redesign will do (which will then more closely resemble the F-35A hook and the A-4 hook) is enhance that ashore 'rubber grommet held up' arrestor wire catching and also the 'land based test onboard current USN flight deck gear system' at NAS Lakehurst. It will take the test results to show one way or tuther. I just don't leap to silly conclusions ala elp/Goon et al.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2012, 17:29
by spazsinbad
And a lucky last almost 'taxi 1' wire showing some possible A4G trampling but then again perhaps the wheels have hit the deck just after the no.1 wire - dramatic photo by Laurie Hillier nevertheless (CAA - Chief Airframe Artificer [overall in charge of maintenance and in effect the squadron) of VF-805 in the late 1970s. The chap to whom one says: "Not me Chief". :D

The new F-35C hook design will enable a better pickup of trampled, or flat on the deck or runway, arrestor wires.

http://a4-alley.x90x.net/A4-Alley/RAN/I ... -dkldg.jpg

RE: "A" model hook

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2012, 21:00
by navy_airframer
The reprofiled F-35 hook point looks alot more like the SH point then the one that failed the wire engagment tests.

The Growler is one of my squadron jets too.

RE: "A" model hook

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2012, 00:36
by spazsinbad
navy_airframer I think you are missing something. Have a look at this graphic: http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f_35cho ... ig_145.gif
from 8th page of this thread: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-105.html

If you have a photo or drawing of a Super Hornet and / or a Hornet hook point to share that would be terrific. Thanks.

And this graphic is incorrectly attributed to the QLR PDF which actually does not have the hook series so the one to download is POGO at: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2 ... report.pdf (19Mb)

Image

RE: "A" model hook

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2012, 08:57
by alloycowboy
@Spazsinbad..... I wonder if some one bothered to figure what the minimum radius they can get away on the front of the hook. One would think the less radius the better as you get more a spatula effect.

Image

RE: "A" model hook

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2012, 09:12
by spazsinbad
I think LM/NavAir/B&SS have this in mind.

RE: "A" model hook

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2012, 09:58
by spazsinbad
According to this graphic the diameter of the 'Cross Deck Pendant' displayed on left of above graphic is 1 and 3/8ths of an inch OR 1 and 7/16ths of an inch.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /14310.pdf (5.8Mb)

RE: "A" model hook

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2012, 13:02
by spazsinbad

RE: "A" model hook

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2012, 08:20
by spazsinbad

RE: "A" model hook

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2012, 08:41
by spazsinbad
For Gums: http://www.esco.zodiacaerospace.com/dow ... 0BLISS.pdf

Question: Whose on First? Hook or Main Wheels or Nose Wheel?
Answer: Buddy Store if youse not careful. :twisted: :D :shock:

Firstly an Utube Video of A4G Hook Runners in action:
http://youtu.be/oCITLk6tDU4

Lastly but not Leastly - a photo by Joe Kaposi - Hook Runner showing angle of dangle of A-4 hook.

Re: RE: "A" model hook

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2012, 10:42
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:Rubber Grommet Photo for Runway Arrestor Wire with hand for scale:

http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww29 ... C00270.jpg
&
http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww29 ... C00269.jpg
n

Spaz, is there anything to preclude use of grommets aboard ship? They would seem to do a good job of elevating the cable off the deck.

RE: Re: RE: "A" model hook

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2012, 10:56
by spazsinbad
IMHO the wire supports do a great job. Any deck hardware must be just that - hardwearing. The rubber grommets are for sometime use in the nevernever. There just in case. I don't know how long these rubber thingies would last but I guess they are replaced every now and then. I guess we need to see a slomo grommet arrest ashore to see what happens to them. :D

Grommet is an Oz Surfer Slang term for a newbie. Especially an annoying one that gets in the way of real surfers. :D
____________

Another issue for friendliness onboard is that the wire supports go flat as do the wires when otherwise not in use. It really is no fun to be around the wires when they are UP!

Re: RE: Re: RE: "A" model hook

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2012, 15:57
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:IMHO the wire supports do a great job. Any deck hardware must be just that - hardwearing. The rubber grommets are for sometime use in the nevernever. There just in case. I don't know how long these rubber thingies would last but I guess they are replaced every now and then. I guess we need to see a slomo grommet arrest ashore to see what happens to them. :D

Grommet is an Oz Surfer Slang term for a newbie. Especially an annoying one that gets in the way of real surfers. :D
____________

Another issue for friendliness onboard is that the wire supports go flat as do the wires when otherwise not in use. It really is no fun to be around the wires when they are UP!


Yup, those rubber rings would probably get shredded in no time in a carrier environment. Threading cable thru replacement rubber donuts won't be any fun either.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: "A" model hook

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2012, 15:59
by spazsinbad
popcorn surmises (very well indeed) :D "...Threading cable thru replacement rubber donuts won't be any fun either." As I recall there is some Naval saying about 'rolling donuts' and 'flying something or others'? :D

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2012, 17:06
by Gums
Salute!

The link by Spaz shows the "A" engaging the donout-raised cable.

http://www.esco.zodiacaerospace.com/

I agree that the donuts would likely be a bear to maintain on a boat, soooooo.

The cable I snatched on the overrun after skipping the BAK-9 150o feet from the end was likely a modified MA-1 or an E5. Dragged a coupla anchor chains and was smooth and it worked!

Baaahhhh wahhhh, I want my Tape Dragon pin!!!!! Sniff, sniff.

++++++++

The one I am trying to track down was used in Viet Nam by USMC Scooters up in I Corps. We also used the thing at NAS Barber's Point for our A-7D's on a deployment there in the mid 70's. Allowed landings about a minute and a half apart. As we had the same hook as the Navy birds, we could raise it and taxi clear as the cable was being retracted for the next "trap". The thing had a lot longer run out than the standard cables on a boat or even our BAK-9 and BAK-12 systems on normal USAF runways.

AvWeb has a current, short article about the "C" hook.

Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2012, 17:37
by spazsinbad

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2012, 21:55
by elp
Some other interesting A-4 trivia. The designer stressed simplicity above all.

And the original design came in way under-weight to the requirement. Add to that, from the early model to the later models, the design had a around a 25 percent growth in empty weight.

Do you see those kinds of margins with the F-35 design?

I am also curious about a yoke hook design on the F-35C. What does that mean?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2012, 22:19
by spazsinbad
elp says: "...I am also curious about a yoke hook design on the F-35C. What does that mean?" Here is my [cartoon] guess....

Also same elp curiousity unanswered (go ask the Goon whydoncha? - I guess he ain't a structural engineer) here: (scroll down)

U.S. Navy and U.K. Royal Navy F-35 unable to get aboard ship
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16692.html

elp: "....An interesting question for structural engineers? Did they use a yoke configuration because they had to lower stress on an already minimal strength airframe or some other issues?..."

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2012, 23:01
by elp
spazsinbad wrote:elp says: "...I am also curious about a yoke hook design on the F-35C. What does that mean?" Here is my [cartoon] guess....

Also same elp curiousity unanswered (go ask the Goon whydoncha? - I guess he ain't a structural engineer) here: (scroll down)

U.S. Navy and U.K. Royal Navy F-35 unable to get aboard ship
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16692.html

elp: "....An interesting question for structural engineers? Did they use a yoke configuration because they had to lower stress on an already minimal strength airframe or some other issues?..."


:lol: --- I was just curious since you are the one doing the hard sell. Interesting the other day, Mr. Burbage has stated he has the A-team on this fix. That is reassuring. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2012, 23:40
by spazsinbad
elp, what hard sell is that? For example the A-4 was introduced by 'alloycowboy' I believe to illustrate a point about hooks. Sure I took it from there because - guess what - I have GigaBytes of info about the A4G in particular readily to hand. Youse can have it also because it is freely available as an online download PDF. See signature at bottom of my posts here.

If anyone is hard selling I would suggest that you elp would be that 'hard' seller as an anti F-35 salesperson. As for myself as I have repeated ad nauseam (don't quote me) on this site, I'm interested in the facts and would rather my opinions did not intrude - but it is addictive eh - if only for meself.

So to get to the point. I was surprised to discover that the planned redesign of the F-35C hook will closely resemble the existing emergency F-35A hook and (surprise again) the A-4 hook. Big deal - obviously the A-4 hook works well with a similar short mainwheel to hook point distance. So then there are many illustrations of use of said hooks with some suggesting the original F-35C hook resembled a 'Hornet' hook - variety unknown. How hard is that to understand?

Then for you to somehow suggest that the A-4 is a model of Naval Aircraft development compared to the F-35 is beyond my comprehension. All you have is sly innuendo such as: "...Mr. Burbage has stated he has the A-team on this fix. That is reassuring." And ooohhh I forgot the stuff about 'unable to land on a carrier' malarkey. As if.

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2012, 01:11
by johnwill
I'm a structural engineer, so I'll try to answer that. There are a number of reasons to use a "yoked" hook on a carrier borne airplane. It reduces the lateral swing when the airplane rolls. If the fuselage has two lower keel beams rather than one, a yoked hook attaches more efficiently. The lower hook pivot point greatly reduces the the amount of "cable-slap" when the hook first picks up the cable and rapidly moves upward. Cable-slap can do great damage to nearby objects, like horizontal tails and aft fuselages. During rollout, the cable will be lower, preventing pitchup which could reduce stability.

My guess is the reason has nothing to do with structures, but is related to reduced cable-slap. The E-2 has a similar yoked hook and it also has a very low aft
fuselage, possibly prone to cable-slap problems.

In case you didn't realize it, elp, all airplanes have minimal strength structures. Less weight that way, doncha know? :roll:

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2012, 01:49
by spazsinbad
Thanks for info johnwill. Dare I say SLDinfo has a good story (probably badly told) about hook issues with the venerable Vigilante (sometimes misspelt in the story) but anyway - to me at least - interesting. Amazing what Naval Aviators will up with put. :D

Tail Hook is More Than a Party Jan/22/12 by Ed Timperlake

http://www.sldinfo.com/tail-hook-is-more-than-a-party/

"...The RA-5 Vigalente was an extremely difficult aircraft to safely bring back to the ship; again it was a tail hook issue.

Once a tail hook even separated from the “Viggie” returning from a combat mission.

But every landing was a challenge requiring great skill.

The RA-5 had a high landing speed angle of attack and a tail hook design that if it slapped back into the airframe it could cause “Alpha” damage. To translate a bad approach and landing and the pilot might destroy the aircraft—“”Alpha Class Mishap.”

In those days it was known that the RA-5 Vigilante pilots were the most skilled aviators in landing aboard the boat.

In the highly competitive world of Naval Aviation, the RA-5 pilots took a design issue –the tail hook-and with great skill carried on.

However, the real lesson is that any flaw with the “hook” must be addressed so all “nuggets,” first tour aviators, can bring their aircraft safely. So finding and fixing a tail hook problem with the F-35C is a very good thing...."

As always best to read the story in full at URL above. [Emphasis in the story]
_____________________________

A-5 Vigilante ____(Rare Videos) Deck Landing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... YR8QByIOKY

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2012, 07:52
by spazsinbad
Another TaleHookTailTwist: Photo: Hornet catching the wires. On the Arctic Circle January 22, 2012
by David Cenciotti

http://theaviationist.com/2012/01/22/finnish-hornet/

"Published by Lt. Gen. Jarmo Lindberg, commander of the Finnish Air Force, on his Twitter timeline few days ago, the following picture (by Harri Koskinen) shows a F-18D Hornet routine arrested landing practice at Rovaniemi on the Arctic Circle.

The photograph is interesting because it shows an aircraft about to catch the wire on a land base and it is taken from a position that gives a clear view of the distance between the Main Landing Gear and the arrestor hook on the Hornet: 18.9 ft...."

http://s1-02.twitpicproxy.com/photos/full/495314913.jpg
&
"MAAS overhaul at 380 AEW
Senior Airman Jason Senter, from the 380th Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron, cuts off unserviceable cable spacers on the mobile aircraft arresting system Aug. 27, 2011, during a two-week maintenance overhaul of the system at an air base in Southwest Asia. This maintenance is due every 10 years. The MAAS is an emergency braking system for tail-hook-equipped aircraft. It is used in emergency situations where a fighter aircraft needs assistance with coming to a stop after flight. This occasionally occurs due to mechanical failures beyond the pilot's abilities to correct prior to landing. (U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. Patrick Mitchell)"

http://www.380aew.afcent.af.mil/shared/ ... 03-031.JPG
_____________

"A Marine assigned to the "Silver Eagles" of Marine Strike Fighter Attack Squadron One One Five (VMFA-115) conducts a preflight check on the tailhook on one of the squadron’s F/A-18A+ Hornets."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... detail.jpg
&
BIG PIC ZOOM from: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... detail.jpg

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2012, 08:28
by spazsinbad

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2012, 08:42
by spazsinbad
AND something for 'johnwill': http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009 ... -111b.html

Grumman F-111B Sunday, October 4, 2009


"The misunderstood and much maligned Grumman F-111B has been of interest to me for many years....

...Only seven F-111Bs flew. There were three different configurations, not counting paint schemes and detail differences: the first three, the middle two, and the final two. The first five had the short nose and translating cowl inlet; the final two the long nose and a blow-in door inlet...."

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_6VuJi5KBiQ/T ... lation.jpg

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2012, 08:52
by spazsinbad
Weird Hook HuH + ZOOM: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/pl ... hook-1.jpg

Air Force Fighters & Tailhooks
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0295.shtml

"...Many Air Force aircraft are also equipped with tailhooks. In addition to the F-15 and F-16, tailhooks can also be found on the F-104, F-105, F-111, F-117, and F-22...."

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/pl ... hook-2.jpg
&
Re-Oriented F-35A Emergency Hook graphic from:
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j ... k6bz1fii0A

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2012, 18:50
by johnwill
Your resources and willingness to share them are much appreciated. What we called "Navy 5" (151974) was my close friend for about six months in 1968, during the land-based carrier trials at Pax River. It was a Grumman test, but GD supplied specialists in several areas. My area was landing gear, hook, and launch bar loads.

The F-16 hook is weird, but much of that blob on the end is a thick rubber bumper to help protect the aft fuselage from "hook slap". The hook body is a flat strap, curved to match the aft fuselage contour, with the hook point and bumper fitting into a well. The hook body looks wimpy, but has a breaking strength of at least 100,000 lb.

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2012, 20:39
by spazsinbad
Always good to hear your explanations about the' trippple one' johnwill (when are you gunna write a book about your adventures?). All this 'wimpy USAF hook' stuff is very interesting to me. The F-35A hook had me baffled until the graphic found - then when the F-16 'almost arrest' photo found it all made sense. The strap must be very strong also? I guess the reason why the combo is used only once is that the strap is weakened? I'll add the F-35A hook graphic to the F-16 arrest pic entry.

Looks like the Vigi had a yoke hook arrangement also:

http://yellowairplane.com/pics/Viewers_ ... erDeck.jpg

US Navy RA-5C Vigilante Reconnaissance Fighter Jet.
on the deck of the navy aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk, CV-63.
This is the Baddest to the Bones jet we had on the ship. 1977-1978

http://yellowairplane.com/pics/CV63_RA5C.htm

"...I think it was on my first cruise when there was a tail hook failure in one of the planes operating in Viet Nam. All of the vigilantes were grounded until the tail hooks could be removed and X-rayed. We also had an incident on the flight deck one night when one of our planes had a nosewheel fork fail on landing. Pieces of the fork, wheel and tire were ingested by both engines. It was spectacular! Then there was the incident where a tail hook snubber failed which allowed the tail hook to strike the #742 frame in the fuselage...."

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2012, 21:48
by johnwill
Some speculation here, but initially the F-16 strap was not replaced after every use. In fact we did 94 arrestments in 1979 on FSD No. 2 at Edwards to develop the arrestment limits (weight, speed, offset) for the A and B models, all with the same hook. The hook point was replaced several times due to wear from runway abrasion. The point got so sharp it once sliced completely through the cable, so the top half was totally shredded. The speculation is that weight growth over the last 33 years has made it wise to replace the hook after every use. I was not aware they did that. I'm wondering if only the hook point is replaced.

The strap, although curved with no load, assumes a perfectly straight shape when loaded to 65,000 lb.

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2012, 21:51
by spazsinbad
"The strap, although curved with no load, assumes a perfectly straight shape when loaded to 65,000 lb." Does it stretch at all?

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2012, 22:56
by johnwill
Putting my stress analysis hat on, I can make a pretty good ballpark guess how much it stretches (all structure stretches when loaded in tension). Let's say the average max stress (s) on the strap is 50,000 psi and the modulus of elasticity (E) is 30E6 psi. That means the unit strain (e) is s/E = 1700 E-6 in/in. So for every inch of strap length, it will stretch .0017 inches. If the strap is 70 inches long (WAG), it would stretch about an eighth of an inch. But it won't stretch that much for very long, only as long as it takes for the entire cable to start moving, about a tenth of a second. The biggest hook load is to accelerate the cable to airplane speed. The actual roll out load is much smaller.

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2012, 11:25
by fiskerwad
Question for John, isn't there a shear bolt for lateral loads that is replaced after each hook use? I seem to remember some such follow-on maintenance after high power restrained engine runs?
Thanks.
fisk

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2012, 11:47
by spazsinbad
I thought this was interesting: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/pl ... hook-3.jpg

From: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0295.shtml

"...Landing or takeoff emergencies requiring the tailhook are generally rare, but perhaps a more common use for the tailhook is during routine engine testing on the ground. Many Air Force bases feature facilities called hush houses and trim pads where planes are tied down to the ground while the engine is throttled up for post-maintenance checks. The tailhook is often used to secure the aircraft to the ground and prevent its motion during these high power tests...."

There are photos of the F-35C (I think) being restrained during a hi power engine run by the hook attachment point (but not the hook itself).

Here it is but it will have come not from this place but LM originally most likely:
http://i531.photobucket.com/albums/dd35 ... urner1.jpg

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2012, 12:08
by spazsinbad
The Sea Vixen seems to have a short distance between main wheels and hook point - with a twin boom tail. I wonder what that looks like exactly side on (not quite in this photo: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... an1970.jpg

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2012, 12:51
by spazsinbad
U-2 AIRCRAFT CARRIER TAIL HOOK AND "Q-TIP" May/14/2009

"...Project Whale Tale fitted a few U-2s with arresting hooks like the one on display here. The hooks would snag cables strung across aircraft carrier decks and "capture" aircraft, bringing them to a quick stop. The small black plate on the shaft shows that this hook was used in five landings, and could be used up to 20 times...."

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsh ... sp?id=9171

Wowee. Here is the U-2 Hook: (see previous pages on this thread for info):
A brief history of tailhook design
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 2&start=15

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared ... 4P-016.jpg

"DAYTON, Ohio - U-2 aircraft carrier tail hook and "Q-tip" on display in the Cold War Gallery at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force. (U.S. Air Force photo)"
&
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared ... 4P-015.jpg

"The U-2 was studied for use aboard aircraft carriers to extend its range, but this idea was not used operationally. Here, a U-2 lands on a carrier using an arresting hook. (U.S. Air Force photo)"

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2012, 17:33
by johnwill
fiskerwad wrote:Question for John, isn't there a shear bolt for lateral loads that is replaced after each hook use? I seem to remember some such follow-on maintenance after high power restrained engine runs?
Thanks.
fisk


fisk, you maybe right, I simply don't remember. The hook swings wildly on off-center engagements (up to 50 ft in F-16 tests), so if there is a bolt there, it would easily be sheared.

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2012, 21:20
by spazsinbad
One of the believable subject matter experts on Pprune has this to say today.

'Engines': 2nd Feb 2012, 00:55 More delays for the F-35

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... -a-14.html

"...I worked with the team designing the hook and can confirm that the design they came up with (after a number of changes) was fully approved by the many US Navy subject matter experts from NAVAIR who conducted a string of reviews. (The US specification does not, as far as I know, specify a minimum distance between gear and hook - it does specify around 30 other parameters, all of which the design met).

The whole business of getting arresting hooks to work is actually highly complex and difficult. The USN make it look easy because they are extremely good at it.

LM are trying a redesigned hook point and a new damper to regulate hook bounce. If those don't work, they are going to have to design some form of extending hook or move it aft - and that could be a real problem. However, they are not there yet...."

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2012, 21:20
by spazsinbad
Ideal No.3 CDP Arrest EA-18G VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqZWXuRFX6Y
_______________

How to get an Ideal No.3 CDP Arrest EA-18G VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ6ECPe7VRI

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2012, 00:24
by spazsinbad
Lockheed Official: Tailhook On Navy F-35C Won't Be Lengthened

http://insidedefense.com/index.php?opti ... gxLmh0bWw=

"Lockheed Martin has no plans to lengthen the tailhook on the Navy carrier variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter despite a Defense Department report that indicated the aircraft was failing to reliably catch the arresting cable on a carrier deck, Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed vice president for F-35 business development, told Inside the Navy Feb. 29."

Perhaps someone with a subscription to above website can elaborate please? Thanks. To me it seems a non issue if LM have said only the hook tip was going to be modified (in hope that that change would work as elaborated on this thread and others on this forum).

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2012, 22:46
by spazsinbad
Lockheed Martin Confident F-35 Tail Hook Problem Resolved (DEFENSE DAILY 02 MAR 12) ... Mike McCarthy

http://www.hrana.org/news.asp#LockheedMartinConfident

"Lockheed Martin is optimistic it has successfully redesigned the tail hook for the carrier version of the F-35 and believes testing can resume later this year, the company's top executive for the program said yesterday.

Tom Burbage, the vice president and general manager for the Joint Strike Fighter, said company officials met with the Pentagon's F-35 program office on Wednesday and was told the meeting "went well."

Lockheed Martin had to rework the tail hook design after it failed to snag the arresting wires during testing at Lakehurst Naval Air Station, N.J. The tests failed because of a problem with the mechanism, or "damper,” responsible for keeping the tail hook down and stable. [That is news - if it was the only cause (given what is otherwise outlined in this thread for potential 'easy' fixes - we'll see I guess.]

Asked whether the redesign has resolved the problem, Burbage said: "We think so."

Burbage said the company is waiting for the new parts and believes a new round of testing can begin this summer...."

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2012, 20:42
by spazsinbad
Lockheed could accommodate UK reversal on F-35 variant By Craig Hoyle

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... nt-369443/

"...Meanwhile, O'Bryan says Lockheed has performed a preliminary design review to address an issue with the F-35C's arrestor hook design, after concerns were raised over its performance during previous trials. An improved system with a redesigned hook point and "hold-on damper" will undergo testing at the US Navy's Patuxent River site in Maryland later this year. The F-35C "will go to the boat in 2014, as scheduled", he adds."

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2012, 06:35
by spazsinbad
Lockheed Martin Awaits UK F-35 Decision Aviation Week's DTI | Robert Wall | March 13, 2012
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,242692,00.html

"...Meanwhile, O'Bryan notes that efforts continue to address JSF test and development issues. A revised tailhook for the F-35C model is due to undergo trials at NAS Patuxent River, Md., during the summer. Boat trials may slip into early 2014 as a result of the design changes, which include a shape redesign to better capture the arrester wire and a fix to the hold-down damper to add pressure...."

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2012, 01:20
by spazsinbad
Looking for news about F-35C arresting tests came across this old gem. I gather the 'land' tests for the A-7D would be relevant in part today? Anyway the report gives an idea of what goes into testing for land-based systems anyway.

A-7D/Arresting Systems Compatibility Tests
Technical Report No.71-32, July 1971

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD0888969 [11Mb PDF]

ABSTRACT
Seventy successful arrestments of A-7D, S/N 67-14583, were made on two operational Air Force aircraft arresting systems, the standard BAK-12 and the BAK-13. Thirty-three arrestments were made with the BAK-12, and 37 with the BAK-13. As a result of six approach end engagement arrestments, changes in the Flight Manual approach end engagement procedures were recommended. Runway centerline engagements were made at aircraft weights up to 42,000 pounds. The maximum engagement speed was 167 knots at an aircraft weight of 33,000 pounds. Off-center engagements were also made up to 50 feet from the runway centerline using a 190-foot span between the runway edge sheaves of the arresting systems. Aircraft control problems were not serious except for 50-foot off-center engagements with the BAK-13. Test data indicated that the design limit hookload would only be approached at engagement speeds in excess of 190 knots for both arresting systems. Four tests resulted in missed engagements due to a combination of poor hook shoe attitude and poor cable dynamics. A change in hook shoe design was recommended. The cable dynamics problem occurred with the rail type arresting cable supports when the A-7D main gear passed between the rails. Further testing of polyurethane rails was recommended to determine optimum~spacing for use with the A-7D. Except for the aircraft hook shoe design, the A-7D proved compatible with each aircraft arresting system using donut type cable supports. There were no failures of the standard BAK-12 or the BAK-13 arresting systems. Although not tested, the extended runout BAK-12 was also considered to be compatible with the A-7D aircraft based on results of this test program.

...SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION Aircraft
The test aircraft was an A-7D Corsair II, S/N 67-14583, (A-7D production No. 2). The aircraft was equipped with a production arresting hook subsystem which consisted of a stiff shank hook, replaceable hook shoe, a hydraulic snubber to keep the hook on the runway during use, and an operational hydraulic/pneumatic actuator system to allow the pilot to raise and lower the hook from the cockpit (figure 1). The hook assembly, P/N 215-44020-1, had a design tensile strength limit of 116,000 pounds, and the hydraulic snubber actuating rod end had a design compressive strength of 21,500 pounds. The ultimate strength of the hook was 187,000 pounds."...

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2012, 07:56
by johnwill
spazsinbad,

Thanks for posting the report link. The A-7D test was very similar to the F-16 test I worked in 1979. Not only is the test procedure similar, but the results are similar. Not so much the test speed limits, since the A-7D was heavier than the F-16, but the airplane response was similar, especially to off-center runs. One big difference in the test was the necessity to monitor landing gear loads on the F-16. Being designed for carrier operations, the A-7D gear was of no concern.

The F-16 test had one missed engagement out of 94, as I recall, but might have been more. The A7-D had 4 misses out of 74, and the report provided some insight about the misses, including photos of the hook point. Amazingly enough, I thought I was reading about the current F-35C problem with missed engagements. The hook point photos look exactly like the F-35C points. There was no mention of any changes recommended to improve engagement reliability. I'm going to forward the report to my friend on F-35C landing gear to see if he has any comment or might forward it to the hook improvement team.

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2012, 10:10
by spazsinbad
'johnwill' it will be great if, when available, any insights into the F-35C hook/arrest issues can be released here or online. Videos of arrest testing would be excellent! :D

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2012, 17:27
by johnwill
Right, I'll ask my friend to see if he can forward any releasable vids.

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2012, 20:17
by spazsinbad
Thanks JW! And another request please - it would be fascinating to know how the hook was changed please. A side drawing would be great, tah. :D

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2012, 23:27
by johnwill
I'm assuming you are speaking of the F-35C. I've already asked him for that, but will remind him.

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2012, 00:09
by spazsinbad
Yes, F-35C hook please - thanks again.

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2012, 06:01
by spazsinbad
Looking for F-35C arrest testing found this prelude perhaps:

ALRE Readiness Summit held at Lakehurst Apr 19, 2012

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=4977

LAKEHURST, N.J. -- On Wednesday, April 18, an Aircraft Launch and Recovery (ALRE) Readiness Summit meeting was held at Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Lakehurst on Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst....

...The purpose of the summit was to discuss and provide updates on the ALRE systems that are developed and managed by NAVAIR as they relate to fleet readiness. According to Architzel, “the catapults and arresting gears on our carriers must continue to work so consistently, that our pilots never need to give a thought as to the reliability of the equipment we provide them.”

During the one day summit, attendees discussed ALRE metrics and issues, visited Prototyping & Manufacturing, examined the MK 7 Arresting Gear, toured the Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training facility, the Aviation Data Management and Control System and Carrier Analysis labs, the Aircraft Carrier Aviation Integration Test facility, surveyed the Expeditionary Airfield Matting facility, visited the Runway Arrested Landing Site and Jet Blast Deflector, Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System and Advanced Arresting Gear test sites and observed the compact swaging machine."

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2012, 00:53
by spazsinbad
F-35 boss: We’re getting it right, just give us time By Philip Ewing Tuesday, May 8th, 2012

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/05/08/f-35- ... e-us-time/

"There’s nothing wrong with the F-35 Lightning II that old fashioned engineering can’t fix, its program boss told Senate lawmakers on Tuesday — the only question is how long it’ll take.

In a genial session with three members of the Senate Armed Services Committee’s air-land panel, Vice Adm. David Venlet said “technical and cost issues certainly exist” with Lockheed Martin’s jet of tomorrow, the largest defense program in history.

They include the pilot’s helmet continuing to fall short of spec; problems with the tailhook on the Navy’s C version; electronic warfare “antenna quality;” and “buffet loads in flight,” Venlet said.

But — “Every issue we have in view today is very much in the category of normal development for fighters — tactical aircraft. Good old fashioned engineering is going to take care of every one of those and we will work on those hard enough that they’re deemed good enough by the fleet.”...

...And another witness, Vice Adm. Walter Skinner, a senior Navy Department weapons-buyer, said there’s still of lot of work ahead figuring out what’s wrong with the C’s tailhook. Although Venlet has said before that the hook problem was just one of those things you discover when you’re developing an airplane, engineers don’t quite know what they’re in for, Skinner said.

“The hook not engaging has happened to other aircraft besides the F-35,” he said. “We’ve gone through initial fault trees for that occurance, we’re still in analysis, we’ll have a preliminary design review at end of next month, at which time we’ll be able to ascertain the scope of the fix, the cost, and if there will be a schedule penalty associated with implementation.”

So there are still many hurdles, but the bottom line, said Venlet, is that the F-35 has until fiscal year 2016 to continue with its tests. “If it all stays within the family of normal fighter development,” he said, “we have ability to stay on schedule and on cost.”

If it doesn’t, DoD may delay buying more airplanes to punish Lockheed, but the overall program will continue as it always has."

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2012, 03:06
by spazsinbad
Video may explain some issues about F-35C testing at Lakehurst and whatnot.

NAVAIR Waypoints: Lakehurst, NJ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3chssQ ... ure=relmfu

"Uploaded by NAVAIRSYSCOM on Mar 1, 2011
NAVAIR Waypoints focuses on the history, cultures, facilities, technology, and people of each NAVAIR site. This episode spotlights Lakehurst, NJ. Take a look."

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2012, 03:48
by spazsinbad
F-35C HOOK testing seems to have slipped to next year according to...

Not home safely yet By Murdo Morrison on May 28, 2012

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fligh ... y-yet.html

"The US Department of Defense's gargantuan tri-service F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme could be on the verge of solving many of the technical problems that have dogged it since the jets started flying.

Lockheed Martin says it will soon start to test solutions to vexing problems with the aircraft's vital helmet-mounted display system, adding that those modifications will clear up imagery lag, jittery imagery, and problems with night-vision acuity.

Lockheed has also redesigned the US Navy version's tail-hook, which previously could not catch an arresting cable on the carrier deck. If everything goes as planned, the new hook will begin testing next year.

The company says it has added resources and schedule to deal with software problems that might pop up. Pentagon officials cite software as their single biggest worry on the programme. Meanwhile, instructor pilots at Eglin AFB, Florida, have started their conversion to the new type. If the trend holds, it could be a sign the F-35 programme is getting back on track.

But there are potential pitfalls. Testing is entering the challenging high angle of attack portion of the flight envelope. Weapons separation and strenuous mission systems testing will follow. If problems are found, those could force expensive redesigns that could further delay a programme that is already grossly over its original cost projections and years behind schedule.

(This article first appeared as the lower Comment piece in 29 May issue of Flight International)"

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2012, 09:37
by Maks
To fix the hook problem - any idea what the actual changes are?
I guess it is more than just small fixes (like hook profile) which should not take that long to implement and test.

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2012, 09:48
by spazsinbad
Previous Page 12 (plus work backwards) on this thread - scroll down - has the information but who knows - it ain't fixed until it is fixed.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-165.html

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2012, 10:05
by photobase
" the new hook will begin testing next year" vs "Burbage said the company is waiting for the new parts and believes a new round of testing can begin this summer"
"next year" or "this summer"?

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2012, 10:09
by spazsinbad
You decide.

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2012, 15:32
by SpudmanWP
Maybe it's the difference between LM testing fit/form, & function and the USN testing "official" carrier qualification tests?

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2012, 23:19
by alloycowboy
Of all the technical challanges facing the F-35 program the tail hook problem gives me the most worry.

Here is an article from by Dave Majumdar regarding fixes to the F-35.

F-35 problems on their way to being fixed

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-problems-on-their-way-to-being-fixed-372074/

One major issue that has recently popped up on the US Navy's F-35C variant is that the aircraft's tail-hook has had to be redesigned. That is because the existing design has failed to catch an arresting cable during trials. Lockheed is working on a new improved hook design that should fix the problem.

"We have modified the hook pointwith a lower center of gravity," says Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed's vice president for F-35 programme integration and business development. Additionally, "we've redesigned the hold-down damper."

The new design is scheduled for its preliminary design review in "the summer." That will be followed by a critical design review in the fourth quarter.

After the new hook design undergoes shore-based qualification trails, the F-35C will undergo sea trials on a carrier in late 2013 or early 2014.


Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2012, 14:00
by netcentric
"Of all the technical challanges facing the F-35 program the tail hook problem gives me the most worry. "


Personally, I'm not going to lose any sleep. The launch bar origionally did not hook up during launch tests. It was modified and
they have been shooting them regularly.

Modifying the damper and hook angle, to me, is not an unusual problem. Hooks have been reconfigured before in Naval aviation.

Failing the rollovers, is a problem.....but it is part of the testing process.

I believe on the C model they are still 20% ahead of testing.

I also believe a few bolters will occur....they always do.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2012, 22:13
by neptune
Wouldn't it be great if the only "Big" problem the Sea will experience is the tailhook. I've yet to see a tailhook problem that wasn't fixed. Other than the rocket scientist; all others agree, "Important but not rocket science"! :lol:

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2012, 22:22
by alloycowboy
Actually I wasn't worried about the tail hook problem before but when I see how long it is taking to fix the problem I am now starting to worry because the fix isn't going to be a simple one. It "could" end up being a major modification that ends up affecting the mold lines of the aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2012, 21:49
by spazsinbad
Repeated from 'Sticky: Overview of F-35 test flights' thread but best posted here. OK?

How well is F-35 testing going? 07 June 2012 by Barry Graff

http://whythef35.blogspot.com.au/2012/0 ... going.html

"...All numbers and events are as of May 31st....

...CF-3 performed a total of 18 successful roll-in arrestments [MK-7 (6 with risers and 4 with no risers) and E-28 (8 arrestments)] at Lakehurst from 80 to 100 knots ground speed...." :cheers: :beer: :notworthy:

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2012, 00:07
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:Repeated from 'Sticky: Overview of F-35 test flights' thread but best posted here. OK?

How well is F-35 testing going? 07 June 2012 by Barry Graff

http://whythef35.blogspot.com.au/2012/0 ... going.html

"...All numbers and events are as of May 31st....

...CF-3 performed a total of 18 successful roll-in arrestments [MK-7 (6 with risers and 4 with no risers) and E-28 (8 arrestments)] at Lakehurst from 80 to 100 knots ground speed...." :cheers: :beer: :notworthy:


Good feedback..,the redesigned hook tip seems to be fine, looking forward to actual traps,to,see,if the modified damper,keeps,the,hook from bouncing over the wires upon contact withthe ground.


Re " For the Mission Systems software, 8.1M of 9.3M Software Source Lines of Code (87%) flying today. Conducting Radar, Electronic Warfare, Electro Optical sensor employment. 95% of airborne software now operating in flight and ground labs".. what block software are they referring to?

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2012, 03:31
by spazsinbad
"E28 Emergency Runway Arresting Gear. An aircraft arrestment using the E28 Emergency Runway Arresting Gear is accomplished by the engagement of the aircraft’s tailhook with a deck pendant that spans the runway. During run-out, the kinetic energy of the arrested aircraft is absorbed by the rotary hydrodynamic arresting engines. The arrestment is entirely automatic. The arresting gear engines are activated when the aircraft’s tail-hook engages the deck pendant, thereby pulling out the attached purchase tapes. As each tape unwinds, a splined shaft turns a vaned rotor located between vaned stators in a housing filled with fluid. The turbulent fluid resistance decreases the rotational speed of the drums, thereby slowing down the purchase tape pay-out that in turn applies a braking force on the aircraft....
&
E28 Emergency Runway Arresting Gear. The E28 Emergency Runway Arresting Gear general arrangement consists of two arresting engine assemblies and two runway edge sheave assemblies installed on concrete foundations on opposite sides of the runway. Purchase tapes from each arresting engine assembly are coupled to a common deck pendant assembly. Major components include a tape drum and capstan assembly, a retrieve drive sprocket and bearing assembly, and a vaned rotor, mounted on a common shaft assembled in a vaned housing. An engine absorber unit is mounted on a steel base, on which are also mounted a retrieve engine, an arrester sheave, and a tape pressure arm pivot. Leading E28 Emergency Runway Arresting Gear particulars are as follows:"

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2012, 03:52
by spazsinbad
Development of a Mathematical Performance Prediction Model for Rotary-Hydraulic-Type Arresting Gears - Phase Report 23 March 1972 by George M. Leask, Computer Division NAVAL AIR TEST FACILITY NAVAL AIR STATION LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/893157.pdf

DESCRIPTION OF THE E-28 ROTARY-HYDRAULIC-TYPE ARRESTING GEAR
A. Purpose:
The Navy E-28 arresting gear is a shorebased emergency arresting gear designed to arrest all U.S. Navy arresting-hook-equipped airplanes under conditions of aborted takeoff or landing overrun.

B. Capabilities: An airplane engaging the arresting gear will be stopped within a runout distance of approximately 1,000 feet. The maximum energy absorbing capacity of the gear is 76 million foot-pounds (nominal). Engagements can be made from either runway direction and at points up to 40 feet on either side of the runway centerline.

C. General Description of the Arresting-Gear Operation: As shown in Figure 1, two identical energy absorber units and runway-edge sheaves are located on opposite sides of the runway and are connected, through nylon purchase tapes, to a steel wire-rope deck pendant. Arrestment of a landing aircraft is accomplished by engagement of the aircraft arresting hook with a pendant stretched across the runway. The attached purchase tapes are pulled off the six-foot-diameter drum on each arresting gear. Each drum is splined to a shaft which turns a vaned rotor between vaned stators in a housing filled with a water/glycol mixture. The turbulent fluid resistance caused by the stator and rotor interaction (water brake) decreases the rotational speed of the drums, thereby slowing down the purchase-tape payout which in turn applies a braking force on the aircraft. The ensuing fluid turbulence converts the landing aircraft's kinetic energy into heat. A cooling system is provided to dissipate this heat during rapid-cycle operations. After the aircraft has been safely brought to a stop, and the arresting hook disengaged, the pendant and nylon tapes are returned to battery position by an air-cooled gasoline engine driven retraction system."

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2012, 04:25
by spazsinbad
F-18 Arrested Landing E-28 Gear Hornet Arrest Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de7WnuqTx08

"Uploaded by TheHillmanater on Oct 10, 2010
F-18 trap on Marine Corps E-28 gear at MCAS Futenma"

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2012, 07:15
by spazsinbad
Perhaps the confirmation of 'CVN hook testing slippage' testing from previous bottom of page 'alloycowboy' entry 18 May 2012 article:

F-35 Testing Progresses; UK Rethinks Switch to F-35C AIN Defense Perspective 16 Mar 2012

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... itch-f-35c

"...This combined solution should ensure that the hook catches the wire, O’Bryan said. But the hook problem has probably delayed the first F-35C test flights on a carrier from late 2013 into 2014, he added...."

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2012, 07:41
by spazsinbad
MANAGING, OPERATING, AND MAINTAINING AIRCRAFT ARRESTING SYSTEMS March 2012 AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 32-1043

http://wbdg.org/ccb/AF/AFI/afi_32_1043.pdf (1.8Mb)

"...A2.2.8. Mobile Aircraft Arresting System (MAAS). The MAAS (Figure A2.11) is
essentially a BAK-12 AAS mobilized through installation on a specially developed trailer. It is configured for a maximum aircraft runout of 302 meters (990 feet). This system was initially developed and tested to accommodate recovery of fighter aircraft returning to a battle-damaged airfield. Such cases require rapid deployment and installation and may require that only the minimum essential anchoring hardware be installed to accommodate this scenario. When installed for this purpose, the MAAS is installed using a 19-stake anchoring scheme. This configuration is limited to unidirectional engagement capability with a maximum aircraft weight and speed of 18,144 kilograms (40,000 pounds) at 150 knots (Table A2.1). For detailed instructions on this system, refer to T.O. 35E8-2-10-1, Operation and Maintenance Instructions, Arresting Systems, Aircraft, Mobile. Figure A2.11. Mobile Aircraft Arresting System (MAAS) in Set-Back Configuration." [below here]

Latest Inductees [1994 Grand Order of Tape Dragons]

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2012, 04:02
by spazsinbad
Latest Inductees [1994 Grand Order of Tape Dragons]

http://www.esco.zodiacaerospace.com/news/2011/tazz.php

Testimonial by Joe “Tazz” Katuzienski
“From 1993-1996 I was assigned to the 67th Fighter Squadron, 18th Fighter Wing, Kadena Air Base in Okinawa Japan. I was a young Air Force Captain, F-15 flight lead, and one of a handful of Desert Storm Combat Veterans assigned to Kadena at that time. During one mission, I lost hydraulic pressure in my aircraft’s utility-A hydraulic system. This is not good in the F-15C. When this happens, the pilot loses his ability to normally extend the landing gear, and cannot stop on the runway using normal braking procedures. The best course of action – and that recommended in the Dash-1 Technical Order – was to blow the gear down with the manual gear extension system, drop the hook, and snag the approach end cable – stay there in the cable until the landing gear gets pinned – then shut down, and ride the walk of shame back to the chocks – essentially staying in the cockpit as the Coleman tug tows your jet back to the ramp. Anyway – that’s what happened to me.

One night in early spring 1994, during a routine night intercept training sortie, my aircraft lost all utility A hydraulic pressure. My course of action was decided to dump gas, manually lower the gear, and catch the arrestment gear on the approach end to runway 23R. It was a dark night, thunderstorms were in the area, and the runway was wet (not good). Departure from the working area and vectors to ILS final were uneventful. I shot the ILS and planted the jet 500 feet in front of the first approach end cable. There were two approach end cables available on 23R – one was at 1500 feet (ish) from the approach end, and the other something like 2500 feet (ish) down the runway. For an Air Force guy – not flaring prior to touch down is not a natural act – but it was the only way to achieve the recommended “three-point attitude” to engage the cable. And I then I waited. And so were the fire trucks – they were waiting – waiting for my jet to stop after snagging the cable. At night, at roughly 180 KIAS – trundling along on a wet runway with no brakes in an F-15C is not a great feeling. My jet blew past the first cable – nothing. Not even a tug on my shoulder straps. Uh – oh – plan B soon to take effect: advance throttles into Full AB, take-off and try again. But wait – cable number #2 – it’s only 2500 feet down the runway. But it was dark and I could not see it to try to straddle the cable donuts to ensure my hook would catch. Dammit Jim – this is not good – was the only thing I could think of at the time. But wait- Okay – here comes the next cable – cable #2 – all the while still blitzing along at a happy 185KIAS on a wet runway at night and in a thunderstorm. Perfect. No pucker factor yet, but I know it’s gonna start soon. Okay – there it was – two quick thuds I feel and hear as my landing gear goes over cable #2 – and there it is – wait for it, wait for it, - nothing….okay now as I began to think about going around I could feel a sharp tug on my shoulder straps as the jet came to a rapid stop on the runway – 3,000 feet down 23R. Now the fire trucks pull-up, they pin my gear safe, and connect the tug. The walk of shame went well. And all I could think of at the time was that the arrestment gear on the runway worked as advertised – and why in the Hell Navy guys do this crap at night on a carrier. That just didn’t make any sense.

Thanks to you and your company for making those BAK-12/14’s. I only took one cable once as described above, but many of my squadron buddies took cables in much more urgent emergencies than mine – and a lot of jets (at least 2-dozen in my 24 year USAF career) were saved. Your company helps to preserve American airpower every day.
- Joe Katuzienski

(Joe Katuzienski, Lt Col USAF (ret) completed 24 years of honorable military service. He currently resides with his family in Yorktown VA, and works for Futron Corporation as Lead Aerospace Operations Analyst)”

http://www.esco.zodiacaerospace.com/images/tazz..jpg
&
ESCO arrestor gear ideal installation diagram from:
http://www.esco.zodiacaerospace.com/dow ... 007_SF.pdf (0.7Mb)
Bunch o'stuff here:
http://www.esco.zodiacaerospace.com/downloads/

RE: Latest Inductees [1994 Grand Order of Tape Dragons]

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2012, 21:45
by spazsinbad
Arresting Gear Delays Not Expected to Hold Up Carrier Delivery Jun. 18, 2012 By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... nav%7Chead

“Development of the new advanced arresting gear (AAG) for the U.S. Navy’s Gerald R. Ford CVN 78-class aircraft carrier has hit a few snags and delays, the Navy said, but delivery of systems to the carrier’s shipyard should not delay the ship....

...“The AAG program has adjusted several delivery dates to the shipyard based on the redesign of the water twister components,” Koon added. “However, these delays have not impacted the CVN 78’s scheduled delivery.” The water twister is a device that absorbs energy by circulating water around an enclosed loop, according to information provided by General Atomics, prime contractor to develop the system....

...The AAG will replace the Mark 7 hydraulic system in use aboard all other U.S. aircraft carriers. The AAG’s electric motor-based system, according to GA, replaces the mechanical hydraulic ram of the current system with energy-absorbing water turbines which, coupled with a large induction motor, should provide better control of the arresting forces....

...The AAG program, he added, “is scheduled to complete performance testing in 2013 and Runway Aircraft Landing Site testing in 2014.”

The testing site would be Lakehurst. More info at URL about CVN specific effects of AAG delay.

Re: RE: Latest Inductees [1994 Grand Order of Tape Dragons]

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2012, 23:27
by neptune
[quote="spazsinbad"][b]......[b]The AAG program, he added, “is scheduled to complete performance testing in 2013 and Runway Aircraft Landing Site testing in 2014.”[/...quote]

No F-35 in the testing schedule, at this time! :)

RE: Re: RE: Latest Inductees [1994 Grand Order of Tape Drago

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2012, 23:36
by spazsinbad
Another quote from same article does not mention F-35C either.

"...GA claims the new system will handle a broader range of aircraft, reduce manning and maintenance, and feature higher reliability and safety margins.

So far, Koon wrote, 138 dead-load recoveries have been conducted at the JCTS [Jet Car Track Site which is not the same as actual AAG for aircraft test site] at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J.

“System performance to date has correlated well with our models,” Koon wrote. “As in any test program, we’ve found things that we’ve had to address via design changes, and we are currently redesigning the water twister to ensure that it meets dynamic loads experienced during heavy aircraft arrestments. Dead-load testing will resume early this summer.”

The dead-load weights, he said, represented an F/A-18 C/D Hornet, F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, EA-18G Growler, E-2 C/D Hawkeye, T-45C Goshawk and UAVs...."

RE: Re: RE: Latest Inductees [1994 Grand Order of Tape Drago

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2012, 23:16
by spazsinbad
Lockheed’s comprehensive Q&A on the F-35 By Philip Ewing, June 19th, 2012

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/06/19/lockh ... -the-f-35/

Q: All right, we’ve talked about the helmet and the software. What about the C’s tailhook redesign?

A: Here’s what O’Bryan said: “The distance between the main landing gear and the tailhook on the F-35C is the shortest of any naval aviation carrier airplane that we’ve had. Because we have to hide the hook — because if you had a hook exposed you wouldn’t be as stealthy airplane, that distance is tighter than any other. So it means when you roll over the wire when you land on the deck, the wire goes flush to the deck, and then you have to pick that wire up as it’s generally on the deck. So what we’ve had to do is re-design the hook shank.

Every airplane’s hook shank — as you’d imagine, you ground those things down, dragging it around, so it’s a remove-and-replace kind of thing. It has a bolt through the back of it and it holds on to the hook and we’ve redesigned that to have a lower center of gravity, or in a more mundane way, to make it a sharper hook point. And that allows us to pick up the wire. And we’ve already done testing on that. We’ve done it at 80, 90 and 100 knots and we’ve got a good design for the hook point now.

The other thing we need to do is, we need to make sure that the hook stays flush on the deck. So what you don’t want — and I was a Navy pilot, so I apologize if I’m using a lot of vernacular here – you want to keep that hook on the deck so it doesn’t bounce, or the words we used was skip. It can do that a couple different ways. It can move laterally and it can hit other stuff and just bounce, if you will. Another technical term. So what we’ve done is we’re going to modify what’s called the hold-down damper, kind of a good name for a thing because it does exactly that, it holds the hooks down, it dampens any oscillation. We’ll increase pressure on hook to do that.

The whole thing is a remove-and-replace assembly so any modifications we make to it is an easy fix.”

Q: So when will we actually see an F-35C make its first trap aboard an aircraft carrier?

A: O’Bryan: “We’re accumulating loads; we’ve done rolling arrestments; we’ll do field arrestments next year and the plan is to go to the boat in early 2014, well in time to make the US Navy [initial operational capability]...."

C-131B arrestor hook trial results from 1963

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2012, 01:46
by spazsinbad
Another 'golden oldie' test document for John Will. :D NO HOOK C-130 carrier landings elsewhere on this forum (on this thread?).

DEVELOPMENT OF MODEL 3500 ARRESTING GEAR AND CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT OF SPRING HOOK FOR COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT M-788 PART 1 January 1963

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD0408963 (PDF 6.5Mb)

Testing arrestor hooks for C-131B and Boeing 720 aircraft results.

RE: C-131B arrestor hook trial results from 1963

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2012, 03:54
by johnwill
spazsinbad,

Thanks very much for posting that bit of ancient history. I wasted a good two hours reading it. All those hand-written test data sheets and plots and the horrible way photos were copied by the Xerox machines of the day really brought back not-so-fond memories of test programs I worked starting that same year. I hope today's engineers appreciate how far equipment and methods have advanced compared to fifty years ago. I would not want to go back to the old ways, but I wouldn't take a million bucks for the experience.

Apparently, the idea of emergency arrestment systems never caught on for commercial airports. Although the need is rare, there have been several cases where such a system could have saved many lives.

Thanks again :cheers:

RE: C-131B arrestor hook trial results from 1963

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2012, 11:39
by spazsinbad
Lockheed Martin Answers Critics Of F-35 Program Farnborough Air Show » July 9, 2012
by Bill Carey and Chris Pocock

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... 35-program

"...• Ground testing discovered F-35C tailhook design issues that have major consequences, according to DOD officials. Aircraft structural modifications may be required.

O’Bryan acknowledged that problems with the F-35C tail hook design are delaying the first test flights to an aircraft carrier, but said the plan is to “go to the boat” with a redesigned tail hook in early 2014, “well in time to make” the U.S. Navy’s planned initial operational capability for the F-35C carrier variant.

The distance between the main landing gear and the tail hook on the F-35C is the shortest of any naval carrier aircraft, and the hook must be hidden to maintain the aircraft’s stealth profile, O’Bryan said, explaining the design challenge.

The redesigned hook shank has a lower center of gravity, or, in effect, a sharper point, to catch the arresting wire on the carrier deck, he said. In addition, a “hold-down damper” is being modified to keep the hook from bouncing or skipping on the deck. “The good part is this whole assembly is a remove-and-replace assembly so any modification that we make to it is an easy fix,” he said. The redesigned tail hook is being tested by doing “rolling arrestments” with an F-35C at the Navy’s Patuxent River, Maryland and Lakehurst, New Jersey carrier suitability test sites...."

RE: C-131B arrestor hook trial results from 1963

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2012, 05:54
by spazsinbad
First Bomb Drop Ahead For The F-35 09 July 2012 by Amy Butler

http://www.aviationnow.com/Article.aspx ... 57.xml&p=1

"...Work also continues on a redesigned tailhook and dampener for the F-35C. The original design failed to grasp the arresting wire in slow, ground-based trials last year. Carvalho says Lockheed Martin began testing the tailhook—which has a sharper point designed to scoop under the wire—in May and it “caught the wire every time” in ground tests. Work is also underway on the dampener, and Venlet hopes to see it tested by early fall. The first arrested landing on a runway is expected in 2013. The aircraft is due to start carrier trials at sea in 2014...."

RE: C-131B arrestor hook trial results from 1963

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2012, 05:33
by spazsinbad
'johnwill' perhaps this 'soft ground' system is an answer? "JW... "Apparently, the idea of emergency arrestment systems never caught on for commercial airports. Although the need is rare, there have been several cases where such a system could have saved many lives."]

ESCO's Engineered Materials Arresting System, EMASMAX TM VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45IcXrqRjEY

“Uploaded by ravenarrestor on Mar 31, 2009
Although ESCO has been developing and providing arresting systems for military applications for over 50 years, it wasn't until the early 1990's that the FAA approached ESCO to help develop a soft-ground arresting system for commercial airports and transport category aircraft. Working under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRDA) with the FAA, PANYNJ and others, ESCO developed a new type of predictable and reliable soft-ground arresting system. ESCO's Engineered Materials Arresting System, EMASMAX TM, has the distinction of being the first, and currently only, engineered aircraft arresting system certified for airport runway safety areas and satisfying Part 139 requirements. ESCO sets the standard for providing quality and reliable products and services. We offer a full range of services including design, production, installation and technical support.”

RIGHT CLICK ON THE PLAYING MOVIE TO SELECT THAT 'FULLSCREEN' GOODNESS! :roll:

Separate thread for the hook development, huh?

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2012, 16:47
by Gums
Salute!

Hey, Spaz!

Why don't we get a separate thread. The name of this one seems more relevant to on-going activities at Pax River or Lakehurst, ya think?

Gums sends...

RE: Separate thread for the hook development, huh?

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2012, 15:13
by spazsinbad
Posted elsewhere also but thought to get this thread back on track.

The CNO Said What? by Bill Sweetman | Jul 20, 2012

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 6bf2e0943a

"And the F-35C's key milestones continue to slip. In January, even after tailhook problems had been disclosed in the Quick Look Review report, the first carrier landings were planned for summer 2013. The date is now "early 2014" following roll-in tests at up to 100 knots. "Initial tests were promising," says Lockheed Martin chief test pilot Al Norman, "but we are working on the pressure that we use to hold the hook down."

RE: Separate thread for the hook development, huh?

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 02:00
by spazsinbad
A scenario for testing F-35C is perhaps mirrored by recent Super Hornet Testing at Pax River as described below. The relevant PDF page (graphic/text is replicated below) says it all....

Unnatural Acts of Landing Patuxent River Naval Air Museum Association
The Kneeboard Mag'n Spring 2012

http://api.ning.com/files/8OBnZkm85rrIM ... ng2012.pdf (1Mb)

"For most people, the idea of flight testing means seeing how fast an airplane can go or how quickly it can maneuver. While answering these questions may be part of a flight test program, there is more to flight testing than speed and agility. Navy carrier aircraft must also withstand the stressful loads of repeated arrested landings (traps) that can exceed 6 Gs on the aircraft.

The landing gear must:
* Survive thousands of landing shocks
* Reduce the loads reaching the aircraft structures and crew
* Allow the pilot to stay in control of the aircraft’s behavior

Ground Loads Testing shows that an aircraft structure can withstand carrier operations at maximum takeoff and landing weights. Normal landings at these conditions are no problem. But testing must also show that an aircraft can absorb these loads when:

* Its sink rate (how fast it descends) is high (as much as 26 feet per second!)
* Its wings are not level when it lands
* Its tailhook catches an arresting cable to the side of the center line
* The carrier deck pitches and heaves...

...During Super Hornet development, Ground Loads Testing required 125 test flights, 370 catapult launches, 471 traps, and three years to complete. Incidents included blown tires and various airplane parts (other than the wheels and tailhook) hitting the deck."
&
"What Is a “High Trap”? Normally when an aircraft “traps” (lands on a carrier), its wheels contact the deck (or the runway during practice landings) just before the tailhook snags the arresting cable. But sometimes the tailhook will engage the arresting cable before the wheels touch down. This is known as an “inflight engagement” or “high trap.” Both the aircraft and the pilot are slammed down hard as the aircraft is suddenly snatched from the air. These are not fun landings."

RE: Separate thread for the hook development, huh?

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 05:02
by johnwill
Thanks, spazsinbad, for more interesting posts. Seeing those pylons and stores under the SH wing reminds me of the very large loads imposed on those items on the carrier deck. During the late 70's some weapon rack contractor (I forget who) was trying to develop a new multi-store rack for the Navy and Air Force. They needed some realistic structural loads for design, so asked General Dynamics to help out. I was leading the store loads analysis team at the time, so got the job. Finally comes the interesting part - of all the six critical design conditions (including maneuvers, separation, takeoff, landing) five of the conditions were on the carrier deck.

The new rack was a total failure - too heavy, too draggy - and never even made it to flight test.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2012, 06:48
by spazsinbad
Back on page 3 of this thread around 13 Dec 2011 ( http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 26462ae091 ) the 'tailhook for F-35C roll-in arrest failures' became known. Subsequently a redesign of the hook mouth (more like A-4 hook) meant that roll-in engagemnents were successful with more tests to come. Anyway one criticism implied was the 'yoke' design and we will get to that.

Just for the record as noted on page 7 of this thread: F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts 01 Nov 2011

http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/ ... 1-2011.pdf

"* As of Oct. 31 [2011], F-35C jets had executed 59 successful catapult launches and three arrestments." The cat/arrest test facilities are more or less at the same place at Lakehurst.

Then 'alloycowboy' introduced A-4 hook examples so in the spirit of that aircraft and the comment about A-4 "simple design": INFO:
http://a4skyhawk.org/content/137812-dou ... t-photo-13
"Variant: XA4D-1 Custodian: Douglas BuNo: 137812 Location: El Segundo
Date: circa 1952 Contact: G. Verver Photo Credit: Douglas Aircraft photo
Description:
right side view of the Douglas A4D Skyhawk mock-up
"

Actual photo at the A-4 Association: http://a4skyhawk.org/sites/a4skyhawk.or ... 7812m1.jpg

Anyway now on page 11 there is this comment by ELP:

"Some other interesting A-4 trivia. The designer stressed simplicity above all.
And the original design came in way under-weight to the requirement. Add to that, from the early model to the later models, the design had a around a 25 percent growth in empty weight.
Do you see those kinds of margins with the F-35 design?
I am also curious about a yoke hook design on the F-35C. What does that mean?"

As one can probably guess the mock up A-4 YOKE HOOK design was replaced early on, along with a bunch of other stuff most likely. Curious huh. :D The early A-4s had nothing much at all in them and of course over time a lot of stuff was crammed in (including the hump on top) which was deleted when KAHU upgrade with modern electronics meant even more TRON stuff could be crammed inside.

However subsequently the 'lightweight' early A-4s had to have structural beef ups in some parts due to inadequate 'weightage'.

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2012, 01:25
by spazsinbad
Ya think more info could be provided (considering what a song and dance was made about this issue earlier - at beginning of this year) but no....

Marines to start F-35 training at Florida air base By Andrea Shalal-Esa, Aug 22, 2012

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/ ... mesticNews

"...The Navy's F-35C or carrier variant of the new fighter jet also recently completed testing of a redesigned arresting hook at a facility in Lakehurst, New Jersey.

One source familiar with the tests said they had proven largely successful, although there was still more work needed to ensure the jet could safely land on an aircraft carrier."

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2012, 17:23
by 1st503rdsgt
That's some good news, even if AW attempted to bury it at the end of loosely related story.

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2012, 17:40
by neptune
1st503rdsgt wrote:That's some good news, even if AW attempted to bury it at the end of loosely related story.


Some people's wins are others losses. :cry:

BS still has hope of the -35 failing anywhere, anyhow and at anytime, surely there is a god, Editors at AW would not "feel the warmth" if an article highlighting a -35 improvement or successful solutions were to be published about the (SDD) Test aircraft or program. No need to offer hope for successful solutions, only whining about development problems. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2012, 18:24
by quicksilver
neptune wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:That's some good news, even if AW attempted to bury it at the end of loosely related story.


Some people's wins are others losses. :cry:

BS still has hope of the -35 failing anywhere, anyhow and at anytime, surely there is a god, Editors at AW would not "feel the warmth" if an article highlighting a -35 improvement or successful solutions were to be published about the (SDD) Test aircraft or program. No need to offer hope for successful solutions, only whining about development problems. :lol:


While I am no fan of Av Week nor of BS, it wasn't an Av Week article; it was a Reuters article that Av Week put a link to in the "Recent Articles' section of Defense.

Did I miss something or are we having Pavlovian reactions to something posted about F-35 in Av Week?

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2012, 03:12
by spazsinbad
Before the complaints start rolling in for arrestment - bear with me here. Do we not see parallels with some other aircraft? Wot you say!? F-35C? My goodness me... Ya just couldna make this shite up! :D Who maketh the X-47B? Hmmmm....

Fleet Readiness Center “hooks up” unmanned aircraft 05 Sept 2012

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=5114

"NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – The Fleet Readiness Center South West (FRCSW) in California surpassed the call of its traditional line of work to rapidly manufacture parts for a new, unmanned demonstrator aircraft being tested here.

In late spring, a team from Patuxent River, Md. called on FRCSW at Naval Air Station North Island to redesign the hook point for the first unmanned aircraft designed to operate in and around an aircraft carrier — the X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS).

To land on the flight deck of a carrier, aircraft need a tailhook to catch one of four arresting wires. When unsuccessful roll-in arrestment tests of the X-47B revealed the need for a modified hook point, the team needed to come up with a plan to make the modifications in order to perform arrested landings and catapult launches this fall.

“We reached out to the team at North Island because of their proven history of providing critically needed aircraft components with very short response times,” said Capt. Jaime Engdahl, Navy UCAS program manager at Pax River. “They have repaired, modified and delivered thousands of high quality aircraft components to the fleet. We knew they could get the job done.”

Seventy years earlier, North Island personnel were presented with a similar challenge. Prior to the Battle of Midway, a lack of tail hooks, and the inability of the American industrial base to produce them, spurred FRCSW, then known as Overhaul and Repair, to develop a way to forge and manufacture 150 hook throats in just 30 days.

The team at FRCSW did not hesitate when asked to redesign this instrumental X-47B component. Within a few weeks of receiving the initial request from the UCAS team, the FRC signed a formal work order July 10, anticipating the manufacturing and shipping process would take up to one month.

The UCAS and FRC teams worked together to overcome a series of complications to ensure the hook points were completed as quickly as possible. For example, machining the first steel part took longer than expected. As a result, the FRC made an investment in a more efficient machine to decrease cycle times.

In less than two months, despite the design challenges, the UCAS team received the completed parts from FRCSW in early August, avoiding costly delays and allowing the team to proceed with aircraft testing. Since then, the X-47B successfully engaged the arresting gear with the redesigned hook point during three separate roll-in arrestment tests.

“The hook point is a fracture critical safety item so you’ve got to do the job right. You have to create them correctly,” said Mike Grice, FRCSW Systems Engineering department head.

Engdahl visited North Island last month and personally thanked the dozens of employees who worked extended hours for nearly two months to support this effort. The FRCSW team made a huge contribution to the UCAS program that will greatly impact naval aviation, he added."

BIG PIC Caption: http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/ ... _Still.JPG
"The X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) demonstrator aircraft completes a successful roll-in arrestment with a modified arresting hook point designed and manufactured by Fleet Readiness Center Southwest (FRD-SW) Aug.14 at Patuxent River, Md. FRCSW delivered the hook point just 46 days after receiving a request from the Navy UCAS program office."
__________________________

SOME MORE TECHO INFO ON THE PROCESS HERE:

FRCSW Innovation Solves Navy UAV Problem Sep 5, 2012

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=5116

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2012, 04:44
by navy_airframer
That looks like the hook point is closer to the main gear then the F-35 and it also looks to work just fine. I think LM have this issue under control.

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2012, 05:04
by spazsinbad
Screengrab of old hook from old video here:

X-47B UCAS Flight Test Highlights -- Summer 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Oq4qah5LQ0

"Uploaded by northropgrummanmedia on Sep 29, 2011
Two minute review of recent flight test activities for U.S. Navy's X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System demonstration aircraft at Edwards AFB, Calif. The X-47B was designed, developed and produced by Northrop Grumman, the leader in unmanned systems."

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2012, 14:29
by maus92
Tailhook redesign better, but not there yet:

"Bogdan said the program also had work to do on the F-35C-model being developed for use on board Navy aircraft carriers. He said a reworked tailhook system succeeded only five of eight times during flight tests earlier this year, but said he was confident that the issue would be fixed.
"That one is not rocket science," he said."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon ... z26pNVVaca

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2012, 22:53
by maus92
A Lockheed Martin spokesman says recent tests on the redesigned arrestor hook were "highly successful," snagging the wire 3/5 (60%) of the time. The bolters were due to the pilot landing too far away from the wire, according to LM. The redesigned arresting system does not include a reengineered damper, which theoretically should keep the hook stable enough to grab the wire after the initial contact with the deck.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 497526.xml

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2012, 23:28
by spazsinbad
Thanks. Good to know from article above about the circumstances / conditions (best to read full article) but also...

"...Shipboard trials are set for 2014."

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2012, 11:03
by spazsinbad
On another recent thread ('jw' post here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-20377.html ) it was mentioned that reporter needed to use correct terminology. I overlooked this doozy:

Frum (John Frum - look it up): http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 497526.xml

"...The original design failed to snag the arresting wire in early testing owing to two problems: the point of the hook was not sharp enough to scoop under the wire and securely grab it, and a dampener device was not sufficient to maintain a hold on the wire. Essentially, the hook was bouncing upon landing, reducing the likelihood of a successful arrested landing.

Lockheed Martin, the F-35 prime contractor, has redesigned the hook to address those problems. An interim version, which has a sharpened point but lacks the dampener, was tested....

...The tailhook problems came to light nearly a year ago, and redesign work has been in progress since. Company officials hope to test the final version of the new arresting hook, and its dampener, next summer...."

"meaning of dampener - a device that dampens or moistens" Which is - of course - funny. :D But hey this is the internet baby! Anything goes. How about a recipe for 'damper'? http://alldownunder.com/oz-u/food-recipes/damper.htm

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2012, 11:20
by spazsinbad
"hold down damper" seems to be the correct current terminology (gargle it) however 'meet the fokkers' have another device apparently. Which I gather is separate from the aforementioned.

Fokker Landing Gear B.V. is testing with BINDER Juli 2010

http://www.binder-world.com/us/news/fok ... g-gear-bv/

"...For the F-35 Lightning II JSF Fokker Landing Gear is system design responsible for the Arresting Hook of the F35 Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) and the Carrier Version (CV). For the reliability of this arresting hook system Fokker needs to do climate testing. One of the parts of the arresting hook system is the Upswing Damper. It is mounted right under the engine of the F-35. This Upswing Damper adsorbs(sic) the energy during the landing from the hook...."

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2012, 16:17
by johnwill
The use of "dampener" or "dampen" when "damper" and "damp" should be used is unfortunately very common and probably always will be, even among people who should know better.

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2012, 16:42
by marksengineer
A dampener acts somewhat as a shock absorber. It reduces the oscillation or in this case the hook bouncing up as it absorbs the energy imparted to the hook when it strikes the deck. You can dampen an electrical circuit as well.

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2012, 17:35
by johnwill
marksengineer wrote:A dampener acts somewhat as a shock absorber. It reduces the oscillation or in this case the hook bouncing up as it absorbs the energy imparted to the hook when it strikes the deck. You can dampen an electrical circuit as well.


Thus proving my point. :bang:

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2012, 19:18
by spazsinbad
In the same vein 'lightening' is not alternate spelling for 'lightning', neither is 'dampener' alternate spelling for whatever we are talking about here. As mentioned it seems today the USN use the term 'hold down damper' but 'damper' - by itself - is not a substitute either.

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2012, 23:36
by count_to_10
Well, at least they got it right on Star Trek.

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2012, 23:50
by spazsinbad
I'm no Trekkie so had to google 'inertial dampers'? Thank goodness Star Trek is dead. Long Live Farscape - sadly also now dead. Oh well. 8)

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2012, 00:01
by alloycowboy
johnwill wrote:
marksengineer wrote:A dampener acts somewhat as a shock absorber. It reduces the oscillation or in this case the hook bouncing up as it absorbs the energy imparted to the hook when it strikes the deck. You can dampen an electrical circuit as well.


Thus proving my point. :bang:



@Johnwill, actually the correct term is "dashpot".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashpot

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2012, 02:50
by spazsinbad
This section of my recent post on another thread [ http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-15.html ] is more relevant here so it is repeated here, also because I saw another blogpost that seems to not understand the 'allround hook catching requirement in all kinds of situations and arrestor gear - which would be ashore'.

"I saw some comments to articles about the F-35C hook currently not engaging at every attempt (because not all fixes in place). However it must be remembered that the hook needs to perform in all situations. From landing early to drag the hook to the short field gear to dropping the hook (not too soon) before engaging long field gear at slower speed during landing OR high speed long field arrest in case of an aborted take off. To the carrier landing environment where a 'Taxi 1' (landing well short of the No.1 wire) or landing long to have almost an inflight arrest as the hook catches No.4 before main wheels touchdown AND every situation inbetween the wires is required.

Yes JPALS will ensure better hook placement midway between No.2 and No.3 wire with No.3 target wire. Which reminds me I have a screenshot from a low quality video of a Hornet approach to a 2 wire only setup. I forget now which wires were missing, vaguely recall the middle No.2 and No.3 were missing [actually No.1 & No.3 wire missing]. Anyway I guess that would be the minimum wire setup. If I can find the screenshot I'll post it.

The missing wires mean there is more chance for 'HookSkipBolter' inbetween."

http://www.f-16.net/attachments/onlyno2 ... ie_152.jpg

Image

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2012, 02:07
by spazsinbad
Just the same story as a week earlier? I still reckon the hook needs to catch the short (& long) field emergency arrestor gear as long as the hook lands before reaching it. We still don't know details of the test but assume test conditions where simulating carrier arrestor gear? Whatever...

Lockheed Martin Tests Some JSF Fixes By Amy Butler 24 Sep 2012
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 21.xml&p=1

"Lockheed Martin is inching closer to solving some of the technical challenges encountered with the F-35 during developmental testing.

Trials of a redesigned tailhook for the U.S. Navy F-35C, designed for aircraft carrier use, are slated for next summer; arrested-landing tests were scheduled to begin this year.

But the original tailhook design failed to snag the arresting wire in early tests due to two problems: the point of the hook was not sharp enough to scoop under the wire and securely grab it, and a damper device was not sufficient to maintain a hold on the wire. Essentially, the hook was bouncing upon landing, which reduced the likelihood of a successful arresting.

Lockheed Martin last month tested a partially redesigned version of the tailhook that features a sharper hook point but lacks the dampener that will eventually be incorporated. In three of eight recent attempts, the redesigned hook did capture the wire; the three failures occurred because the pilot landed the aircraft too far from the wire for a successful arresting. This testing “was highly successful in demonstrating that when presented the wire, . . . it will grab the wire,” says J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed Martin's vice president of test and evaluation for the F-35 program.

The failures to grab the wire were predicted by models based on where the pilots landed the aircraft, McFarlan says. This helps to validate the modeling work done on the redesigned hook, he notes. Shipboard trials are set for 2014...."

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 01:41
by spazsinbad
Excerpt from main article posted elsewhere.

Slow Climb for the F-35 By John A. Tirpak Executive Editor Oct 2012

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... 2slow.aspx
OR
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... 12slow.pdf (0.8Mb)

"[VADM Venlet said]...Carrier pilots, he said, are "highly complimentary" of their version’s handling characteristics in test flights at NAS Patuxent River, Md....

...The tailhook for the carrier version has been redesigned and data is being acquired about necessary loads. Once the data is crunched, and the new hook design is finalized, "we don’t have any more issues [with hook?]," Lawson declared...."

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 03:11
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:Excerpt from main article posted elsewhere.

Slow Climb for the F-35 By John A. Tirpak Executive Editor Oct 2012

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... 2slow.aspx
OR
9http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/October%202012/1012slow.pdf (0.8Mb)

"[VADM Venlet said]...Carrier pilots, he said, are "highly complimentary" of their version’s handling characteristics in test flights at NAS Patuxent River, Md....

...The tailhook for the carrier version has been redesigned and data is being acquired about necessary loads. Once the data is crunched, and the new hook design is finalized, "we don’t have any more issues [with hook?]," Lawson declared...."


Informative article.. the hecklers should just get out of the way of the people who are getting the job done..

"Every issue that we have in view today is very much in the category of normal development for a fighter tactical aircraft," Venlet said in testimony. "Good old-fashioned engineering is going to take care of every one of those."

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 03:32
by maus92
popcorn wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Excerpt from main article posted elsewhere.

Slow Climb for the F-35 By John A. Tirpak Executive Editor Oct 2012

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... 2slow.aspx
OR
9http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/October%202012/1012slow.pdf (0.8Mb)

"[VADM Venlet said]...Carrier pilots, he said, are "highly complimentary" of their version’s handling characteristics in test flights at NAS Patuxent River, Md....

...The tailhook for the carrier version has been redesigned and data is being acquired about necessary loads. Once the data is crunched, and the new hook design is finalized, "we don’t have any more issues [with hook?]," Lawson declared...."


Informative article.. the hecklers should just get out of the way of the people who are getting the job done..

"Every issue that we have in view today is very much in the category of normal development for a fighter tactical aircraft," Venlet said in testimony. "Good old-fashioned engineering is going to take care of every one of those."


For the record, Venlet's comments are from testimony given 5 months ago to the AirLand subcommittee. Much of the info in this article is courtesy of LM's new (as of 1Apr) EVP of Aeronautics, and as such, not much new info.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 13:06
by spazsinbad
F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts September 5, 2012

http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/ ... 5-2012.pdf (164Kb)

"...On August 10, CF-3 completed the Mk-7 roll-in arrestment matrix at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., (PAX) and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (Lakehurst), and flew the first fly-in Mk-7 arrestment for the F-35 program...."

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 15:04
by sferrin
spazsinbad wrote:F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts September 5, 2012

http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/ ... 5-2012.pdf (164Kb)

"...On August 10, CF-3 completed the Mk-7 roll-in arrestment matrix at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., (PAX) and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (Lakehurst), and flew the first fly-in Mk-7 arrestment for the F-35 program...."


Meaning what? That they've finally managed an arrested landing? Pics or it didn't happen. 8)

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 16:06
by 1st503rdsgt
sferrin wrote:That they've finally managed an arrested landing? Pics or it didn't happen. 8)


My understanding is that they were only testing part of the hook modifications (the sharper point) to see if the thing would grab at all; and though they still boltered most of the time, expectations are still high for when further modifications are tested. I'm guessing they won't release anything until it works perfectly.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 18:00
by spazsinbad
'3 out of 8' or "40%" are some numbers that make up "...they still boltered most of the time" (yes Virginia - without the damper)? Curious but I look forward to better information and of course completion of THE MATRIX (whatever that is).

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 18:34
by SpudmanWP
In three of eight recent attempts, the redesigned hook did NOT capture the wire; the three failures occurred because the pilot landed the aircraft too far from the wire for a successful arresting. This testing “was highly successful in demonstrating that when presented the wire, . . . it will grab the wire,” says J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed Martin's vice president of test and evaluation for the F-35 program.


That makes more sense.

I added NOT since the explanation says the "three" were failures (BLUE reference) and that when it hit the right spot, was "highly successful" (GREEN Reference).

If there were only three traps out of 5 (8 minus the 3 the pilot missed), I would hardly call that "highly successful".

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 18:54
by spazsinbad
I'll admit that what info we have seen so far (with I reckon erroneous conclusions [by others] outlined by me above/earlier) makes a mockery of any rephrasing. We need better information for sure. THE MATRIX (when we know what that is [apart from being a remarkable movie]) will I guess clarify it all. It seems to me that spokespeople so far have only given snippets of unrelated info which when re-interpreted by reporters and others gets even more garbled. As indicated earlier the hook must engage in all scenarios. What does 'when presented the wire' mean? If the wire is there on rubber grommets ashore or on the thingamejigs onboard the hook must engage reliably. Otherwise no good will come of it. Yes bolters (not caused by bad pilot landing technique) occur sometimes due various other shipboard circumstances but as we see from Super Hornet testing these conditions are catered for.

One day we will know more but with a so far 'matrix' of only a few arrests/non-arrests without the 'damper' (I can't get that stupid non-name out of my head now) then so far these tests mean little but indicate the redesign is on track to success eventually. No?

Just exactly what is 'the right spot'? I think I have outlined what needs to happen. Onboard the wires are set with ideal wire and the hook aim point usually between it and the wire before it (if that makes sense). So on a four wire ship when No.3 wire is target then the hook is meant to land midway between No.3 and No.2 with No.1 being the aft most wire closest to the stern/round down. It really should be irrelevant where the hook lands as long as there is a chance to arrest - then it should arrest. Sometimes though it won't due to the '6 degrees of ship movement' and poor piloting technique (a long explanation but summarised by 'being too slow, changing AoA to change hook geometry and vice versa - also changing 'damper' effectiveness). And on and on...

But the hook should work well under a wide range of conditions and not just a theoretical ideal. However I suspect due to lack of testing all that is known is theoretical; with a few tests to check that the redesign is on track for success. No biggie.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 19:06
by spazsinbad
C'mon Neppie what do F-35B landings have to do being on the F-35C thread? GO HERE for earlier post saying the same thing and please use this thread for future F-35B landings - creepy or otherwise. :D TAH.

F-35B UK SRVL INFO - updated when new/old

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-20304.html (stroll to end of 1st page)

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 22:29
by SpudmanWP
SpudmanWP wrote:
In three of eight recent attempts, the redesigned hook did NOT capture the wire; the three failures occurred because the pilot landed the aircraft too far from the wire for a successful arresting. This testing “was highly successful in demonstrating that when presented the wire, . . . it will grab the wire,” says J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed Martin's vice president of test and evaluation for the F-35 program.


That makes more sense.

I added NOT since the explanation says the "three" were failures (BLUE reference) and that when it hit the right spot, was "highly successful" (GREEN Reference).

If there were only three traps out of 5 (8 minus the 3 the pilot missed), I would hardly call that "highly successful".


Called it :)

At Tailhook 2012 they said that the test was "5 of 8", not just 3.

https://new.livestream.com/wab/tailhook

45:28 mark of the N98 briefing (bottom of the page).

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 00:19
by popcorn
SpudmanWP wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
In three of eight recent attempts, the redesigned hook did NOT capture the wire; the three failures occurred because the pilot landed the aircraft too far from the wire for a successful arresting. This testing “was highly successful in demonstrating that when presented the wire, . . . it will grab the wire,” says J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed Martin's vice president of test and evaluation for the F-35 program.


That makes more sense.

I added NOT since the explanation says the "three" were failures (BLUE reference) and that when it hit the right spot, was "highly successful" (GREEN Reference).

If there were only three traps out of 5 (8 minus the 3 the pilot missed), I would hardly call that "highly successful".
UK
Called it :)

At Tailhook 2012 they said that the test was "5 of 8", not just 3.

https://new.livestream.com/wab/tailhook

45:28 mark of the N98 briefing (bottom of the page).


Yup, the numbers seem to add up .. can't wait for the damper to come online.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 01:05
by spazsinbad
I'm not sure what your point is SWP - I don't dispute anything said or written so far except this: From such a low number of tests - to me - any conclusions are meaningless. Yes the hook redesign is on the right track as stated already (with caveat - no redesigned 'damper' [I'm going to wash my mouth out]). Probably the roll-ins tests are more than a few but how many in the matrix? I'll gather that there are a meaningful number.

Bear in mind a carrier pilot will fly about 100 FCLP before going out to the carrier. Not just one or a dozen but 100 with most of them at night. Yes today probably are lot more will be done in the 'excellent simulator by all accounts' but we don't know how many. Successful arrests out of 100 or more with the redesigned and 'dampened' hook would be more meaningful (whether or not the test pilots make 'test adjustments' I don't know). Sure only a few tests have been conducted so that is all that can be said and it looks like the cumulative redesign is working - especially in light of the terrible reults that started the redesign.

For the record 'hold down damper' is an OK term for the incorrect 'damper' - as mentioned the 'hold down damper' (or a similar OK descriptive term) is not a 'damper'.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 01:29
by maus92
A British study of the "....Aircraft Arresting Hook Bounce Problem." From 1957. You would think the LM engineers could have done some homework. http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/rep ... m/2980.pdf

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 01:40
by quicksilver
You would think the so-called 'SME's from NAVAIR who participated might have done the same. Seems they have had problems with X-47 also.

http://www.janes.com/products/janes/def ... 1065971296

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 01:51
by maus92
spazsinbad wrote:
For the record 'hold down damper' is an OK term for the incorrect 'damper' - as mentioned the 'hold down damper' (or a similar OK descriptive term) is not a 'damper'.


There is also another term, "snubber" that seems to be used:

"The hook is hinged from the structure under the rear of the aircraft. A snubber, which meters hydraulic fluid and works in conjunction with nitrogen pressure, is used to hold the hook down to prevent it from bouncing when it strikes the carrier deck..."

http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14018/css/14018_26.htm

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 01:57
by quicksilver
The system used for testing this year was a modification of the baseline, not a production version of the redesign. One of the goals of the testing was to verify the predictions of the analytical model they used for the redesign. IIRC the modified baseline was 100% on something over 80 roll-ins. What was not stated clearly wrt the fly-ins is that the target touchdown points for the bolters were consistent with the predictions of the model -- iow, the model said that the probability of a bolter at a given touchdown point was X, they targeted that touchdown point, and the system reacted largely as modeled. For this testing (at Lakehurst) there was only one CDP.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 02:07
by SpudmanWP
My point was that the F-35 did not bollter "most" of the time, but only 3 out of 8 times (37.5%).

The original quote made it seem that it boltered 5 of 8 which would be "most".

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 02:12
by quicksilver
You are correct. It was 5 for 8 on fly-in arrestments. The bolters were predicted given the touchdown points.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 02:46
by spazsinbad
'quicksilver': Thanks for the clarifications about one CDP etc. However there is only one emergency land arrestor wire on rubber gromments and one would gather engaging that reliably under all nominated conditions is important. We await proper redesigned hook testing results.

Testing a half redesigned hook is one thing - but the bolters are not going to be tolerated when the completely redesigned hook is tested. I have no issue with the bolters with the half redesigned hook acting according to predictions. Now they get on with the complete redesign that minimises all bad outcomes. Yes there will be the odd bolter every now and then especially onboard but should be negligible ashore with the emergency gear. Anyway the pilot can always eject in these circumstances if the emergency gear missed.

My comment about the 'sergeant's "most"' was sarcastic. Should have used the <sarcasm> tag. My bad. :D

Yes down the years and in different navies the same equipment can have different names. Notice I never call the 'cross deck pendant' that or CDP. It is a bleedin' wire mate. :D And never in my wildest dreams would I call our esteemed carrier a 'boat'. NEVER. However I would want to open the windows onboard and such like just to pis off the 'fish heads' (regular navy chaps). We were birdies.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 02:53
by spazsinbad
'maus92' 'alloycowboy' posted the URL to that excellent PDF on page 3 of this very same thread:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 26462ae091

And still my point is 'anything but "damper"'. It is just WRONG.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 02:59
by spazsinbad
'quicksilver' scroll down page 13 of this thread to see the same information about X-47B issues:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-210.html

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 03:19
by SpudmanWP
Spaz, when you have a few hours to spare go to the Tailhook 2012 site and watch the videos. They stated that the 5 out of 8 was above average. Also they covered a lot of other issues like cost of ownership, AARGM, etc.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 04:50
by spazsinbad
SWP, thanks - yes a great discovery - it will be a great thread to view once I have a computer with sound. Should be soon enough. I'll freely admit that I (and most other civilians) are not privy to the actual test details. However I'll say in another way that yes the tests were successful with the 'hold down damper' being unmodified and these tests confirmed test predictions. Because the pilot did not land in the zone sometimes (where the GOODLY IMPROVED HOLD DOWN DAMPER will take effect soonish) because the current 'hold down damper' is not as effective as the new improved one should be - then there was a hook skip bolter ON A SINGLE WIRE apparently. Still not good enough as explained but I trust now that predictions good then the new hold down damper will be effective to enable a single wire arrest (as might be the case ashore). Of course onboard if a pilot lands with the ball high then the hook will miss the no.3 wire and land perhaps between no.3 and no.4 making only one wire a target in effect. One would hope there is an excellent chance to catch this last wire also.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 04:59
by SpudmanWP
Seriously, no sound?

Spend $3 and get a driverless USB sound dongle. It uses standard headphones.

http://www.overstock.com/Electronics/Ba ... cid=123620

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 05:03
by spazsinbad
Yeah seriously. I don't live where the corner store or shopping centre is close at hand but that is a good suggestion for earlier thanks - I was not aware of such an innovaton. I actually enjoy no sound but sometimes of course it is useful to hear de woids of wisdom. I know I have said this before but a new computer is in the works and will be here by end of month it is hoped.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 07:58
by johnwill
spazsinbad wrote:'

And still my point is 'anything but "damper"'. It is just WRONG.


I really don't care what the device is called, but the fact remains in an engineering and math sense, it is not just a damper, but a spring/damper. Spring/dampers are among the most common mechanical devices around, with at least four of them on most cars. A common door closer is another spring/damper.

In the tail hook application, the purpose is to keep the hook point on the deck as much as possible until the wire is snagged by the hook. In the discussion so far, it seems most people think the damper function is to hold the hook down, but that is not the case. A damper provides a retarding force or moment in proportion to the velocity of the object to which it is attached (the hook shank in this case). So if the hook stays on the deck, the shank rotational velocity is zero, so the damper does nothing. If the hook bounces up off the deck, it has a velocity, so the damper retards that motion but does not push the hook back to the deck. That is the function of the spring. The spring may me pneumatic, hydraulic, or mechanical. The damper works by forcing a fluid through an orifice. It may be single acting or double acting. In the tail hook application, it is single acting. That is, it retards upward motion of the hook but not downward motion.

So the spring holds the hook down and the damper reduces the amount of bounce displacement and time off the deck.

I don't much care for the term "damper" myself in this application. In all of the arrestment tests I've worked (F-111B, F-16, T-50) we usually called it the "hold down". Seems less pretentious.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 09:41
by spazsinbad
Now 40 years old, here is the NATOPS description of the A-4E/F/G arrestor hook with hydraulic diagram. Other old Navy aircraft hook descriptions could be added (RF-4) and newer such as Hornet, Goshawk hook descriptions available online in PDF NATOPS (details on other threads).

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 18:22
by Gums
Salute!

Great point John-boy!!!

Sounds like "shock absorbers" for auto/truck/jeep. Without them, and with only the "spring" implementation, most autos would be in for a wild ride.

In this case, it seems that most of the dampening should be versus the "upward" movement of the hook arm and not so much for the down force. Am I getting that right?

Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 18:47
by spazsinbad
From the Super Hornet NATOPS: http://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-000.pdf (19,5Mb)

"2.8.5 Arresting Hook System. The arresting hook is always down-loaded by a nitrogen-charged accumulator (arresting hook snubber) contained in the arresting hook retract actuator. Arresting hook extension is therefore accomplished by mechanically releasing the arresting hook uplatch mechanism (HOOK handle down) and allowing snubber pressure and gravity to extend the hook. The hook should extend in less than 2 seconds. At touchdown, the arresting hook snubber controls hook bounce and provides a hold down force for arresting cable engagement.

Arresting hook retraction is accomplished by raising the HOOK handle. This electrically opens the aft isolation valve and the arresting hook selector valve, routing HYD 2B pressure to the arresting hook retract actuator. HYD 2B pressure overcomes the snubber down-load pressure and raises the hook. The arresting hook uplatch mechanism captures and locks the hook in the up position. The hook should retract in less than 4 seconds. If HYD 2B pressure is lost, the arresting hook cannot be retracted.
________________

Hornet NATOPS: http://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-ABCD-000.pdf (17Mb)

"2.10.5 Arresting Hook System. The arresting hook system consists of a retract actuator/damper, fail safe manual latch and release, universal hook shank pivot and replaceable hook point. Hook control is a manual system which automatically extends the hook in case of a failure of the release system. The arresting hook handle and hook light are on the lower right main instrument panel. The hook light remains on except when the hook is up and latched or is fully down. Hook extension is a free fall action assisted by a nitrogen charge in the actuator cylinder. Hook motion is dampened laterally by a liquid spring in the hook shank and vertically by the damper in the retract actuator cylinder which minimizes hook bounce and provides hold down force for arresting cable engagement.

Without proper N2 pre-charge (insufficient arresting hook snubber pressure), the arresting hook does not fully extend due to HYD 2 backpressure and airloads. If the arresting hook fails to extend as a result of this condition, shutting down the right engine reduces HYD 2 backpressure and allows sufficient extension (35° compared to 56°normal)."

UhOH! "...'dampened' laterally by a liquid spring"... Yanks and their word usage/spelling drives other original English speakers to distraction. :D

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 19:10
by spazsinbad
PAGE 2 of this thread has info about F-35C JBD testing at Lakehurst so probably this is a good spot for this info:

Jet Blast Deflector (JBD) Liquid Nitrogen Cooling System 03 Oct 2012

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=5135

"Jacob Abujaber, ALRE Advanced Arresting Gear Energy Storage Capacitor Banks and Energy Dumps team lead, has created a new cooling system for aircraft carriers’ JBD panels that protect the crew and flight deck as jets launch from the ship.

Abujaber, who submitted his invention disclosure in March 2011, said because liquid nitrogen is environmentally safe, inexpensive, and nonflammable and can be easily produced, it will be a more efficient and effective coolant system for the JBD panels during high energy jet launches.

“This will enhance the present and future capabilities of JBD’s and allow future jets that produce high energy engine thrust and heat to operate on Navy carriers,” Abujaber said.

He added that his invention will also significantly reduce JBD cooling assembly corrosion caused by seawater and diminish the frequency of replacing JBD panels damaged by overheating, ultimately saving the fleet money."

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 19:15
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:...UhOH! "...'dampened' laterally by a liquid spring"... Yanks and their word usage/spelling drives other original English speakers to distraction. :D


Not quite the Spring that Chaucer alluded to. :)

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 19:27
by spazsinbad
Looks like 'actuator/damper' is the current term for "dampening". :D From the T-45C NATOPS:

T-45C Goshawk NATOPS "2.13 ARRESTING HOOK SYSTEM
The arresting hook systemconsists of the hook shank, pivot assembly, replaceable hook point, hydraulic actuator/damper, manual up latch assembly, hydraulic selector valve, compensator/check valve, arresting HOOK handles and HOOK warning light. The pivot assembly allows both vertical and lateral movement of the arresting hook. The actuator/damper is a piston assembly with HYD 1 pressure on one side, nitrogen preload pressure of 950 ±50 psi at 70 °F on the other side, and a relief valve assembly in the middle to control the movement of the piston. The manual up latch assembly mechanically locks the arresting hook in the up position, and prevents the hook from extending when hydraulic pressure is removed from the actuator/damper during a hydraulic failure or engine shut down. Two arresting hook bumpers are located on the lower surface of the tail. The bumpers protect the lower tail surfaces and tail pipe from possible damage from arresting hook slap should the hook slip off the cable during arrestment.

Cockpit controls and indicators include an arresting HOOK handle and a red HOOK warning light in both cockpits. An electrical sensing switch located in the forward cockpit HOOK handle illuminates the red HOOK warning light in both cockpits when the HOOK handle does not correspond to the actual hook position.

2.13.1 Arresting Hook Operation. The arresting hook is operated by moving the HOOK handle in either cockpit. The handles are mechanically connected. Lowering either handle pulls a control cable that releases the manual up latch assembly and switches a hydraulic selector valve to remove HYD 1 pressure from the arresting hook actuator/damper. This allows the hook to gravity free fall, assisted by the nitrogen snubber pressure in the actuator/damper. The HOOK warning light illuminates for approximately 1.5 seconds while the hook is in transit and extinguishes when the hook reaches the full down position. With the hook extended, lateral hook movement is dampened by a centering spring/damper in the hook shank, and vertical hook motion is dampened by the actuator/damper.

NOTE
With weight-on-wheels, the hook cannot fully extend and the HOOK
warning light will remain illuminated. A compensator/check valve
directs positive hydraulic pressure to the actuator/damper during
vertical hook movements (hook bouncing on deck) to prevent possible
cavitation in the return hydraulic line.

The hook is retracted by moving either arresting HOOK handle to the up position. The control cable then switches the hydraulic selector valve to allowpositive hydraulic pressure to flow to the actuator/damper forcing the hook to retract to the up/latched position. The HOOK warning light will illuminate for approximately 6 seconds or less during retraction and will extinguish when the hook is up and latched. The arresting hook system employs a fail-safe feature which allows the hook to be extended in the event of an uplatch assembly, HYD 1, or control cable malfunction. The pilot cannot retract the hook without hydraulic pressure."

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 20:30
by johnwill
Gums wrote:Salute!

Great point John-boy!!!

Sounds like "shock absorbers" for auto/truck/jeep. Without them, and with only the "spring" implementation, most autos would be in for a wild ride.

In this case, it seems that most of the dampening should be versus the "upward" movement of the hook arm and not so much for the down force. Am I getting that right?

Gums sends...


Welcome back from your TDY!

You got it right on the damping effects during up vs. down motion.

spazsinbad ... "UhOH! "...'dampened' laterally by a liquid spring"... Yanks and their word usage/spelling drives other original English speakers to distraction."

First, Southerners and particularly Texans (me) do not appreciate being called Yanks :lol: but I forgive you. Furthermore, other original English speakers should not be too critical of former Colonists when they themselves pronounce "ough" ten different ways (tough, cough, bough, though, thought, through, thorough, hiccough, hough, lough). That is only one of many examples of poor spelling in original English. Why didn't they take Spelling 101 from the Germans?

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 22:26
by spazsinbad
HeeHee. My favourite was an instructor chap from somehere who insisted on saying/pronouncing "height" in the same way one says depth and breadth for example (I guess he must have spelt [notice - not 'spelled'] it) 'heigth' in his septic tank brain. :D Does that mean he was a Southerner?

I was in Denver CO at the time. None of the many people from that state or land or any other furriners I met over a six month sojourn ever said anything like it. However being on a Photo Interpreter Course at Lowry AFB we Ozzies heard him say it OVER and OVER and OVER.... sigh. It was brain damaging.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 23:12
by spazsinbad
Back on track with the RF-4B NATOX info re de hook.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2012, 01:39
by quicksilver
[quote="spazsinbad"] ...one would gather engaging that reliably under all nominated conditions is important."

Well, no...kidding...Sherlock. The point is that the limited objective of the fly-ins was achieved.

:?

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2012, 03:39
by spazsinbad
'quicksilver' thanks. I have been attempting to say that all along.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2012, 04:35
by Gums
Salute!

Well, hell, Spaz, why not just use an A-4 hook?

The doors I saw on the jet were big enough to handle the Skyhawk hook.

I can attest to the dampening of the hook from one bad night in the SLUF. Had braking problems and missed the first cable ( 1400 feet or so at other end of rwy), then snagged the BAK-9 or whatever the thing was with the boat chains. The ground crews told me that I was trailing sparks well before the "normal" barrier cable, but sucker still skipped.

Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2012, 04:54
by spazsinbad
Glad you had the backup BAK-9 then. What was the option if you missed that also - were you slowly down a bit? Usually NATOPS advice is to drop the hook for a long field arrest about 1,000 feet beforehand but that will depend on how long an aircraft type hook takes to drop and groundspeed (often there is a warning about dropping hook too early in case it becomes damaged). A lot to figure out in a short time so JUST DO IT! :D

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2012, 05:09
by checksixx
johnwill wrote:spazsinbad ... "UhOH! "...'dampened' laterally by a liquid spring"... Yanks and their word usage/spelling drives other original English speakers to distraction."

First, Southerners and particularly Texans (me) do not appreciate being called Yanks :lol: but I forgive you.


Spaz was using a common term to describe American's in general. Had no relevance to the failed attempt by the southern states to rebel against the federal government. Truth be told, it probably would have worked much more in the south's favor had they not started the hostilities at Fort Sumter. Back to regular programming.....

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2012, 05:36
by spazsinbad
Seppos rool! :D He says whistling Dixie.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2012, 05:39
by johnwill
checksixx wrote:
johnwill wrote:spazsinbad ... "UhOH! "...'dampened' laterally by a liquid spring"... Yanks and their word usage/spelling drives other original English speakers to distraction."

First, Southerners and particularly Texans (me) do not appreciate being called Yanks :lol: but I forgive you.


Spaz was using a common term to describe American's (sic) in general. Had no relevance to the failed attempt by the southern states to rebel against the federal government. Truth be told, it probably would have worked much more in the South's favor had they not started the hostilities at Fort Sumter. Back to regular programming.....


I am well aware that "Yanks" is a common term to describe Americans in general. It seems to me your humor sensor has failed you badly. Nevertheless, my statement remains true, primarily because of the condescending attitude of many actual "Yanks".

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2012, 17:40
by spazsinbad
For the sake of keeping a record about arrested landings and suchlike in one place, the 'neptune' post here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-20494.html section is repeated

International backing for F-35 hasn’t been stronger, says Lockheed official
By: Craig Hoyle 19 Oct 2012

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... al-377810/

"...Recent test activities with a new tailhook design for the US Navy's carrier variant F-35C have, meanwhile, involved 76 ground and five "fly-in" arrestments at NAS Lakehurst in New Jersey, Lockheed says...."

<SARCASM> This is so informative, I'll have to assume that it means something like 'these were all successful arrests'? Shirley this reporter can do better?

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2012, 17:51
by SpudmanWP
5 out of 8 were a good trap. The missed 3 were listed as 'pilot placement error'.

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2012, 18:13
by spazsinbad
Thanks I'm aware of previous 'sad' reporting on this issue. If the numbers are bandied about without context then they are meaningless. I'll gather that the 76 were the ground 'roll-in matrix'. I can play the game of numbers without context also.

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2012, 20:07
by neptune
Recent test activities with a new tailhook design for the US Navy's carrier variant F-35C have, meanwhile, involved 76 ground and five "fly-in" arrestments at NAS Lakehurst in New Jersey, Lockheed says.

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2012, 23:06
by spazsinbad
If these were all successful then why not say so - yes aircraft was arrested but out of how many attempts. Out of how many attempts would be good to know don't we think. I'm a glass half full guy but shirley 'numbers without context' are much like the number of flights and test points being thrown around that the new JPO oversear says are a bit meaningless - good to know - but without context - boom boom. :D

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2012, 23:31
by SpudmanWP
This is what happens when reporters write stories from other stories, and so on, and so on, an so on.

Modern day Chinese telephone.

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2012, 23:38
by spazsinbad
Yeah. Understand. What a rip off. :D

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2012, 00:16
by maus92
spazsinbad wrote:For the sake of keeping a record about arrested landings and suchlike in one place, the 'neptune' post here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-20494.html section is repeated

International backing for F-35 hasn’t been stronger, says Lockheed official
By: Craig Hoyle 19 Oct 2012

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... al-377810/

"...Recent test activities with a new tailhook design for the US Navy's carrier variant F-35C have, meanwhile, involved 76 ground and five "fly-in" arrestments at NAS Lakehurst in New Jersey, Lockheed says...."

<SARCASM> This is so informative, I'll have to assume that it means something like 'these were all successful arrests'? Shirley this reporter can do better?


Or the LM spokesman? LM is on a PR push atm, recovering from last month's statements from future PEO Gen. Bogdan, and positioning themselves to defend against possible program cuts due to sequestration.

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2012, 00:26
by spazsinbad
Is not the reporter meant to ask questions - to get context? What does the reporter know that is not in the text. What is the speculation for otherwise. What agenda are you pushing. I'm just after the facts (with context).

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2012, 00:53
by maus92
spazsinbad wrote:Is not the reporter meant to ask questions - to get context? What does the reporter know that is not in the text. What is the speculation for otherwise. What agenda are you pushing. I'm just after the facts (with context).


Depending on the forum, the reporter may not have had the opportunity to ask Steve O'Bryan any questions, or get clarifications. It is unclear from this article exactly where/how the info was delivered - it could have been from a press release, a transcript, an earnings (conference) call, a live or recorded news conference, etc.

I am also after the facts, and in this case I agree with you about context. I am also aware of the importance of shaping the message in media age in which we live - and I work in. Understanding the source and their motivation helps to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2012, 00:58
by spazsinbad
I'll concede that more information in the article under discussion (such as the source/circumstances) may excuse the incomplete nature of it. So why bother? Yes a lot of material is recycled by AvWeak from their blogs to magazine or vice versa. I still ain't readin' it. Go figure. Not enough info. [AvWeak = Weak on Facts - 'Strong' on Opinions (nearly put 'strange' but - whatever - this is a thread about the F-35C etc. etc. etc.] :D

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2012, 04:47
by neptune
I'm not strong on facts "out of context", therefore my limitation as a PR guy! At this point the hook works but the story is still out, until the system tests are completed (damper, etc, etc, etc). As with most of you, for me this will remain an incomplete story until the successful arrestments on a carrier. At least, by this time the shrill "the wheels are too close to the hook" has died down. Carrier landings have been done a time or two by at least several a/c types, the same will be for the CF-35s. What has my interests is the integration of JPALS, hook placement and a very low "bolter" percentage; now that would be news! :).... and a big step towards the future. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2012, 06:09
by spazsinbad
'neptune' all of the above looks to be 'shaping' up well not only for the F-35C (and the other two + any modified aircraft with JPALS/AutoLand upgrades such as the Super Hornet with extra special carrier landing software) and of course the X-47B and follow ons, will be reliable deck landers day/night/bad weather etc. Potential new visual landing aids will help also such as the Bedford Array for CVFS (& for CVNs if adopted). The HMDSII turns night into day don't forget. Hallelujah. :D

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2012, 22:07
by f-22lm
Lockheed Martin test pilot Dan Levin flew F-35C test aircraft CF-1 with two 500-pound GBU-12 laser guided bombs and two AIM-120 AMRAAMs in the internal weapon bays on Flight 172. The flight originated from NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, on 16 October 2012. This marked the first time that an F-35C had been flown with GBU-12s.

Image

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2012, 22:22
by spazsinbad
Probably best to put armament testing in the appropriate thread. This one has been mostly about hook testing matters but thread drift happens.

Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2012, 22:37
by neptune
jetnerd wrote:I still don't see the harm...


DONE :wink:

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... 3448FADC23

LAKEHURST, N.J. (Nov. 18, 2011) An F-35C Lightning II test aircraft piloted by Lt. Christopher Tabert launches for the first time from the new electromagnetic aircraft launch system.

The new launch system will be installed on the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78).

Initial carrier trials for the F-35C are scheduled for 2013. The F-35C is undergoing test and evaluation at Naval Air Station Patuxent River and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst before delivery to the fleet.

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 01:13
by spazsinbad
Besides 'dampener' we (or I) have a new nomenclature to puzzle over (yes virginia I won't bang on about it but google it for gorsake!) SHIVES. You heard it here 'frist'. :D But but but sir... Ward Carroll should know the correct term so I wonder if it was just a subedit error. Anyhoo...

JSF’s Trouble Stopping on the Boat by Ward Carroll on October 24, 2012

http://defensetech.org/2012/10/24/jsfs- ... -the-boat/

"...The first 10 times the F-35 tried to perform an arrested landing — with experienced test pilots at the controls – the airplane only caught a wire three times.

You don’t need to be a tailhooker to figure out that that percentage won’t work out in the fleet. Jets come back from missions usually with a handful of looks at the deck at most, and if a pilot puts his craft in the wires, he should have confidence he’s going to stop....

...Arresting wires don’t lay directly on the flight deck; they’re elevated by curved pieces of metal known as “shives.” So the engineers’ first thought was to raise the shives so that the hook might have a better chance of catching. But the Navy wasn’t keen on tackling a ship modification when the system worked fine for every other airplane, so the engineers looked at changing the JSF hook point instead.

The result is a tailhook with a sharper point that sources tell us appears to have solved the problem.

And so we have another data point around why we do flight testing and why it takes so long for airplanes to reach the fleet … besides the convoluted DoD procurement process...."

Ward Carroll is a jokester AND as always best to read entire post at URL (URLy boid catches de woim?). Whatever.

FROM:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /14310.pdf

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2012, 21:34
by spazsinbad
H/T SNAFU. First Fly In Arrest Photo:

"10 August 2012: Navy Lt. Chris Tabert accomplished the first fly-in arrestment into the MK-7 arresting gear cable by an F-35C at JB McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey."

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-L3HFAh2vyE8/U ... 7_4739.jpg
____________

Also from: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=111

"10 August 2012: First F-35C Fly-In Arrestment
Navy Lt. Chris Tabert accomplished the first fly-in arrestment into the MK-7 arresting gear cable by an F-35C at JB McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey. Using an interim arresting hook system, an engineering team composed of F-35 Joint Program Office, Naval Air Systems Command, and industry officials conducted tests to assess cable dynamics, aircraft loads, and performance on F-35C CF-3. During testing, Tabert achieved five of eight attempts into the arresting gear. Completing these tests enabled the F-35 program to improve the redesigned arresting hook system. Engineering design reviews will continue, culminating in initial sea trials projected for spring 2014."

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 01:47
by spazsinbad
Rrreeeppeated from another post about the overall report [ http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 154#241154 ] but relevant here:

http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com ... report.pdf (0.5Mb)

Air System-Ship Integration and Ship Suitability Testing
F-35C

• A redesign of the arresting hook system for the F-35C to correct the inability to consistently catch cables and compensate for greater than predicted loads took place in 2012. The redesign includes modified hook point shape to catch the wire, one-inch longer shank to improve point of entry, addition of damper for end-of-stroke loads, increased size of upswing damper and impact plate, addition of end-of-stroke snubber. In 2012, the following occurred:
-- Initial loads and sizing study completed showed higher than predicted loads, impacting the upper portion of the arresting hook system (referred to as the “Y frame,” where loads are translated from the hook point to the aircraft) and hold down damper (January 2012)
-- Risk reduction activities, including cable rollover dynamics testing at Patuxent River (March 2012), deck obstruction loads tests at Lakehurst (April 2012)
-- Flight tests with CF-3 using new hook point and new hold down damper design at Lakehurst (August 2012)
-- 72 of 72 successful roll-in tests with MK-7 and E-28 gear
-- 5 of 8 successful fly-in tests; 3 of 8 bolters (missed wire)
-- Preliminary design review of updated design completed (August 15, 2012)..."

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2013, 02:27
by spazsinbad
This VIDEO info is repeated here [ http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-22010.html ] but replicate now on this thread due long running saga 'F-35C cannot land on forFsakeSaga'....

2012 F-35 Year in Review NAVAIRSYSCOM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... s8Q6LwDMcs

"Published on Jan 17, 2013
Highlights of the flight test accomplishments by the Patuxent River F-35 Integrated Test Force in 2012. Includes weapons separations and arrested landings."

SLO MO Video snippet is already in the main video but now slowed again by one/eighth again and uploaded here.

WHEN THE VIDEO is playing don't forget to right click on it to select ZOOM > FULL SCREEN - there is time! :twisted:

And yes in this instance the main wheels touchdown before the arrest wire to roll over the wire and get it bouncing before the hook takes the wire.
_____________________________

ONlineSloMoSLomOHiDeF version:

F-35C Arrest SloMo Orig NOW 1-8slow Again HiDef

http://youtu.be/LFbsH7tsyHY

N.B. The GREEN Light (no not in the HMDS II) on the nosewheel strut is visible showing the F-35C is NOT at Optimum Angle of Attack before touchdown etc. I would assume that a similar ORANGE light will show Opt AoA while RED will show FAST. Perhaps this was part of the test or just inadvertent. Who is to know but let us blame the pilot. :roll: :twisted:

F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2013, 08:12
by whitewhale
spazsinbad wrote:
-- 5 of 8 successful fly-in tests; 3 of 8 bolters (missed wire)




Iam not sure what the target or benchmark rate is from legacy craft but it looks like there is still quite a bit of work to do there, with such a grab rate you run the risk of having craft bolt multiple times which would put quite a strain on return rates and logistics (ie the possibility of having to refuel returning craft for multiple attempts). I cant imagine that the navy are feeling too happy at the moment, the C is really overdue some good news and LM need to put a hell of a lot of work in if they want to overcome set backs like shown in the pentagon report.

RE: F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2013, 09:11
by spazsinbad
However we can assume I think we see the interim hook design change which does not include an optimised hold down damper. Look a few pages back. No need for doom/gloom at this stage. [Actually the quote I was looking for is at the top of this thread page but repeated here]:

"Navy Lt. Chris Tabert accomplished the first fly-in arrestment into the MK-7 arresting gear cable by an F-35C at JB McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey. Using an interim arresting hook system, an engineering team composed of F-35 Joint Program Office, Naval Air Systems Command, and industry officials conducted tests to assess cable dynamics, aircraft loads, and performance on F-35C CF-3. During testing, Tabert achieved five of eight attempts into the arresting gear. Completing these tests enabled the F-35 program to improve the redesigned arresting hook system. Engineering design reviews will continue, culminating in initial sea trials projected for spring 2014."

RE: F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2013, 21:47
by spazsinbad
Because F-35C Aircraft Carrier Testing is some time off I'll post this 9 page informative PDF about aircraft testing onboard before I forget. I'll imagine it is relevant in a general sense to today for the F-35C....

EVALUATING FIXED WING AIRCRAFT IN THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER ENVIRONMENT ADA244869 May 1991

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD ... tTRDoc.pdf

Re: F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2013, 23:21
by neptune
[quote="whitewhale...Iam not sure what the target or benchmark rate is....[/quote]

Woe is me....not! The Canoe Club will develop the required design before ship trials, this spring (2013). These test were for the newly revised hook, without the hold-down damper as it will be certified at Lakehurst before the "Sea" goes out to the boat. If you can't wait for the show, then hang your head and cry! The "Sea" will come aboard in the same manner (as conventionally approriate for a CVN) as the "Bee" came aboard the Wasp. If your are waiting for the "no show" to put egg on the face, then do so with appropriate "baited breath". I, on the other hand am looking forward to the precision approach with JPALS and the precise arrestment that the system is capable of attaining. Obviously with "fair winds and calm seas"! :) The interesting part will be with 20- 30 knot gusting crosswinds and 15- 20 ft. seas; not my "cup of tea"! but "Bonnie weather for an Aviator. :wink:

RE: Re: F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2013, 23:28
by spazsinbad
'neptune' still the same precision even in inclement weather. 'BaitedBref' I like compared to 'Bated Breath'. :D Good for the BLACKshoes (fishheads) Lollygagging in the Goofers (Vultures Row).

RE: Re: F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2013, 21:22
by spazsinbad
F-35 JSF Testers Report Progress, Problems By Guy Norris, Graham Warwick — With Amy Butler and Bill Sweetman in Washington. Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology 21 Jan 2013

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 03.xml&p=2

"...A new tailhook for the CV will undergo its critical design review within a month and is scheduled to be installed in test aircraft at Pax River by year-end [2012?]. After the F-35C had problems catching the arrester cables, the hook point, shank and dampers were redesigned. The concept was demonstrated last August at NAS Lakehurst, N.J., when aircraft CF-3 made five successful engagements, McFarlan says...."

RE: Re: F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2013, 08:34
by spazsinbad
Some three FlyInArrests but are they the same? Dunno. Go here for the big picture: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... 294fe.html

OR go to Utube for the short clip shown below also: http://youtu.be/POHXQzpKRdk F-35C Flyin Arrests 2012

RE: Re: F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2013, 21:54
by spazsinbad
$245 MILLION FACE-LIFT FOR S.D. FLATTOP
Overhaul work adds defensive weapons, upgrades bathrooms, sleeping areas & communication systems on carrier Vinson
By Jeanette Steele 17 Feb 2013

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb ... t&page=all

"...‘Three wire’ gets a name
Down in the guts of the Vinson, an enormous contraption fills a room. The name “Betsy” is painted on the side. This is the No. 3 arresting gear engine.

When jets land on the flight deck, they aim to “hit” the “three wire.” That means they are trained to land so that the hook attached to the plane’s tail grabs the third of four cables stretched across the Vinson’s deck — in most cases, the strategically safest position to hit.

That’s when Betsy goes into action. The No. 3 cable threads down through this engine, which uses hydraulic fluid and compressed air to hold the cable fast, stopping the jet.

Betsy used to be maintained by sailors who eyeballed her gauges and readouts, looking for any sign of malfunction. Now those sailors, like Aviation Boatswain’s Mate 1st Class Anthony Costante, watch a digital touchscreen for any sign of trouble.

“Before, it was all just eyesight and maintenance and experience,” Costante said. “Now, it’ll tell you all the pressures by the computer. … It’s supposed to be safer.”

Each of the five arresting gear engines got the upgrade to touchscreens.

Only the ship’s No. 3 engine has a name. Apparently, if you are an airplane pilot on the Vinson, you want Betsy to be your only girl...."

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2013, 00:49
by popcorn
On the new Ford CVN will 'two' be the new 'three'?

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2013, 01:21
by spazsinbad
From a JPALS/LSO Brief of some kind (maybe I'll find the URL later). X marks the hook touchdown spot (HTDP).

Re: RE: Re: F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2013, 15:52
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:[b]$245 MILLION FACE-LIFT FOR S.D. FLATTOP
Overhaul work adds .... “Now, it’ll tell you all the pressures by the computer. … It’s supposed to be safer.” ......."


Outstanding quote from an AB-1.... :lol:

I'll bet he doesn't know where the on/off switch (for the computer) is located. :wink:

Just think, these sailors are soon to migrate to the Advanced Arresting Gear on the Ford and hopefully sooner on one of the Nimitz CVNs. How will they ever get comfortable without the mechanical complexity??? :P

RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2013, 19:54
by spazsinbad
Another BAE (in UK I guess) F-35C Sim Video of a conventional carrier landing approach for the F-35C. This sim cannot 'look behind' apparently by an early comment of pilot.

F-35 lands on aircraft carrier (Simulator)

http://link.brightcove.com/services/pla ... 2942311001

SAME VIDEO is on Utube:

F35 FLIGHT SIMULATOR with STEVE LONG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d2ep8i0sRs

"Uploaded on Feb 7, 2012
Steve Long BAE Systems test pilot, shows you how he lands an F-35, travelling around 150MPH, onto the deck of a moving aircraft carrier. All this is done in the Carrier Simulator, at Warton, Lancashire."

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2013, 21:14
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:
F35 FLIGHT SIMULATOR with STEVE LONG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d2ep8i0sRs

"Uploaded on Feb 7, 2012
Steve Long BAE Systems test pilot, shows you how he lands an F-35, travelling around 150MPH, onto the deck of a moving aircraft carrier. All this is done in the Carrier Simulator, at Warton, Lancashire."


I noted that Steve Long has considerable experience with the Typhoon, and is concurrently a test pilot with the Typhoon AESA integration project. All these F-35 pilots actually knowing how a Typhoon flies first-hand, and would also know the strengths and weaknesses of each jet.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2013, 22:00
by spazsinbad
As good a place as any to hide this information about 'aircraft carrier stuff' because the PDF is about EVERYTHING to do with operating USS Midway...

530 page, 17Mb PDF Guide for Docents for tour USS Midway:

USS Midway Museum Docent Reference Manual 2012 Edition

http://www.volunteers-midway.org/assets/files/12364.pdf (17.4Mb)

Not only about the aircraft carrier but also about operating the carrier and air operations including carrier landings, LSO stuff etc. Great value for FREE.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 02:47
by KamenRiderBlade
I've visited the USS Midway 3x times so far, it's a great museum.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 05:36
by spazsinbad
Tailored to Trap
F-35C control laws give Navy pilots Integrated Direct Lift Control for easier carrier landings, and they open the door for future landing aids.
Frank Colucci 01 Dec 2012

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/militar ... 77964.html

"...Lockheed Martin test pilot Dan Canin at Patuxent River Naval Air Test Center, Maryland, explained, “What IDLC does is improve the flight path response of the airplane, allowing the pilot to make almost instantaneous corrections to glideslope while maintaining a constant angle of attack.”

“The landing approach in the F-35C is flown with the stick only,” noted Canin. “The throttle is automatic.” IDLC may someday facilitate hands-off landings and other possible F-35 shipboard enhancements.

F-35 System Development and Demonstration (SDD) plans now call for first arrested carrier landings in early 2014....

...Safe carrier approaches require the airplane be stabilized in the correct glideslope and attitude to touch down with the proper geometry and rate of descent. Carrier pilots maintain that glideslope with visual reference to an optical landing aid on the ship, or “meatball.” They make continuous power changes while holding the aircraft at a near-constant angle of attack (alpha). According to Canin, “If we’re going to hold alpha constant, then the only way to change lift is by accelerating or decelerating the airplane. We do this with power, but because of engine lag and aircraft inertia, there’s a lot of anticipation required, and a lot of corrections and counter-corrections. Doing that well requires skill, seat-of-the-pants [flying], and a lot of practice.”

He offered, “A much better approach would be to control the coefficient of lift itself, by changing the camber of the wing.”

All three F-35 versions have trailing edge flaps to change camber. In addition, the longer-wing F 35C has ailerons. The flaps normally droop 15 degrees in the landing configuration. However, active IDLC moves the flaps up and down from that reference point proportional to the rate of throttle movement. Canin said, “With IDLC, we change the symmetric deflection of the flaps and the ailerons in response to pitch and throttle commands by the pilot. The glideslope response is immediate, and doesn’t require a speed or alpha change. This is a tremendous advantage over a stiff-wing airplane.”...

...The JSF test program currently has no autolanding requirement, but plans call for an F-35C autolanding capability based on the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System. “The F-35 will take more of a self-contained approach — an internally generated glideslope from GPS.”

IDLC is just one part of the F-35 test program which will now include tests of a refined tailhook for arrested landings. “We look at approach handling qualities every chance we get,” said Canin. “Where the rubber meets the road, though, is at touchdown. Until recently we haven’t had a loads clearance that allowed us to do carrier-type landings, but now we do, so now we’ll be able to look at our control precision to touchdown.”

I wonder what sort of cushioned landings have been done up till recently? This is a very long article with a lot more information about carrier landings under this 'new' system with the HMDS II etc.

Go to these forum URLs (pages) for other relevant bits from same article:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-105.html
&
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-315.html

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "Hooks Up" at La

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 07:27
by linkomart
spazsinbad wrote:
“The landing approach in the F-35C is flown with the stick only,” noted Canin. “The throttle is automatic.” IDLC may someday facilitate hands-off landings and other possible F-35 shipboard enhancements.



Interesting. Would be nice to know how this compares to the autothrottle installed in the Viggen to facilitate roadbase landings.

It sounds more advanced, but from what the pilots told me viggen were on rails on final....

regards

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "Hooks Up" a

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 07:38
by spazsinbad
Landing on a road and landing on an aircraft carrier (at night) are probably not the same exercise as far as precision of glideslope and speed control and line up are concerned. I guess we will have to wait for the Carrier Landing version of the Viggen?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "Hooks Up&quo

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 08:02
by Prinz_Eugn
spazsinbad wrote:Landing on a road and landing on an aircraft carrier (at night) are probably not the same exercise as far as precision of glideslope and speed control and line up are concerned. I guess we will have to wait for the Carrier Landing version of the Viggen?


Pretty long wait for that one... or do you mean Gripen? My dad made the same mistake the other day, actually.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "Hooks Up

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 08:27
by spazsinbad
'Prinz_Eugn' (yes I'm almost ready for the Eugenic Soylent Green - but not yet) I was responding to 'linkomart' assertion immediately above. I can see I will have to lift my game on this forum. In the meantime in response to the general question of what a land based aircraft might need to do to become carrier capable here is some easy to digest info from the land of the Typhoid - as an example to us all.

http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/ ... -2011.html

http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/we ... utaway.pdf (1.3Mb)

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "Hooks Up&

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 09:53
by linkomart
Prinz_Eugn wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Landing on a road and landing on an aircraft carrier (at night) are probably not the same exercise as far as precision of glideslope and speed control and line up are concerned. I guess we will have to wait for the Carrier Landing version of the Viggen?


Pretty long wait for that one... or do you mean Gripen? My dad made the same mistake the other day, actually.


No, I meant the Viggen, it was the first Saab aircraft to have AFK, Automatic Speed Control. I'm not allowed to share any data on the Gripen, more than what can be found on the net, so I try to not speak about it.

@Spazsinbad, Yes I realise that a heaving deck is more challenging than a fixed road base, and I was not trying to say it would be carrier capable. My point was that in the sixties Saab realised that automatic speed control really helped presicion approach, and finally the other manufactures are beginning to catch up...
:D

Best Regards

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "Hooks Up

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 10:09
by spazsinbad
'linkomart' I think you may not realise that carrier landings are done 'in reverse' compared to runway landings. So instead of 'speed' control as you call it, naval aircraft have at least 'Auto Power Control'. Not that I know about it from personal experience (because A4Gs did not have APC) by an early modification to the A-4E/F was this 'Automatic Power Compensation' APC for carrier landings around the mid 1960s or earlier probably on older USN aircraft. Compared to today it would have been primitive. I'll dig out the NATOPS.

Power controls glideslope in a naval aircraft flying at Optimum Angle of Attack where at any particular weight the airspeed will vary according to the weight.

OOPs in the early A-4s it is called the 'Approach Power Compensator' but all that went over my head at the time because it was not there for us. From NATOPS:

"...Approach Power Compensator
The approach power compensator (APC) system is installed in aircraft reworked per A-4 AFC 268-I-II-III. The APC controls the fuel control and is designed to maintain the optimum angle of attack of 17.5 units resulting in an optimum approach speed on the glide slope and during normal manuevers in the landing pattern at any landing gross weight. Major APC components are the computer, amplifier, servo actuator, accelerometer, elevator potentiometer, angle-of-attack vane transducer and the APC control panel.

The APC is designed to command throttle position between an approximate 70 percent rpm and an approximate military rated thrust (MTR) in response to angle of attack. The angle-of-attack signal is modified by normal acceleration and elevator control stick position. If the APC is engaged or operating when aircraft angles of attack are greater than or less than optimum, the APC will compensate by increasing or decreasing throttle position accordingly. At angles of attack greater than optimum, the APC will command an increasing throttle position until MRT (approximate) is attained or the angle of attack returns to optimum. Conversely, at angles of attack less than optimum, the APC will command a decreasing throttle position until 70 percent (approximate) rpm is attained or the angle of attack returns to optimum...."

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "Hooks Up

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 12:55
by linkomart
@spazsinbad:
I realise there is a lot I don't know about carrier ops, rest asure. I'm not going to tell you how to 'run the boat' as I quite frankly don't know enough to do so.
I translated AFK to automatic speed control, (the real swedish name would have you ROTFL), maybe it is more like the APC that you describe, I have not dug in to the system in detail as it's not really the kind of stuff I work with, I just know that the pilots really liked it, as it made the Viggen approach like it was on rails until touchdown.

my 5 cent

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "Hooks Up

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 16:57
by johnwill
The F-111B had approach power compensation in the mid-sixties.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "Hook

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 17:03
by linkomart
johnwill wrote:The F-111B had approach power compensation in the mid-sixties.

Well, as we say here, Nothing new under the sun.... :-)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2013, 08:24
by spazsinbad
This one is for 'madrat' delectation.... :D

CARRIER SUITABILITY OF LAND-BASED AIRCRAFT José-Luis Hernando and Rodrigo Martínez-Val Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS20 ... RS/167.PDF (1Mb)

"Abstract
The paper describes the first steps of a study aimed at assessing the modifications that should be introduced in ground-based combat airplanes to make them compatible with aircraft carriers designed with ski-jumps and arresting devices. The present analysis includes operational and performance aspects, and describes the complexity of the take-off and approach/landing manoeuvres, identifying the key variables intervening in such manoeuvres. A last section is devoted to summarise the most critical features for carrier suitability....

...4 Final considerations
The present paper has described the take-off and approach/landing manoeuvres, as they are performed on aircraft carriers equipped with ski-jumps and arresting mechanisms. The operations are very different from those on ordinary runways, for the size and longitudinal motion of the deck, for the pitch and heave displacements of the carrier, and for the potential interference between the carrier superstructure wake or the rough sea generated air turbulence and the approach glide path. The findings include the following critical items:

- The thrust-to-weight ratio at take-off must be appropriately matched to the available deck length and the ski-jump geometry, including wind-on-deck effects;

- The approach speed must be compatible with wind-on-deck and the available landing distance to completely stop the airplane after engaging the last arresting pendant;

- The thrust-to-weight ratio at approach must be high enough as to allow fast acceleration and safe lift-off should the airplane hook failing engaging the arresting pendants.

Obviously, since the present paper only describes the first steps of the study there are other important aspects that will be addressed in future works. They include, for example:

- Very fast control to give the pilot full authority on the aircraft after the semi ballistic jump at the end of a hands-off take-off;

- Suitable aircraft attitude during ground runs, that may require meaningful modifications of the nose landing gear; and

- Rear fuselage modifications to fit the arresting hook, as well as structural reinforcements to withstand the hook transmitted loads."

Loads of explanatory diagrams and formulae to help with understanding the text.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2013, 22:39
by spazsinbad
GAO F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER March 2013 [for the record - apologies if a repeat elsewhere]

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652948.pdf (1Mb) page 9-10

“...The Navy’s F-35C carrier-suitable variant exceeded its number of planned flights and planned test points for 2012. Testing verified the basic flight envelope (demonstrating ranges of speed and altitude), flight with external weapons, and prepared the aircraft for simulated carrier landings. The program also accomplished shore-based tests of a redesigned arresting hook (the hook engages the landing wires on aircraft carriers)....”
&
page 11
"...During 2012, the carrier variant Arresting Hook System was redesigned after the original hook was found to be deficient, which prevented active carrier trials. During shore-based tests, the program accomplished risk reduction testing of a redesigned hook point to inform this new design. The preliminary design review was conducted in August 2012 and the critical design review in February 2013. Flight testing of the redesigned system is slated for late 2013...."

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2013, 04:38
by spazsinbad
Lockheed promises tailhook fix to Navy’s F-35C 10 Apr 2013 Richard Sisk
"Lockheed Martin has come up with a new design for the tailhook on the F35 Joint Strike Fighters that should allow the Navy variant, the F-35C, to land on carriers and speed the long-elayed process of getting the aircraft out to the fleet, Lockheed and Navy officials said Wednesday.

Navy officials also said that they’ll have to do refits of the big-deck L-class of helicopter assault ships to accommodate the extreme heat and noise generated by the Marine Corps’ vertical-landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35B....

[Vice Adm. David Dunaway, head of the Naval Air Systems Command]...“I can promise you that problems will occur” in the process of acquiring 260 F-35C Navy versions of the JSF, and 353 [?] F-35B Marine versions, Dunaway said....

...“Our original design was not performing as expected,” said Lorraine Martin, Lockheed Martin’s executive vice president for the F35 Lightning II program. Martin said the “toe” of the tailhook, the part that grabs the wire, had been re-designed along with the “hold down damper” gear that forces the tailhook down on the deck.

“It’s now in line with what the legacy aircraft uses,” Martin said of the new F-35 tailhook. She said the new assembly will be tested this summer at the Navy’s Lakehurst, N.J., facility and carrier tests were expected later this year.

Dunaway said he believed Lockheed Martin had found the right tailhook fix before he beck pedaled and said: “I will be a trust but verify person.” Rear Adm. Randollph Mahr, the deputy Program Executive Officer for the F-35, said “I have high confidence that that tailhook will be catching wires at Lakehurst.”

In other testing, the Navy found that its L-class ships would have to be adapted to the F-35, and “ship change notices are going out now to the L-class ships,” said Rear Adm. Mark Darrah, commander of the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division. “We have to adapt the ships to the new environment” that comes with the F-35s, he said.

The Navy was adding thermite [THERMION - thermite will be interesting] coating to the flight decks to guard against the heat blast from the vertical-lift engines of the F-35Bs, Darrah said. Additional baffling will be added to the substructure to lower the decibel level below decks, he said...."

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/04/10/lockh ... vys-f-35c/
_______________

"Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of metal powder fuel and metal oxide. When ignited by heat, thermite undergoes an exothermic oxidation-reduction reaction. Most varieties are not explosive but can create brief bursts of high temperature in a small area. Its form of action is similar to that of other fuel-oxidizer mixtures, such as black powder."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2013, 06:08
by SpudmanWP

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2013, 01:10
by spazsinbad
A COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF USING ALTERNATE MATERIALS FOR NON-SKID IN SHIPBOARD APPLICATIONS June 2003 Kurt P. Boenisch, Hector A. Cervantes, Andrew J. Clark IV, Jesse G. Espe, and Erik B. Lohrke
"...ABSTRACT
This MBA project investigated and evaluated the cost effectiveness of using alternative materials in shipboard construction, specifically in the area of non-skid application on surface ships. This project identified the costs and benefits of different alternatives to the currently used non-skid and identified whether these alternatives would be feasible for use onboard Navy ships. The analysis indicates that the Thermion alternative shows the potential for the most significant cost savings across the Surface Fleet, while the Liquidmetal alternative also shows potential for savings compared to the current status quo. It is recommended that both the Thermion and Liquidmetal alternatives be prototyped on Navy warships to better define their costs and benefits and evaluate their suitability for use....

...D. Thermion Coating Process
Thermion, Inc. supplies a aluminum-ceramic core non-skid that is a promising alternative to current Navy non-skid. Thermion’s purpose is to provide a wear resistant surface to steel and aluminum that is long lasting and protects against corrosion.28 The Thermion coating is made up of 54% aluminum and 46% ceramic powder. This makes the coating extremely light, only 0.5 lb/ft², which exceeds the specifications for weight as set by NSTM chapter 634. When the non-skid is applied to a steel surface, the material forms a tough coating that bonds to the metal. The aluminum element in the coating acts as a binder for the ceramic powder, which results in a sealant that is extremely resistant to corrosion and wear.

The theoretical life of the product, based on the properties of the material, is 50 years. However, Thermion’s process has only been used commercially during the past 5 years. As a result, testing data on the useful life of the product are not available to support the contractor’s claim. The contractor recommends a lifespan of 10 years based on the lack of testing data in a harsh naval environment. Therefore, it is recommended that this material be prototyped onboard a Navy surface vessel for testing and evaluation to verify the durability of the material....

...Comparing the ten year costs of each application, reduced to net present value, it is clear that Alternative 1, the Thermion case, is significantly lower in costs than the status quo or Alternative 2. Alternative 2 shows significant cost savings over the status quo as well. Alternative 1 is less expensive than the status quo by a factor of four over the 10 year period, despite a somewhat larger initial investment, and less expensive by a factor of three than Alternative 2 over the same period.

...V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
While our analysis concludes that the Thermion alternative is superior because it exhibits the least cost incurred, it potentially has several other advantages. Thermion has the advantage of reducing topside weight and its effects on a ship’s calculated stability and its coefficient of friction is greater than the standard set forth in NSTM 634. Whenever a naval architect is able to reduce topside weight, a ships stability and seakeeping ability is improved. Thermion’s coefficient of friction is 1.1, which surpasses the NSTM minimum dry specification of .95. Thermion’s improved coefficient of friction has the potential of reducing shipboard injuries and improving the efficiency of topside operations.

Based on our analysis, we propose that Alternative 1 [THERMION] be adopted as a potential replacement for the status quo non-skid on Navy Surface ships. We recommend that the Thermion process non-skid be prototyped on a surface ship to test the durability characteristics in the real world environment. We recommend a two year test of the Thermion coating in a real world environment, with application of both the new coating and the status quo coating on the same ship. The results of that test could be extrapolated to reflect the full useful life of the Thermion coating...."

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA417331 (PDF 0.6Mb)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2013, 01:11
by spazsinbad
GAO bigwig testimony in PDF format 17 Apr 2013 - just repeated here for confirmation of earlier report seen above about same issue...

F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
Program Has Improved in Some Areas, but Affordability Challenges and Other Risks Remain

Statement of Michael J. Sullivan, Director Acquisition and Sourcing Management
Testimony: 17 April 2013
Before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653857.pdf (0.5Mb)

"...3. Arresting hook system—The carrier variant arresting hook system was redesigned after the original hook was found to be deficient, which prevented active carrier trials. The program accomplished risk reduction testing of a redesigned hook point to inform this new design. The preliminary design review was conducted in August 2012 and the critical design review in February 2013. Flight testing of the redesigned system is slated for late 2013...."

Tailhook update

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2013, 04:19
by maus92
From Gen Bogdan's prepared statement before the SASC:

"A Critical Design Review was completed in February 2013 on a redesigned arresting hook system and modeling and simulation involving the redesigned hook showed a marked improvement in performance. Ground test of this newly redesigned hook is scheduled at Lakehurst, NJ in the 4th Quarter of 2013, followed by aircraft carrier qualifications in 3rd Quarter of 2014."

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/st ... -24-13.pdf

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2013, 05:39
by spazsinbad
From another thread for sake of archive about hook issues - this quote is repeated: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-23850.html
Lt General Christopher C. Bogdan Program Executive Officer F-35 SASC Written Testimony 24 Apr 2013
"....During land-based ship suitability testing in 2011, the F-35C tailhook did not catch the arresting wire at a rate considered to be acceptable. A Critical Design Review was completed in February 2013 on a redesigned arresting hook system and modeling and simulation involving the redesigned hook showed a marked improvement in performance. Ground test of this newly redesigned hook is scheduled at Lakehurst, NJ in the 4th Quarter of 2013, followed by aircraft carrier qualifications in 3rd Quarter of 2014. Although work remains to be done, I am confident this new hook will meet our needs...."

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/st ... -24-13.pdf (180Kb)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2013, 01:20
by spazsinbad
STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter 2012 Issue
"...MISSION SYSTEMS AIRCRAFT...
...CF-3 returned to Patuxent River after completing final finishes in Fort Worth in early March [2012] and continues to perform F-35C mission systems testing, as well as ship suitability events. Initial catapult tests have been executed on standard steam systems as well as EMALS. A tailhook dynamics evaluation was conducted while performing cable roll-overs and roll-in arrestments at NAS Patuxent River and NAES Lakehurst. A new hook point design was validated at speeds up to 100 knots, trapping on each attempt....

http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index ... oad&id=670 (PDF 2.1Mb)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2013, 05:25
by spazsinbad
Paddles monthly April 2013 APARTS Revival LCDR Stan “Pleber” Hanley
"...the data is being used to analyze the hook skip bolter rate for the fleet to compare with the future capability of the Joint Strike Fighter. It's something good to talk about over beer...."

http://hrana.org/wp-content/uploads/201 ... il2013.pdf (0.7Mb)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C "

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2013, 11:05
by spazsinbad
Paddles monthly May 2013 | Half-Flap Rhino Brad “Barf” Byers
"...The question is, can we, and more importantly should we, make half-flaps the standard configuration for Rhinos during CV operations?...

...That said, the old adage applies, “there is no free lunch.” The consensus during carrier suitability testing was that there is a slight improvement to handling characteristics at half-flaps (it’s worth noting that, historically, it doesn’t get much easier than landing a Rhino on the boat)....

...To reiterate an earlier statistic, a half-flap Rhino will hit the arresting gear 8 kts faster than a full-flap Rhino, a 7% increase in arresting gear loads and a FLE impact to the arresting gear. With the bulk of our Air Wings now being comprised of Rhinos, this is not a moot point. There are other potential consequences that are worth investigating in addition to arresting gear FLE issues. A Rhino recently taxied out of the LA, following an arrested landing, with its hook point dangling by the hook-point bolt at one end. One end of the hook-point bolt had sheared off completely. This example is the most dramatic of several recent HAZREPS highlighting Rhino hook-point issues. Airframe FLE is also a concern that must be evaluated.

From a layman’s perspective, there could be several causes for these hook point issues. Rhinos selecting burner in the wires, a 480 standard single-weight setting (this shouldn’t be the issue), or (drum roll please) pilots selecting half-flaps on their own after hearing Paddles announce the winds. You heard that right. I recently heard a rumor that some pilots are hearing the winds call and selecting the flap setting that they prefer. This is a serious safety concern that needs Paddles’ immediate attention. If you have individuals in your Air Wing who think it’s OK to select their flap setting based on your winds call, you need to put an end to that yesterday...."


There is an issue with F-35C performing better in FCLP with half flap rather than full flap (an ongoing testing item as I understand) - part of the warp and woof of NavAv eh.

Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2013, 18:20
by neptune
jetnerd wrote:I still don't see the harm in putting CF-3 on the EMALs prototype while it's there at Lakehurst. A program spokeswoman had responded bascially that it wasn't the time to do it (understandable). But even if there's no need to address any issues that may happen to be found with EMALS (i.e. the EM environment and all of the '35's sensors, complex systems) at least it givess a longer time to think/plan about it.


Good idea!

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... 3448FADC23

LAKEHURST, N.J. (Nov. 18, 2011) An F-35C Lightning II test aircraft piloted by Lt. Christopher Tabert launches for the first time from the new electromagnetic aircraft launch system.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35C &q

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2013, 22:48
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:Paddles monthly May 2013 | Half-Flap Rhino Brad “Barf” Byers
"...The question is, can we, and more importantly should we, make half-flaps the standard configuration for Rhinos during CV operations?.......There is an issue with F-35C performing better in FCLP with half flap rather than full flap (an ongoing testing item as I understand) - part of the warp and woof of NavAv eh.


... at first pass, AAG and JPALS could handle the "half flap" approach but quickly devolves to "can the hook handle it??". Spaz provided a pic of an a/c hanging over the handrail by the "tailhook", obviously that one handled that incident. The improved (intelligent) deceleration response by the AAG and bi-directional communication by JPALS should give the hook a better chance at surviving a catastrophe, but is the energy capacity of the attachment (connections) up to the mentioned 8-10 knots increase in approach speed and the landing weight; F= Mx Vel(2)?? ....one hopes :wink:

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2013, 23:18
by spazsinbad
Good points 'neppie'. I'll have to dig out the reference to the 'F-35C half flap flap'. JPALS should make a huge difference to accuracy of any aircraft landing; but, remember, the F-35C pilots will probably be flying manual / semi-automatic landings also, where they may make 'slight' AoA/KIAS errors at the last second. I guess it will all be sorted. AAG should make a big difference once it is 'rolled out' CVF fleet wide eventually. In the MEAN time the old Mk.7? arrestor gear may have to be coddled. :D

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2013, 23:32
by jetnerd
So good to see that EMALS has moved along well enough that it met the installation time frame for CVN 78 and that they are confident enough to test the C models on it.

[Slightly off topic and for the other thread, I know, I wonder if everyone had known for sure that EMALS would successfully reach this milestone that the Brits would have kept the "C"s for the CVF program.]

While a moot point now for the CVF program, going forward, EMALS' success presents the possibility of an allied (non-nuclear) CATOBAR carrier equipped with F-35C's in the future. Is there any country out there besides the UK with the budget and operational need to eventually do it ?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2013, 00:25
by spazsinbad
'jetnerd' another thread has a lot of info about WHY the UK did not proceed with their 'cats n'flaps' muddle. [ http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... uddle.html ] A minor point would have been EMALS which at the time the flip-flop decision was being pondered had been tested by all the relevant EMALS/aircraft combinations in the USN - there was no risk on that score.

As for any non-USN-Nucklear Carrier? The French just cancelled their PA-2 effort. Brazil may be a future contender (they are getting richer by the day to be able to afford a new carrier one day). The UK will not be building any new carriers (other than the present 2 CVFs) in our lifetimes.

China has an EM test catapult track. They are likely to use their own EM catapult for their new build conventional carriers.
__________________

From another forum (and I do not have enough Francaise to check the French PDF):

"France's White Paper on Defence and Security came out a couple of weeks ago: http://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/defaul ... e_2013.pdf

Implications of France's SDSR on UK
"Relevant key changes:
- Defence budget to be 1.5% of GDP
- PA2 cancelled [new aircraft carrier based on CVF design]
- 4th Mistral cancelled
- FREMMs capped at 9 and FREDA cancelled
- LPD Siroco to be decommissioned
- Capability of 3 naval AEW&C systems maintained
- Retain ability to deploy 40 fast jets abroad
- Rafale numbers capped at 225 over the life and eventually replacing Mirage 2000Ds
- 12 MRTTs vs 13 originally planned"

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... -UK?page=1

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2013, 02:08
by spazsinbad
'neptune' asked above: "...at first pass[?], AAG and JPALS could handle the "half flap" approach but quickly devolves to "can the hook handle it??". ...but is the energy capacity of the attachment (connections) [F-35C?] up to the mentioned 8-10 knots increase in approach speed and the landing weight"[?]..."

One look at the old hook for the F-35C gives me the impression that it is very capable of hanging off the deck by the arrestor gear (not that we want that to happen). I'm sure the testing at Lakehurst will sort out these weight/arrest/hook issues. Remember the thread about the 'jet cars' weighted that are arrested? Anyhoo....

http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/sdd/f ... tc_002.jpg

This PDF had the jet car dead load testing info seen in graphic below:
http://www.winlab.rutgers.edu/~crose/pa ... ep2011.pdf

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2013, 02:47
by count_to_10
Is it just me, or is the F-35 hook a lot shorter, and come down at a steeper angle, than the hooks of other fighters?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2013, 02:57
by spazsinbad
Perhaps this recently posted comparo graphic elsewhere on this forum makes the point?

A lot of this and related threads are devoted to the F-35C hook issue but this is a recent quote that makes sense to sum it all up (from the noted previous 'hysterical' coverage that an "F-35C Cannot Land on an Aircraft Carrier" back at the beginning of 2012?

One of the few credible sources on Pprune offering information would be 'Engines'. I could name others but that is not the point of this quote. There are many scurrilous commentators on Pprune but naming them would be tireshreddingsome. :D
"...Firstly, from my experience on the [F-35] programme, the tail hook design was subjected to close examination by the USN experts, and compared against all applicable standards and requirements. It passed. In particular, there was no standard for wheel to hook distance. Bottom line - they didn't 'get it wrong'...."

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost7832962

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2013, 08:34
by spazsinbad
Looks to me like the new 'A-4like' hook shape for the F-35C about the catch the single wire?
From: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-17532.html (Korean Brief 2Mb PDF 2013)
OR
http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... n-for.html

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2013, 11:33
by spazsinbad
A RHINO 'Hook': [turn on animation in browser page]

Click thumbnail: Image

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2013, 20:59
by spazsinbad
This 'wonderful world' test environment awaits the F-35C....

STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter 2012 Issue
"...[F-35C] MISSION SYSTEMS AIRCRAFT (page 24)
"...CF-3 [F-35C] returned to Patuxent River after completing final finishes in Fort Worth in early March [2012] and continues to perform F-35C mission systems testing, as well as ship suitability events.... ...A tailhook dynamics evaluation was conducted while performing cable roll-overs and roll-in arrestments at NAS Patuxent River and NAES Lakehurst. A new hook point design was validated at speeds up to 100 knots, trapping on each attempt...."

SHAKE, RATTLE, AND ROLL TESTING (page 20) LT Matthew "Brasso" Davin
VX-23 Ship Suitability performs Shake, Rattle, and Roll (SRR) loads testing on aircraft, systems, and ordnance to ensure that items under test are able to withstand the high demands of shipboard flight operations. A standard "shake" includes both catapult and arresting gear tests at our unique shore based test facility. On the catapult, we build up to the maximum longitudinal acceleration and maximum off center launch bar engagement. Arrested landing tests are more challenging, and require much more difficult flying techniques.

At the arresting gear test site a shake typically begins with buildup to a high sink landing. Using a MK-8 Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System (FLOLS), the glideslope is gradually increased from 3.5 degrees up to 5.5 degrees or beyond, until greater than 20 feet per second (1200 fpm!) is obtained on touchdown. A "free flight" arrestment is performed such that the hook picks up the wire before the main gear hit the deck, requiring a very shallow and precise approach. A "roll/yaw" test point is performed with greater than 5 degrees wing down and up to full opposite rudder pedal on touchdown. Maximum deceleration test points are achieved by targeting a specific ground speed, which depending on wind requires pilots to fly a non-standard angle of attack anywhere between 6 and 12 degrees. Finally, off-center test points require the pilot to target an 18 ft off-center engagement, hopefully without exceeding 20 ft off-center and downing the arresting gear...."

http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index ... oad&id=670 (2Mb PDF)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2013, 00:07
by spazsinbad
2-Star: Air Wing Has To Evolve 13 May 2013
"Defense News, Navy Times’ sister publication, discussed the future of naval aviation with Rear Adm. Bill Moran, the director of air warfare, and his deputy, Rear Adm. Rich Butler. Excerpts, edited for space and clarity:..."
"...Q. Adm. Jon Greenert, chief of naval operations, was recently asked in the Senate what his biggest concerns are with the F-35. He said, “I need a tailhook, a helmet and a program that will deliver weapons equivalent to a Super Hornet.” Can you address those issues?

Moran. Absolutely. The tailhook had issues with snagging the arresting cable. The bottom line is that the design was flawed, so a complete redesign has been completed. A preliminary critical design is done. The engineers for the Navy have confidence in that design. We’re going to begin testing that.


Q. Is the hook being repositioned on the aircraft?

Moran. No. We changed the hold-down damper, and we changed the hook design, which previously was more of a blunt-nosed hook. It was kind of a bulbous nose and it wasn’t scooping. I know— it’s hard to defend this one.

Butler. When the [aircraft’s] wheels go over the wire, it bounces, and that bounce happened to hit right as the hook was coming over where the wire was on the deck. So it was a combination of the distance between the main mounts and the hook point, and the fact that the hook point wasn’t shaped quite right.

It wasn’t hugging the flight deck close enough...."

http://hrana.org/articles/2013/05/2-sta ... to-evolve/

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2013, 10:25
by spazsinbad
Also repeated on the relevant X-47B thread at same time...

The day of the unmanned aircraft. By Dave Majumdar on May 15, 2013
"...However, the X-47B did not carry out an arrested landing upon returning to Pax River. That could be because the unmanned jet was having difficulty making even that first trap it did the week before where the Navy showed off a video of the aircraft snagging a wire. Sources told the DEW Line, at the time of the earlier trap, the aircraft now had a 10 percent field boarding rate... So hopefully, this isn't an indication of a major problem. The X-47B guys have had to redesign their tail hook a number of times now due to the same inaccurate Navy-supplied wire dynamics model that was partly responsible for the F-35C's woes...."

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... ircra.html

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2013, 21:56
by spazsinbad
Came across this story today - let us hope the F-35C dashpot is fixed...

Panthers At Sea By David Noland | Air & Space magazine, June 2013
"U.S. Navy Panthers weren’t highly evolved, but they could shoot. And they were air conditioned....

...The Grumman F9F Panther was a conservative design; it had straight wings, a conventional tail, and the rugged structure for which Grumman had earned the nickname “Iron Works.”...

...When the Navy took over testing of the Panther, the jet suffered an embarrassing moment hardly in keeping with Grumman’s reputation. During its first arrested landing, on a runway at the Navy’s test center at Patuxent River, Maryland, the sudden jolt to the tailhook pulled off the entire tail section. The engine was still firmly attached to the forward fuselage and running normally. The pilot, believing he had simply missed the cable, applied full power for a go-around. Alerted by radio to his predicament, the pilot aborted the tailless takeoff. (Subsequently, Grumman strengthened the tail attach joint.)

The Panther entered the fleet in 1949, and landings continued to present problems. “I flew the Panther during my first cruise on the USS Boxer,” says Robert Morris, a former Navy pilot who lives in San Diego, California. “I would end up in the barricade a number of times because of a faulty tailhook. The Panther had a bad hook dashpot [a hydraulic cylinder that dampens movement]. The hook would bounce up and down across the deck.” The Boxer, like other carriers, had a barrier that would catch an airplane in case of just such a problem with the arresting gear. On one trap, Morris put his Panther down in perfect position, but “the hook was skipping right over all the wires. On one of my barrier encounters, the canopy came off its hinges and hit me on the shoulder.”..."

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-avi ... 72511.html

http://media.airspacemag.com/images/Pan ... -715-5.jpg
&
http://media.airspacemag.com/images/631 ... anther.jpg

1st JPG CAPTION: "If its tailhook failed to catch an arresting wire, a landing aircraft would be halted by a barrier. (National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)) Photo from: "Panthers At Sea""
&
2nd JPG CAPTION: "Four months into the war, accidents weren’t uncommon. The F9F in the foreground was hit by another Panther that could not catch an arresting wire."

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2013, 00:26
by spazsinbad
DR. J. MICHAEL GILMORE, DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; BEFORE THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 19 Jun 2013
"]"......F-35C Flight Sciences. Test point progress has proceeded as planned so far this year for Block 2B envelope expansion in the F-35C; however, no weapons separations or high angle-of-attack testing has been completed. The first set of sea trials are scheduled to start in the summer of 2014 (June 30), with two test aircraft from the flight test center. The first of these two aircraft is scheduled to be modified with the updated arresting hook system and upgraded nose landing gear brace later this year, which will permit catapult and arresting hook testing to begin again. The second aircraft is scheduled to be modified in the spring of 2014. Testing for electromagnetic environmental effects will need to be completed on both aircraft prior to the ship trials as well....

...The program intends to conduct the first set of carrier-based ship trials with two F-35C test aircraft in the summer of 2014. The prerequisite activity with the aircraft leading up to the sea-borne trials is extensive. The new arresting hook system – which has yet to start the planned verification, structural, or durability testing – will have to be installed on both aircraft, and shore-based roll-in testing and hook engagement testing completed with one aircraft, which will compose approximately six months of testing. An improved nose landing gear drag brace, required for catapult launches, will also be a part of the pre-deployment set of modifications. Both aircraft will need to undergo electromagnetic environmental effects testing prior to deployment. For the carrier, the Department of the Navy is working integration issues that will need to be resolved prior to the first operational deployment, but will not necessarily be solved prior to the first set of ship trials. Examples of integration issues include storage of the lithium-ion batteries on the carrier, resupplying engines while underway, and integration of the autonomic logistics information system. Some initial noise and thermal effects testing have been completed at land-based test facilities, and will be a part of the test activity during the first ship trial period. Modifications of the jet blast deflector system on the carrier may be necessary prior to the ship-borne trials to ensure adequate cooling of the deflector during JSF operations...."

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... needs.html PDF download 107Kb

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2013, 01:45
by spazsinbad
Just becaUSE i LIKE THE PIC AND MY NEW KEYBOARD Keeps going into CapSlokc because of my cold fumble fingas here is some humour:

SPECIAL REPORT AIR WARFARE & FLIGHT OPERATIONS SEA POWER/OCTOBER 2011
HIGH-TECH FLIGHT DECK DIGITAL-AGE ELECTRONICS, UNMANNED SYSTEMS WILL MEAN BIG CHANGES IN CARRIER OPERATIONS By OTTO KREISHER, Special Correspondent
"...Hands-off landings on a carrier are not new. Technology allowing carrier-controlled approaches to a landing was first tested on Aug. 12, 1957, and updated versions are installed in the F/A-18 and other recent carrierbased aircraft. But those systems, which are intended for use in extremely poor visibility conditions, require the pilot to fly into position aft of the carrier where the electronic system can take over.

Given the nature of jet pilots, the hands-off system is almost never used."

http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/201110#pg20

http://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/348/6394.JPG

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2013, 01:57
by count_to_10
Given the nature of jet pilots, the hands-off system is almost never used.

Is that any thing like that cannon auto-targeting system that had unheard of accuracy, but was never implemented because it basically flew the plane for the pilot when he pulled the trigger?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2013, 04:35
by spazsinbad
A recent reminder of what is at Lakehurst: http://www.aiteam.org/library/loader.cf ... ageID=2346 (5.9Mb)

Unique ALRE Test Facilities/Capabilities 14 Mar 2012

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2013, 22:36
by spazsinbad
Gratuitous HOOK DOWN OLD photo comparo during Inaugural Flight of CF-1 from:

STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter Spring/Summer 2010
“CF-1’s inaugural flight, from NAS Fort Worth on 06 June 2010, with Salty Dog 323 flying chase. Photo: Liz Kaszynski”

http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index ... oad&id=673 (PDF 2.8Mb)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 22:32
by spazsinbad
Feast of Fixes
Pentagon to weigh readiness of tailhook, helmet improvements in advance of F-35 production review
Amy Butler Washington and Huntsville, Ala., and Graham Warwick Los Angeles
AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY/AUGUST 19, 2013 | p 28 & p 33
"...Finally, Kendall will review the status of work to correct a poorly designed tailhook for the F-35C. The point of the hook, coupled with its distance from the landing gear, made it susceptible to bouncing and prevented it from scooping under the arresting wire.

Qualification testing for the new design began Aug. 8, and roll-in tests are slated for the first F-35C to receive the hook in December at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst, N.J. Flight tests with the new hook are slated for early next year as preparations for the initial sea trials for the F-35C are completed late next summer, Siebert says. Aircraft built in LRIP 7 will be the first to include the new arresting hook."

RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst For

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2013, 05:00
by spazsinbad
From recent TAILHOOK 2013 gathering was a Q&A with the admirables with questions from the floor. One FOG (I'll guess Frackin' Old Guy as compared to an FNG Frackin' New Guy) asked about the F-35C hook 'wutsup'? I'll attempt to identify the admirables making the answers each one in turn. The one answering first and last is the convenor the AirBoss. The FOG asking the question from the floor - I have no idea. Sound file clip is from this video available here:

VIDEOS: Tailhook 2013 Symposium
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-24526.html

RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst For

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2013, 06:40
by Corsair1963
Long Video but a must for any supporter of Naval Aviation.

RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst For

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2013, 09:40
by spazsinbad
Now here is the video version at low quality 13Mb .MP4 (screenshot from original):

http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSin ... q.mp4.html (13Mb)

RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst For

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2013, 09:52
by Corsair1963
Impressive either way...

RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst For

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2013, 23:44
by spazsinbad
Other report bits here: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 762#259762

F-35 costs drop as technical challenges lessen, officials say 18 Sep 2013
"...The tailhook on the Navy’s F-35C carrier variant has also been a running concern, but Lockheed is confident its new design has solved the problem. The tailhook will be tested in October and November with trap runs at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst in New Jersey, with carrier tests due next summer...."

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20 ... /309180026

Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakehurst

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 07:29
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Other report bits here: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 762#259762

F-35 costs drop as technical challenges lessen, officials say 18 Sep 2013
"...The tailhook on the Navy’s F-35C carrier variant has also been a running concern, but Lockheed is confident its new design has solved the problem. The tailhook will be tested in October and November with trap runs at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst in New Jersey, with carrier tests due next summer...."

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20 ... /309180026
The moment of truth is almost here. I just hope the tests go really-bad or really-good, giving the USN some clear direction for a change.

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2013, 08:42
by spazsinbad
IF you watch the 'TAILHOOK 2013' movie you will hear how the USN has a clear idea/'direction' already. The clip from the larger much longer movie indeed makes that point succinctly. Do I have to provide a transcript. I'm not - you can listen for yourself.

http://www.f-16.net/./modules/PNphpBB2/ ... 13_167.wma (9Mb)

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 23:08
by spazsinbad
This is the best quality slow motion video I have seen of an arrest - just happens to be an A4G aboard HMAS Melbourne but - there you go again....

Note how the wire is picked up when all wheels off the ground in this instance (not an inflight arrest though). Note also the brave hook runner - there in a flash....

A4G Arrest HMAS Melbourne & Hook Runner Slow Motion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL5eMoBCniY
___________________

A4G & S-2Es are shown in slow motion being catapulted (I guess this is when a strop catcher has been newly fitted c.1970) plus slomo arrests of same. The complete FREE (with time stamp) video at 48 Mb .WMV may be downloaded here:

http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/F04987/ (order video without time stamp etc.)

Directly: http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/video/F04987.WMV (48Mb)

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2013, 00:59
by count_to_10
Interesting. Is it normal for the hook to catch the wire before the wheels touch down?

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2013, 18:10
by spazsinbad
Hmmm. A lot of things are normal within the parameters of a good deck landing - there are many variables within the limits of same. The hook point is always lower than anything else during a proper deck landing at Optimum Angle of Attack. Naval aircraft are designed for this setup - so the possibility as seen above is on the cards but OK if within accepted parameters. There are lots of these photos around if one looks for them. I just happened to have struck a slomo version. Meanwhile....

Navy Places $52 Million Order With General Atomics 18 Oct 2013 SDBJ Staff Report
"The U.S. Navy awarded San Diego-based General Atomics a $52 million order for advanced arresting gear equipment.

The Navy will use the equipment to test the technology. [At Lakehurst?]

The advanced arresting gear will be a departure for aircraft carriers. Fighter jets will continue to land on carrier decks as usual, catching hold of a cable. The mechanism pulling on the cable, however, will be based on an electric motor rather than the standard Mk-7 hydraulic arresting gear.

The new type of arresting gear will go on the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, which is set to be christened in November. Shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries plans to deliver the ship to the Navy in 2016.

The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, Md., placed the order for the advanced arresting gear. General Atomics will perform 65 percent of the work in San Diego."

http://www.sdbj.com/news/2013/oct/18/na ... l-atomics/

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 04:55
by lookieloo
Well... summer is long over and we still haven't heard anything about those hook trials. Must've gone poorly for the USN to be talking about more Superbugs. Conversely (puts on the tinfoil), they may have gone well and the admirals are keeping it mum until they can secure another batch of Superhornets. Either way, what the hell is going on?

RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at Lakeh

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 05:00
by spazsinbad
Hmmm... patience. I would imagine reports need to be written. results verified and what not over the vast chain of command in play. What if the report appears ASAP? Will that be fast enough? :D

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up" at L

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 05:21
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Hmmm... patience. I would imagine reports need to be written. results verified and what not over the vast chain of command in play...
That augurs bad news... as in lots of people working hard to cover their a$$es with reams of paperwork. One would have expected LM to move heaven-and-earth in order to get the videos out had everything gone smoothly.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up"

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 05:32
by spazsinbad
That is weird - when earlier reports have suggested otherwise - without details. Perhaps it will be best to wait eh.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks Up&qu

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 05:37
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:That is weird - when earlier reports have suggested otherwise - without details. Perhaps it will be best to wait eh.
What "earlier reports"? Seriously, I'd absolutely love to be a$$backward-wrong here.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks U

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 05:45
by spazsinbad
Amazing that you have either not read nor looked at the previous page(s). Do I have to do all that work all over again? I just listened to the TAILHOOK 13 audio on previous page and reread the excerpt from the PaxRiver Testers about what they do to test not only tailhook in good environment conditions but ALSO IN BAD. Now I do not know what exactly is being tested but it seems to me it is not just testing the hook works in ideal conditions on a runway. You are entitled to your FUD but I think it is unfounded until more is known. So be it.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hooks U

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 05:50
by spazsinbad
Maybe these ARMY guys are fed up with all the 'hooky' stuff? :D

Army Considers Ending Joint Basing 30 Oct 2013 Brendan McGarry

http://images.military.com/media/news/b ... -ts300.jpg

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "Hoo

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 06:17
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Amazing that you have either not read nor looked at the previous page(s). Do I have to do all that work all over again? I just listened to the TAILHOOK 13 audio on previous page and reread the excerpt from the PaxRiver Testers about what they do to test not only tailhook in good environment conditions but ALSO IN BAD. Now I do not know what exactly is being tested but it seems to me it is not just testing the hook works in ideal conditions on a runway. You are entitled to your FUD but I think it is unfounded until more is known. So be it.
I'm fully aware of how the USN screwed up the wire data it sent to contractors. I've already read how LM and the USN intend to solve the problem. My issue is with the fact that it's been months since said testing took place... and still no news on whether the fixes actually worked or not.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C "

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 07:36
by spazsinbad
Good luck with making your 'something out of nothing.' I'll wait for some facts.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-35C &

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 07:38
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Good luck with making your 'something out of nothing.' I'll wait for some facts.
Fair enough.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-3

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 07:56
by spazsinbad
I have an issue with your statement that needs 'facts/clarification/reference from when to when' etc. How do you know also? What info are you privy to that is not in the public domain. AFAIK all we have had are vague testing guidelines (future) apart from the 'facts' of previous testing - successful - on this thread already:
"...My issue is with the fact that it's been months since said testing took place..."

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu F-3

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 08:20
by spazsinbad
Here is a repeat post from page 24 of this thread. Dates are important....

DR. J. MICHAEL GILMORE, DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; BEFORE THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 19 Jun 2013
"...F-35C Flight Sciences. Test point progress has proceeded as planned so far this year for Block 2B envelope expansion in the F-35C; however, no weapons separations or high angle-of-attack testing has been completed. The first set of sea trials are scheduled to start in the summer of 2014 (June 30), with two test aircraft from the flight test center. The first of these two aircraft is scheduled to be modified with the updated arresting hook system and upgraded nose landing gear brace later this year, which will permit catapult and arresting hook testing to begin again. The second aircraft is scheduled to be modified in the spring of 2014. Testing for electromagnetic environmental effects will need to be completed on both aircraft prior to the ship trials as well....

...The program intends to conduct the first set of carrier-based ship trials with two F-35C test aircraft in the summer of 2014. The prerequisite activity with the aircraft leading up to the sea-borne trials is extensive. The new arresting hook system – which has yet to start the planned verification, structural, or durability testing – will have to be installed on both aircraft, and shore-based roll-in testing and hook engagement testing completed with one aircraft, which will compose approximately six months of testing. An improved nose landing gear drag brace, required for catapult launches, will also be a part of the pre-deployment set of modifications. Both aircraft will need to undergo electromagnetic environmental effects testing prior to deployment. For the carrier, the Department of the Navy is working integration issues that will need to be resolved prior to the first operational deployment, but will not necessarily be solved prior to the first set of ship trials. Examples of integration issues include storage of the lithium-ion batteries on the carrier, resupplying engines while underway, and integration of the autonomic logistics information system. Some initial noise and thermal effects testing have been completed at land-based test facilities, and will be a part of the test activity during the first ship trial period. Modifications of the jet blast deflector system on the carrier may be necessary prior to the ship-borne trials to ensure adequate cooling of the deflector during JSF operations...."

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... needs.html (PDF download 107Kb)

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja Vu

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 08:33
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:I have an issue with your statement that needs 'facts/clarification/reference from when to when' etc. How do you know also? What info are you privy to that is not in the public domain. AFAIK all we have had are vague testing guidelines (future) apart from the 'facts' of previous testing - successful - on this thread already:
"...My issue is with the fact that it's been months since said testing took place..."
A fair question.

The answer is that I've been going off the other sources on this thread. Hook testing (ground-based) was supposed to start this summer, and the comments in your tailhook video (early September) verified that. We know what everyone says about assuming things; nonetheless, I "assume" that it wouldn't take more than a month for LM to push out some evidence that the F-35C can indeed trap, not with what they have at stake. Based on the way they crowed about previous milestones (no matter how minor), I find their silence in this particular instance to be somewhat disquieting.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Deja

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 08:34
by spazsinbad
Perhaps your meds need to be upgraded? :D Another repeat from page 24 of this thread.... Look what is to come - HANG ON TO YOUR HATS!

SHAKE, RATTLE, AND ROLL TESTING (page 20) LT Matthew "Brasso" Davin
"VX-23 Ship Suitability performs Shake, Rattle, and Roll (SRR) loads testing on aircraft, systems, and ordnance to ensure that items under test are able to withstand the high demands of shipboard flight operations. A standard "shake" includes both catapult and arresting gear tests at our unique shore based test facility. On the catapult, we build up to the maximum longitudinal acceleration and maximum off center launch bar engagement. Arrested landing tests are more challenging, and require much more difficult flying techniques.

At the arresting gear test site a shake typically begins with buildup to a high sink landing. Using a MK-8 Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System (FLOLS), the glideslope is gradually increased from 3.5 degrees up to 5.5 degrees or beyond, until greater than 20 feet per second (1200 fpm!) is obtained on touchdown. A "free flight" arrestment is performed such that the hook picks up the wire before the main gear hit the deck, requiring a very shallow and precise approach. A "roll/yaw" test point is performed with greater than 5 degrees wing down and up to full opposite rudder pedal on touchdown. Maximum deceleration test points are achieved by targeting a specific ground speed, which depending on wind requires pilots to fly a non-standard angle of attack anywhere between 6 and 12 degrees. Finally, off-center test points require the pilot to target an 18 ft off-center engagement, hopefully without exceeding 20 ft off-center and downing the arresting gear...."

http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index ... oad&id=670 (PDF 2Mb)

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 08:52
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Perhaps your meds need to be upgraded? :D Another repeat from page 24 of this thread....
:roll: Well, that was uncalled for; and again, that source only tells us what they intended to do with the F-35C back then. Crotchety ribbing aside, I reserve the right to worry until news breaks that the tests were successful, with carrier-trials still due to began next summer.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 09:24
by spazsinbad
Your whole premise is uncalled for.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 09:52
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Your whole premise is uncalled for.
Whether we like it or not, this program's past issues have given everyone premise for doubt, no matter how unreasonable. Let's go through the list of critical silliness so far shall we? (in no particular order)

- Couldn't land vertically on an LHD... until it did.
- Couldn't drop/launch ordnance... until it did.
- Couldn't pull 9g... until it did.
- Couldn't do high-alpha... until it did.
- Couldn't fly with non-test-pilots... until it did.
- Couldn't fly at night... until it did.
- Couldn't trap (at all)... until it did.
- Couldn't actually guide ordnance... until it did.
- Couldn't make it past (pick a number) units produced... until it did.
- Couldn't stop rising in costs... until it did.

I had hoped to have added "couldn't trap reliably... until it did" to this list by now, so I'm just a little frustrated and worried that something might have gone wrong.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 12:41
by spazsinbad
I thought you were a troll.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2013, 18:26
by neurotech
The issues with the hook were basically "solved" with a combination of modifications and further testing of the F-35C and X-47B which has a similar design. The X-47B was modified after similar issues, and subsequently made 2 arrested landings, and (as I recall) no unplanned bolters. I have full confidence that the F-35C will complete carrier trials as planned.

My biggest concern with the F-35 is they can't do what NASA did with Sen. Bill Nelson and Sen. Jake Garn and suggest some of these politicians and paper pushers put on their flight gear and go up on a mission. Do any of the politicians want to go up in a F/A-18D chase jet to see first hand what the F-35C is capable of? I don't think there is any current fighter pilots in the House or Senate, only RC-12 and KC-135 pilots in the reserves.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2013, 02:33
by lookieloo
neurotech wrote:The issues with the hook were basically "solved" with a combination of modifications and further testing of the F-35C and X-47B which has a similar design. The X-47B was modified after similar issues, and subsequently made 2 arrested landings, and (as I recall) no unplanned bolters. I have full confidence that the F-35C will complete carrier trials as planned.

My biggest concern with the F-35 is they can't do what NASA did with Sen. Bill Nelson and Sen. Jake Garn and suggest some of these politicians and paper pushers put on their flight gear and go up on a mission. Do any of the politicians want to go up in a F/A-18D chase jet to see first hand what the F-35C is capable of? I don't think there is any current fighter pilots in the House or Senate, only RC-12 and KC-135 pilots in the reserves.
Heh... I've often wondered if many of the F-35's problems would be solved with a 2-seat variant. Not that it's operationally necessary in the least, but perhaps various reporters/politicians are simply butthurt by the fact they'll never get a ride in one (this may have been part of the F-22's problem as well).

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2013, 03:38
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:I thought you were a troll.
I thought you would know me better than that by now.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2013, 04:03
by spazsinbad
Hmmmm - like everyone else you are only a pseudonym on the interwobble. Trust and Verify. Without sources there is no information. Speculation is useless.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2013, 07:51
by neurotech
lookieloo wrote:
neurotech wrote:The issues with the hook were basically "solved" with a combination of modifications and further testing of the F-35C and X-47B which has a similar design. The X-47B was modified after similar issues, and subsequently made 2 arrested landings, and (as I recall) no unplanned bolters. I have full confidence that the F-35C will complete carrier trials as planned.

My biggest concern with the F-35 is they can't do what NASA did with Sen. Bill Nelson and Sen. Jake Garn and suggest some of these politicians and paper pushers put on their flight gear and go up on a mission. Do any of the politicians want to go up in a F/A-18D chase jet to see first hand what the F-35C is capable of? I don't think there is any current fighter pilots in the House or Senate, only RC-12 and KC-135 pilots in the reserves.
Heh... I've often wondered if many of the F-35's problems would be solved with a 2-seat variant. Not that it's operationally necessary in the least, but perhaps various reporters/politicians are simply butthurt by the fact they'll never get a ride in one (this may have been part of the F-22's problem as well).

The F-22A had ancient avionics which limited the software capability throughout most of the production run. The result was an expensive jet that couldn't do A/G strike missions and only recently received upgrades for JDAMs etc and still doesn't have direct networking with F-35s.

I'm thinking at some point Lockheed might put some F-35 cockpit displays and other avionics into an F-16D that could be used as a demo jet, but most likely the USAF/DOD/JPO wouldn't pay for it. For training actual pilots, a fairly standard F-16D can be used for initial familiarization with the controls. Most F-35 pilots to date have some F-16 experience so they can be simulator trained for the F-35 without issue. We just wont talk about the F-22 pilot who retracted the landing gear too soon.

If it was just about giving a good ride for a politician, an aggressor F-16D could fly up against a F-35 and give a pretty good account of the capabilities of the jets.

The first time the F-35 flies into combat a lot of the criticism will be silenced. The F-22A being a primary air superiority jet is taking longer to see real combat.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2013, 19:46
by spazsinbad
At least something is happening - positive or negative? Take your pick....

Same artickle (for diff reasons) here: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24805&p=262490#p262490

F-35 on track to meet IOC targets, official says 14 Nov 2013 Craig Hoyle [F-35 according to Hoyle?]
"...Speaking at IQPC’s International Fighter conference in London on 13 November, the Joint Program Office representative said flight testing involving a new tailhook design for the carrier variant F-35C should be completed at the US Navy’s Lakehurst site in New Jersey “next month”. The type should begin its first carrier-based trials “late next summer”, he adds, on the way to a first active duty deployment in the fourth quarter of 2018."

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ys-393029/

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2013, 21:00
by spazsinbad
US Navy committed to F-35 despite talks about more F/A-18 buys 19 Nov 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"Nov 19 (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy remains committed to the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, but is also looking at options to buy additional Boeing Co F/A-18 fighter jets, a senior U.S. Navy official said on Tuesday.

Richard Gilpin, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for air programs, told Reuters at the Dubai Airshow that the Navy's current plans still called for purchases of the Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18G electronic attack planes to end in fiscal 2014....

..."Let me be clear. The Navy is very committed to moving to JSF. I wouldn't want you to get the impression that the Navy is not committed to JSF, because we are," Gilpin said in an interview at the air show....

...CONFIDENT ABOUT NEW TAILHOOK ON F-35 C-MODEL
Gilpin said a budget-driven pause in procurement of the Navy's F-35 C-model would not derail the program, although it could potentially increase the cost of each airplane.

He said the Navy continued to work with Lockheed on driving down the cost of the airplanes, and was "on a good path there."

He also said he was "very confident" about the reworked tailhook on the F-35C, which will be tested at a Navy facility in December. "The tailhook thing is behind us, literally and figuratively," he said...."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/ ... CT20131119

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2013, 03:54
by spazsinbad
From the Nov 2013 seminar audio on the F-35C attached is the short segment on HOOK testing, LM Test PIlot Bill Gigliotti is the speaker.

Seminar info here: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=24814&p=262678#p262678

Same video as attached now on YouTube:

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2013, 18:58
by spazsinbad
ENTIRE article seen here viewtopic.php?f=58&t=13143&start=135 earlier but worth noting this detail below:

F-35 Flight Test Update 12 25 Nov 2013 Eric Hehs
"...30 September 2013: Fourteen Cat Shots In One Month
F-35C CF-3 completed fourteen catapult launches in one month. The testing occurred on the TC-7 steam catapult system at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland...."

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=129

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2013, 03:11
by spazsinbad
Slightly OLD NEWS these days but what the heck huh?

STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter 2013 Issue [produced 11 Oct 2013]
"...Considerable carrier suitability testing was performed at NAS Patuxent River and NAS Lakehurst, bounding the scope of the technical challenges discovered with the landing and arresting gear systems on the F-35C. During this testing, CF-3 performed the first field arrestment during a roll-in arrestment to MK-7 arresting gear. Later in the year, CF-3 conducted over 40 successful roll-in arrestments to MK-7 and E-28 arresting gear and performed five operationally representative fly-in arrestments to MK-7 arresting gear...."

&
"...F-35B (STOVL) Flight Sciences aircraft
For each variant, Flight Sciences aircraft specifically go after flight test data requirements that would not be available in production configuration. Each has a unique set of instrumentation that has been incorporated throughout the airframe, and truly make these each one-of-a kind aircraft. They were the first to roll off the production line in Fort Worth, and each one is critical to the completion of the flight test program.

The Flight Science jets do not have full sensor suites installed and do not run the block software that provides warfighting capabilities of the jet...."

&
"...USS WASP Second Sea Trials (DT-II, scheduled for August 2013)
Building on the resounding success of the first sea trials for the F-35B on USS WASP in October of 2011, the team has completed significant efforts in preparation for expanding the envelope at-sea for the USMC/UK pilots who will operate F-35B aircraft at-sea. There is no better way to understand the performance of an aircraft than to take into the operational environment and make it work. The purpose of DT-II is to continue to expand the F-35B flight envelope, ultimately enabling fleet operations in operationally realistic wind and sea state conditions, at night, and with operationally realistic weapons load-outs. The first F-35B developmental test (DT-I) allowed the test team to evaluate the aircraft’s flying qualities and performance in conducting L-Class shipboard flight operations, mainly in the heart of the operating envelope. Additionally, F-35B maintenance and servicing functions will be evaluated. While onboard Wasp, the F-35B and various functions of the ship are instrumented with sensors that will collect data and allow for post-event analysis. Test findings may drive improvements to the F-35B for operations at-sea in preparation for USMC initial operational capability, currently scheduled for 2015...."

&
"...SHIP SUITABILITY PROJECT TEAM LCDR Thomas “Ub” Kneale, Department Head
...We have three basic responsibilities here at Ship Suitability: Precision Approach and Landing Systems (PALS); Shake, Rattle, and Roll (SRR) or “shakes;” and new ship systems. This year we’ve been heavily involved in all three. PALS certification is our bread and butter, and we perform it on aircraft carriers and L-Class ships at regular intervals and as required if performance starts to degrade. You can think of it as an FAA flight check for ship landing systems, except that the aircrew wear sunglasses more often, and we actually help to fix issues that might exist rather than just clobber the airspace at random and disappear. “Shakes” are the testing we do to the limit of shipboard conditions (maximum off-center arrestment, maximum sink rate arrestment, etc.) for new aircraft systems in order to certify them for shipboard use. This is challenging and rewarding flight test, which takes us right to the edge of the aircraft and launch and recovery system limits. Finally, new ship systems include projects like the Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS). These are exciting new technologies which will forever change carrier aviation....

...In the accomplishment of our ship suitability mission, one of the lesser known things we do here at VX-23 is operate a unique, shore-based TC-7 catapult and Mk-7 arresting gear. While the workload imposed on our 30 sailors on this shore tour is often arduous, it has rarely been more intense than for the months of 6-7 day work weeks imposed by the rigorous testing to qualify the X-47B Unmanned Combat Aerial System (UCAS) for the historic first shipboard arrestment of any Unmanned Aerial System (UAS). The hard work and professionalism exhibited by our highly trained and proficient site crew was critical to the success of the X-47 mission. I want to express my hearty thanks and job well done to our TC-7/Mk-7 personnel. BZ!"

http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index ... oad&id=767 (PDF 1.5Mb)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2013, 09:25
by spazsinbad
HISTORY of LAND Arrest Systems VIDEO.

Better Way ESCO Arresting Jan 10, 2013 [15 mins]
"Better Way is a Marketing film from our former company, ADEC (Gulf & Western / E.W. Bliss) and its amazing Aircraft Arresting Systems that we still produce today!"


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2013, 03:36
by spazsinbad
T&E-01 RUNWAY ARRESTED LANDING SITE (RALS) NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND - LAKEHURST, NJ 2013-4
The Runway Arresting Landing Site
(RALS) site is unique in its ability to make both high speed ground roll-in arrestments and fly-in arrestments on either the Mk 7 Mod 2 or Mk 7 Mod 3 arresting gear, with the addition of the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) in the near future. Over 3,000 feet of runway are available to build up speed while the aircraft remains on the runway with over 8,000 feet after the arresting equipment. The runway arrested landing site includes an underground complex located on a 12,000 foot dedicated runway. MK-7 Mod 2, Mod 3, and Mod 3+ arresting gear are located under the runway, and accurately simulate a fleet aircraft carrier installation. It provides a place to test changes to aircraft recovery equipment and aircraft under safe controlled conditions prior to introduction to the fleet. The RALS is the only facility in the world capable of making both highspeed, ground roll-in and fly-in arrests on all types of recovery systems used in the fleet. The roll-in procedure is especially useful because it allows safe, repeatable test conditions. If the aircraft should bolter (miss the arresting gear wire), there is 7,000 feet of runway in which the aircraft can either takeoff or come to a safe stop.”

http://seniordesign.ece.drexel.edu/wp-c ... Navair.pdf (2.4Mb)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2013, 03:05
by spazsinbad
Scroll down about halfway to see the current Lakehurst test facilities:

http://www.airfields-freeman.com/NJ/Airfields_NJ_E.htm

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2013, 08:30
by popcorn
Is it safe to assume that they would test the hook during actual landings ashore before trials at sea? If so, could positive results from the former be the reason for Mr.,Gilpin's confidence?

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2013, 09:55
by spazsinbad
Oh for sure 'popcorn'. That is what it is all about - ensure the aircraft is ship shape before it gets out to any carrier for any reason (testing would be the first one). There is a lot more to testing the hook ashore and I'll guess like most everything else the easy tests come first, then the difficult dangerous tests. These 'shake & bake' tests have been outlined recently on this thread. Bear in mind the 'right at the beginning drop tests' on a test example that will never fly? Also recall the F-35C has only one hook and it needs to work ashore as well as afloat. The hook needs to arrest as required for emergency reasons on so equipped airfields much the same as the F-35A emergency hook needs to have performed (satisfactorily it would appear also right at the beginning).

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2013, 02:44
by spazsinbad
Towards the end of this short 3 min video excerpt the ashore arrest/barrier facilities are seen at Pax River and Lakehurst.

Sea Legs Pt2 Arrest Structure Test Pax & Lake


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2013, 02:55
by spazsinbad
Shirley this is not correct....

Pentagon focused on weapons, data fusion as F-35 nears combat use 04 Dec 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"...Bogdan said the Navy version of the new fighter was also making progress, and testing of a redesigned tail hook that allows the plane to land on aircraft carriers would begin in coming months after completion of a critical design review."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/ ... 1Y20131205

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2013, 03:51
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:Shirley this is not correct....

Pentagon focused on weapons, data fusion as F-35 nears combat use 04 Dec 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"...Bogdan said the Navy version of the new fighter was also making progress, and testing of a redesigned tail hook that allows the plane to land on aircraft carriers would begin in coming months after completion of a critical design review."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/ ... 1Y20131205

Yes, very odd. I note that this part of the report was not in quotes and possible the writer or editors (yes, there are 2 of them) simply got it wrong i.e. the tests would begin as the jet had completed a critical design review.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2013, 10:29
by spazsinbad
See Bogdan and Shalal-Esa in this video (recent I would guess).... Not about the hook at all but has the main characters we read about so often in the one frame....

Inside the Pentagon's $1 trillion jet-fueled piñata (5:33)
"The F-35 fighter jet has drawn heavy fire from critics, not the least of whom was Pentagon program chief Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan. Now he says the plane is on track to be combat-ready in 2015."

http://www.reuters.com/video/2013/12/05 ... nel=117850

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2013, 02:40
by spazsinbad
'Call me an ambulance' or 'perhaps Shirley I just forgot' but NG is responsible for the AHS :doh: :
"...The [NG] mission systems team has responsibility for the design and procurement of the...arresting hook system..."

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... ochure.pdf (0.3Mb)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2013, 03:07
by spazsinbad
Lakehurst not ready for hooking yet (later) with Pax River hooking now?

Lockheed: New Carrier Hook for F-35 12 Dec 2013 Dave Majumdar
"Lockheed Martin is set to deliver a production version of the tailhook for the carrier-based F-35C Joint Strike Fighter after an engineering glitch forced a partial redesign of the system.

“CF-3 is the test aircraft that is modified to conduct tailhook testing,” Lockheed spokeswoman Laura Siebert wrote in an email to USNI News on Dec. 12. “The airplane is in the final stages of preparation for test with the new tailhook module installed.”

The modified F-35C test aircraft will conduct flight test at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., until facilities are ready for trials at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst in New Jersey to conduct roll-in testing.

“It will be ready for planned testing when the facilities at Lakehurst are ready,” Siebert said. “In the interim, expect checkout flights at Pax River this month.”

Roll-in testing is required to verify that the F-35C will be able catch a cable on a set of carrier arresting gear installed onshore at the Lakehurst facility. After the aircraft demonstrates that it can catch a wire on land, the F-35C will have to be tested at sea.

Arrested recoveries at sea should take place onboard the USS Nimitz (CVN-68) in the first part of 2014 according to Lockheed officials. However, while the current plan calls for the F-35 to perform its sea-trials onboard the Nimitz, it could be another ship depending on the availability of carriers at the time.

Demonstrating that the F-35C can recover onboard a carrier is critical for a naval aircraft. The tailhook has been a vexing problem on the F-35C variant when it was discovered in 2012 that the hook could not reliably engage an arresting wire.

Lockheed and the Joint Strike Fighter program office ultimately traced the problem back to the shape of the hook and a faulty wire dynamics model supplied by the Naval Air Systems Command.

The solution was to reshape the hook point and adjust the system’s hold-down damper, which helps prevent the hook from bouncing around upon touchdown...."

http://news.usni.org/2013/12/12/lockhee ... -hook-f-35

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2013, 06:24
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:'Call me an ambulance' or 'perhaps Shirley I just forgot' but NG is responsible for the AHS :doh: :
"...The [NG] mission systems team has responsibility for the design and procurement of the...arresting hook system..."

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... ochure.pdf (0.3Mb)


The same folks who brought you the "bad hook" on the X-47B, for the same reason! :)

PS, looks like they've got that one fixed! :D

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 01:37
by spazsinbad
Navy’s F-35 Starts New Tailhook Tests 23 Dec 2013 Dave Majumdar
"The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has begun testing a new carrier arresting hook for the Navy’s version of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.

Aircraft CF-3, which is the first F-35C fitted with a production tailhook, caught an arresting wire at a shore-based test rig on Dec. 19 at the Navy’s primary flight test center according to Naval Air Systems Command. The aircraft was flow by Lt. Cmdr. Tony Wilson.

Testing will eventually move to Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst in New Jersey in January 2014 for additional testing with a shore-based arresting gear. Fly-in testing is required to verify that the F-35C will be able to consistently catch an arresting wire....

...Lockheed and the Joint Strike Fighter program office ultimately traced the problem back to the shape of the hook and a faulty wire dynamics model supplied by the Naval Air Systems Command. The solution was to reshape the hook point and adjust the system’s hold-down damper, which helps prevent the hook from bouncing around upon touchdown...."

http://news.usni.org/2013/12/23/navys-f ... hook-tests

CAPTION: "Navy F-35C test plane CF-3 successfully catches a wire during testing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. Lockheed Martin Photo"

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 16:59
by smsgtmac
spazsinbad wrote:Navy’s F-35 Starts New Tailhook Tests 23 Dec 2013 Dave Majumdar
...Lockheed and the Joint Strike Fighter program office ultimately traced the problem back to the shape of the hook and a faulty wire dynamics model supplied by the Naval Air Systems Command. The solution was to reshape the hook point and adjust the system’s hold-down damper, which helps prevent the hook from bouncing around upon touchdown...."

:lmao: LOVE the phrasing of the last passage. It reads as if the shape of the hook and the flaw in the dynamics model were independent variables. It should read the use of a faulty dynamics model drove the wrong shape design for the hook. But then someone would have to ask themselves why was the Program and contractor eviscerated for months on this issue when it was a NAVAIR error'? I suspect (actually a little more than suspect but we won't go into it) that the arresting gear has now been over-engineered, since just changing the hook allowed 5 of 8 arrestments against the single wire test setup and the other 3 were outside the zone. Do we now have to worry about the hook system piercing the carrier deck? (I kid)

Seriously. I remember cries to make the contractors pay for the re-engineering. Bring this up as a case study every time somebody blames a program or contractor before the root cause of some bad development is known. Classic GIGO episode.
Oh, and somebody is tweaking ELP in the comments at the link Spaz provided. That is pretty funny in its own right.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 19:22
by spazsinbad
ELP is not a master of mixing / matching his 'buzz word' phrases that are used over and over on his 'driveby' comments all over the web. This thread has a ton of info about the hook issue and (of course) about the A-4 hook (natch). :D Yet ELP hangs on to the arguments presented now two years ago in the face of evidence that the F-35C hook issue is being solved. Wow. And just for the record again:
ELP comment at USNI: "...The A-4 was designed from the start as a carrier aircraft...."

And so was the F-35C. A summary now mentioned a few times in this thread / forum highlights the effort here:

The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter
"...SHIP SUITABILITY DESIGN "PENALTY"
Because of the numerous factors that influence the design of a ship-based aircraft, many assume these considerations have significantly compromised the mission performance of the CV and STOVL variants. Correspondingly, it is assumed that the remaining CTOL variant carries appreciable "scar impacts" to maintain commonality with its sea-going siblings. However, the JSF design solution has been quite successful in minimizing the "penalty" of ship suitability. As was discussed earlier, the most notable evidence of the CV variant's carrier suitability requirement is its increased wing size and strengthened structural components. These features increase the weight and drag characteristics of the air vehicle, which in turn diminish slightly its maximum speed capability and acceleration performance. However, turn performance is actually improved, and the larger wing provides more fuel volume for a longer range and greater endurance. Similar impacts are seen in the STOVL variant, the result of the incorporation of a vertical lift capability.

However, numerous trade studies and operational analyses have confirmed that these small performance impacts have negligible impacts on the mission effectiveness of the CV and STOVL variants. And, since commonality is achieved largely through the use of "cousin" components (those identical in shape, but scaled in size to meet variant-specific requirements), the CTOL variant carries virtually no scars as the result of the ship suitability of the other two variants. The JSF program has clearly shown that shipboard compatibility does not have to come at the expense of such critical attributes as lethality and survivability...."

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988 (1Mb PDF)

It is funny how even the A-4 mockup had a dissimilar yoked hook to the one used so successfully in production as per:

http://a4skyhawk.org/sites/a4skyhawk.or ... 7812m1.jpg
http://a4skyhawk.org/content/137812-dou ... t-photo-13

Reality has never bothered ELP though.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2013, 00:17
by quicksilver
smsgtmac wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Navy’s F-35 Starts New Tailhook Tests 23 Dec 2013 Dave Majumdar
...Lockheed and the Joint Strike Fighter program office ultimately traced the problem back to the shape of the hook and a faulty wire dynamics model supplied by the Naval Air Systems Command. The solution was to reshape the hook point and adjust the system’s hold-down damper, which helps prevent the hook from bouncing around upon touchdown...."

:lmao: LOVE the phrasing of the last passage. It reads as if the shape of the hook and the flaw in the dynamics model were independent variables. It should read the use of a faulty dynamics model drove the wrong shape design for the hook. But then someone would have to ask themselves why was the Program and contractor eviscerated for months on this issue when it was a NAVAIR error'? I suspect (actually a little more than suspect but we won't go into it) that the arresting gear has now been over-engineered, since just changing the hook allowed 5 of 8 arrestments against the single wire test setup and the other 3 were outside the zone. Do we now have to worry about the hook system piercing the carrier deck? (I kid)

Seriously. I remember cries to make the contractors pay for the re-engineering. Bring this up as a case study every time somebody blames a program or contractor before the root cause of some bad development is known. Classic GIGO episode.
Oh, and somebody is tweaking ELP in the comments at the link Spaz provided. That is pretty funny in its own right.


A little quibbling if I may -- When one considers the intent of the testing (to validate the new model they had developed to assess the probability of arrestment for the new AHS design) the "5 of 8" was really a 7 of 8. Based on the predictions of the model, they targeted touchdown points where they expected arrestments, and they targeted touchdown points where they expected bolters. IIRC, where they expected arrestments they got 5 of 6; where they expected bolters they were 2 for 2 (i.e. the jet boltered -- as the model predicted).

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2013, 04:24
by spazsinbad
This is a question raised on another forum. What constitutes a 'roll-in' arrest? I have searched the internet to find no info and I'll continue to search later today. An 'authoritative' source said a 'roll-in' is with the nosewheel off the tarmac as we see in the F-35C arresting photo above. That must be fun to do and is this correct? Thanks.

And thanks for the info 'quicksilver' from last test re bolters etc. Dave Majumdar needs to get on the case I reckon. :D

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2013, 05:51
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:This is a question raised on another forum. What constitutes a 'roll-in' arrest? I have searched the internet to find no info and I'll continue to search later today. An 'authoritative' source said a 'roll-in' is with the nosewheel off the tarmac as we see in the F-35C arresting photo above. That must be fun to do and is this correct? Thanks.

And thanks for the info 'quicksilver' from last test re bolters etc. Dave Majumdar needs to get on the case I reckon. :D



Roll-in --

Jet is on the rwy at a target ground speed and the hook is dropped at a predetermined distance in front of the wire…not unlike taking the long field gear, or a precautionary arrestment like the USAF would do at mid-field.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2013, 06:31
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'quickie' for that info: that would be my guess (without any other knowledge about such tests). My imagination says that accelerating any Naval Aircraft to a groundspeed where the nose can be raised and held up with hook dropped is fraught with undesirable possibilities - especially any non-view over the nose, ahead - and leaving the runway unintentionally.

Hooks do not like being dragged too far on a runway - I'll guess the pilots doing roll-in tests are good at dropping the hook exactly as required.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2013, 14:53
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks 'quickie' for that info: that would be my guess (without any other knowledge about such tests). My imagination says that accelerating any Naval Aircraft to a groundspeed where the nose can be raised and held up with hook dropped is fraught with undesirable possibilities - especially any non-view over the nose, ahead - and leaving the runway unintentionally.

Hooks do not like being dragged too far on a runway - I'll guess the pilots doing roll-in tests are good at dropping the hook exactly as required.


Well, the pic provides the answer about roll-in or fly-in -- the smoke from the touchdown.

Tis a fly-in.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2013, 19:46
by spazsinbad
No question - I thought it was a fly-in all along - just wanted to know about the ROLL-IN scenario. It was a comment on pPrune actually by two 'UK experts' who both claim that the pic shows a roll-in with one claiming "all roll-ins are done with nose off the tarmac". I guess I should be more clear about what I thought when I thought it was clear. I have not seen the reaction there yet - not really that concerned - we know what we know and the internet has a zillion opinions. Again thanks for the info on the Roll-In criteria. I like to find out as best I can from the other side of the world sitting at a computer but with NavAv experience from another time etc. :D

From my earlier comment 'that would be my guess' I was referring to your 'roll-in' definition being as such with the 'fly-in' shown in the photo being the only other explanation and my guess all along. It would have helped if the photo had had a better caption but such is life.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2013, 20:04
by quicksilver
Not questioning your questions -- I had simply not really paid much attention to the idea until you asked.

Conspicuously, it was LO who made the comment… :wink:

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2013, 20:07
by spazsinbad
Haha - so you went there. I was also going to slag LO and JTO (the roll-in definer with nosewheel off) here but thought better of it. That really is a strange UK forum, mostly inhabited by crabs (RN/RAN FAA slang for UK/Oz AirForce). :twisted:

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2013, 00:53
by hookswing
Prior to this fly-in, 3 successfull roll-ins were performed!

Happy Christmas

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2013, 01:44
by spazsinbad
:D Thanks BigSwingingHook! :D


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testin

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2013, 02:34
by hookswing
HeHeHe :D , you won't see that @ CF-3.....
The only Hookswing I want to see is a hookswing after grabbing the cable!

Guess early January will be the next time, but I still hope for some moving footage of this fly-in.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2013, 03:04
by spazsinbad
Agree, the yoke should be good for preventing that schwing. Here is a SLOmo from last time fly-in with interim hook design.




Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2014, 21:58
by spazsinbad
Whilst waiting for some hook news I came across this puzzle. Does anyone know what is the meaning of the symbol in the lower right corner of the ILARTS/PLAT Integrated Launch and Recovery Television Surveillance screen please? Tah. VIDEO for clues:


Re: Tailhook update

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2014, 03:23
by alloycowboy
Here is another tail hook up date:

Lockheed: New Carrier Hook for F-35


Do you guys think the US Navy intentionally tried to sabatoge the F-35C by giving Lockheed Martin.

Lockheed and the Joint Strike Fighter program office ultimately traced the problem back to the shape of the hook and a faulty wire dynamics model supplied by the Naval Air Systems Command.


http://news.usni.org/2013/12/12/lockheed-new-carrier-hook-f-35

Re: Tailhook update - GO LAKEHURST THREAD

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2014, 04:05
by spazsinbad
Perhaps it is not obvious however there has been a long running thread about the tailhook issues with 'Lakehurst' in the title (where most hook testing will likely be held). Anyway that same item above is here:

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&hilit=Lakehurst&start=405

As for your question: If you look back through the 'Lakehurst' thread you will see/hear an audio file from the last 'TailHook' convention where it is sheepishly admitted I think that there were some 'problems'. Perhaps there is an idea that tail hooks are designed every other day. Perhaps they were during WWII and soon afterwards but then the number of new Naval aircraft tapered off. I'm not trying to account for anything other than human error. It is good there is now better data for the next hook. There was also a problem with the X-47B hook due this data error problem. See the X-47B thread (probably mentioned in the 'Lakehurst' thread also.
____________________

Just for the 'heck of it' here is the report about the X-47B 'bad data'. Conspiracy? YEP. And martians rool - all your base are mine. :shock: :devil:

The day of the unmanned aircraft. By Dave Majumdar on May 15, 2013
“...However, the X-47B did not carry out an arrested landing upon returning to Pax River.

That could be because the unmanned jet was having difficulty making even that first trap it did the week before where the Navy showed off a video of the aircraft snagging a wire. Sources told the DEW Line, at the time of the earlier trap, the aircraft now had a 10 percent field boarding rate... So hopefully, this isn't an indication of a major problem. The X-47B guys have had to redesign their tail hook a number of times now due to the same inaccurate Navy-supplied wire dynamics model that was partly responsible for the F-35C's woes....”

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... ircra.html

Re: Tailhook update

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2014, 04:49
by neurotech
alloycowboy wrote:Here is another tail hook up date:

Lockheed: New Carrier Hook for F-35


Do you guys think the US Navy intentionally tried to sabatoge the F-35C by giving Lockheed Martin.

Lockheed and the Joint Strike Fighter program office ultimately traced the problem back to the shape of the hook and a faulty wire dynamics model supplied by the Naval Air Systems Command.


http://news.usni.org/2013/12/12/lockheed-new-carrier-hook-f-35

Not in a million years. I think it was an honest mistake based on flawed computer models. A Navy IG investigation into actions like that could easily sink careers. If anyway substantiated, it would be another "Tailhook" type scandal where guilt by association becomes the default. Congress would never let them hear the end of it.

Re: Tailhook update

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2014, 04:58
by spazsinbad
On this page of the 'Lakehurst' thread - about the hook - testing.... there is an audio file .WMA 9Mb from TAILHOOK '13:

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&hilit=Lakehurst&start=360

http://www.f-16.net/attachments/hookf_3 ... 13_167.wma (9Mb)

HOOK Answered from 3 minute 30 seconds in the above .WMA (these people - FOGs - are BIG WHEELS!). :roll: :shock:

The Biggest FOG (opp. to FNGs) mentions the X-47B - then he says his daughter will design the next tail hook (problem with a misplaced decimal point apparently). :doh:

Re: Tailhook update - GO LAKEHURST THREAD

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2014, 06:20
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Perhaps it is not obvious however there has been a long running thread about the tailhook issues with 'Lakehurst' in the title...
It is, even for me (don't get to visit as often as I once did).

@Mods: Can we have an an "ignore thread" or "mark permanently as read" function on the board for these DELIBERATE concern-troll redundancies, which are obviously meant to start arguments out-of-context?

Re: Tailhook update - GO LAKEHURST THREAD

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2014, 03:09
by alloycowboy
lookieloo wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Perhaps it is not obvious however there has been a long running thread about the tailhook issues with 'Lakehurst' in the title...
It is, even for me (don't get to visit as often as I once did).

@Mods: Can we have an an "ignore thread" or "mark permanently as read" function on the board for these DELIBERATE concern-troll redundancies, which are obviously meant to start arguments out-of-context?


Just for the record, I wasn't trolling for comments, had I known the article was already posted, I wouldn't have posted it. But I do think it is a valid question given some of the USN actions of late.

Re: Tailhook update

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2014, 03:58
by spazsinbad
'acb' I did not take your post as trolling however your question was answered (misplaced decimal point) so what is this you are suggesting now? "...valid question given some of the USN actions of late."

What are these actions and are they part of the conspiracy you are suggesting?

Re: Tailhook update

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2014, 04:23
by alloycowboy
Hey Spaz, the USN is doing crazy stuff like this; which really makes one do a little head scratching.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-confident-over-additional-us-navy-fa-18-orders-393979/

Re: Tailhook update

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2014, 04:37
by spazsinbad
Are you kiddin' me? I'm from a different country with probably less cynicism than perhaps what you are used to. Cynicism is easy in my book. However I regard public statements (unless later - or then - shown to be otherwise) by authorised high ranking defence personnel to be OK for the time they are spoken. Which of course in retrospect may not prove to be true if that person is making a prediction. Facts are facts. A USN Captain takes responsibility for a mistake. End of story. No conspiracy. Meanwhile the story is positive about the BOING! comments from BOING! about their future. Where is the USN angle?

As we know the military plan for all kinds of eventualities. Then funnily enough we see the US Congress adding funding for future Shornets in the last passed budget. I reckon you should look at the US dysfunctional congress for all kinds of shenanigans. But that is not my country - so I basically ignore it all - and go for the facts as they are known (to the public anyway).

Re: Tailhook update

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2014, 19:55
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:Are you kiddin' me? I'm from a different country with probably less cynicism than perhaps what you are used to. Cynicism is easy in my book. However I regard public statements (unless later - or then - shown to be otherwise) by authorised high ranking defence personnel to be OK for the time they are spoken. Which of course in retrospect may not prove to be true if that person is making a prediction. Facts are facts. A USN Captain takes responsibility for a mistake. End of story. No conspiracy. Meanwhile the story is positive about the BOING! comments from BOING! about their future. Where is the USN angle?

Boeing are in a tight spot at the moment. They can probably afford long-lead items to keep the production line going, but not do a multibillion dollar upgrade program without funding from DoD or an export customer. They have the physical F/A-18E/Fs available for the test program, but with the F/A-18BR upgrade derailed its not looking good. Kuwait might be an option because they have funds and F/A-18Cs that are 20 years old.

I think its admirable that Capt. Morley publicly took responsibility and clarified the situation, as this could have major consequences when Wall St analysts start speculating. There was no conspiracy here.
spazsinbad wrote:As we know the military plan for all kinds of eventualities. Then funnily enough we see the US Congress adding funding for future Shornets in the last passed budget. I reckon you should look at the US dysfunctional congress for all kinds of shenanigans. But that is not my country - so I basically ignore it all - and go for the facts as they are known (to the public anyway).
They have to put the budget request to Congress for acquisitions to move forward, and Congress can add funding for things the Pentagon don't really want like more C-27Js.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2014, 22:52
by hookswing
[...]
“From 9 to 16 Jan, the F-35 team accomplished 36 successful roll-in arrestment tests at Lakehurst with the redesigned F-35C arresting hook system on CF-3,” wrote Joe DellaVedova, a spokesman for the F-35 Joint Program Office in a Tuesday email to USNI News. “All flight test objectives were met.”

[...]

“The aircraft has ferried back to Patuxent River, where it will now commence 3-4 month series of field-based ship suitability tests, including fly-in arrestments that are scheduled to begin soon,” DellaVedova said.
“These tests are expected to lead to a certification of the F-35C for shipboard flight trials, which are planned to commence in Oct. 2014.”

[...]

Source: http://news.usni.org/2014/01/28/navys-f ... sea-trials


More news to follow soon :)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2014, 00:47
by spazsinbad
:drool: The 'mysterious' number in the PLAT/ILARTS footage screenshot above - lower right corner is....

rate of descent in ft/sec :doh:

&&&&.... Just another recent NavAvUtubeyVid to get youse in the mood (no ILARTS though)... watch 'em at work.


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2014, 02:27
by spazsinbad
spazsinbad wrote:All the hookylookyloo stuff from latest DOTE Jan 2014 report about 2013 snatchin'.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) DOTE Jan 2014
"...F-35C Flight Sciences
Flight Test Activity with CF-1, CF-2, and CF-3 Test Aircraft
F-35C flight sciences focused on:...
...-- Carrier suitability testing in preparation for the first set of ship trials scheduled for mid-CY14. The program
configured aircraft CF-3 with a modified and instrumented nose landing gear system to begin initial catapult testing in August 2013. The test team modified CF-3 with the new arresting hook system and began on-aircraft testing with rolling engagements in late CY13....

...Flight Sciences Assessment...
...• Weight management is important for meeting air vehicle performance requirements. The aircraft weight is computed monthly, and adjusted for known corrections from engineering estimates and production modifications.

-- The program added 139 pounds to the F-35C weight status in May 2013 to account for the redesigned arresting hook system. The latest weight status report from October 2013 showed the estimated weight of 34,593 pounds to be within 275 pounds (0.79 percent) of the projected maximum weight needed to meet technical performance requirements in January 2016.

-- This margin allows for 0.35 percent weight growth per year. The program will need to continue rigorous weight management through the end of SDD to avoid performance degradation and operational impacts.

F-35C Air-Ship Integration and Ship Suitability Testing...
...-- The program began testing its redesigned arresting hook system on a flight test aircraft in late CY13. The redesign was necessary after the original system failed to engage the cable and demonstrate sufficient load-carrying capacity. The arresting hook system remains an integration risk as the JSF development schedule leaves no time for new discoveries. Other risks include the potential for gouging of the flight deck after a missed cable engagement (due to an increase in weight of 139 pounds) and the potential for sparking from the tail hook across the flight deck because of the increased weight and sharper geometry of the redesigned hook...."

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... Report.pdf (48Mb)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2014, 21:26
by spazsinbad
I'm guessing the 'fly-in' test rig needs to be available (or maybe there is a problem for 'fly-ins'?). This report is a let down for sure - so FWIW. For Fsake get some FlyIns DONE! :doh: And here is another reference to the 'not strong enough' with a good reason why the AHS weighs so much extra now (139lbs?). And I guess NIMITZ is coming out of a long refit RICO or whatever?

Navy’s F-35 Tailhook Passes Initial Tests; Carrier Flights In October 05 Feb 2014 Colin Clark

"The F-35C, the Navy version of the Joint Strike Fighter and the plane most in danger of being cut or reduced by its service, has passed the first round of critical tests of its tail hook, the part of the plane that makes traditional carrier landings possible.

“All flight test objectives were met,” Joe DellaVedova, F-35 program spokesman, said in an email. “We’re not declaring victory but last month (9 to 16 Jan) the F-35 team accomplished 36 successful roll-in arrestment tests at Lakehurst with the redesigned F-35C arresting hook system on CF-3.”

CF-3 is the first F-35C to be fitted with the redesigned Arresting Hook System, as it’s formally known. The plane has returned to the Navy’s Patuxent River test facility where for the next three to four months it will undergo “field-based ship suitability tests, including fly-in arrestments.” Those tests are expected to lead to a certification of the F-35C for carrier flight trials, planned for October aboard the USS Nimitz (CVN-68)....

...Here’s some background on the tail hook problem. The initial design did not reliably engage the cable and wasn’t strong enough. “Improved damping and optimized hookpoint shape addressed part one,” DellaVedova said. And they basically redesigned the tail hook and made it, and where it connects with the airframe, much stronger."

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/02/navy ... n-october/

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2014, 21:29
by SpudmanWP
...Here’s some background on the tail hook problem. The initial design did not reliably engage the cable and wasn’t strong enough. “Improved damping and optimized hookpoint shape addressed part one,” DellaVedova said. And they basically redesigned the tail hook and made it, and where it connects with the airframe, much stronger."


Well, that explains the extra 139lbs.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2014, 01:27
by maus92
spazsinbad wrote:And I guess NIMITZ is coming out of a long refit RICO or whatever?


Nimitz is in port in Everett (on the left coast,) after returning recently from SW Asia and the Med. I guess it will take time to drive the boat to the other side of the country. But it's not in RCOH.

“We’re not declaring victory...." That part of the PAOs statement is interesting.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2014, 01:46
by spazsinbad
'maus92' if it is not obvious to you - there is a lot of F-35C AHS testing yet to occur before 'victory over whatever' is declared. OK? I'll suggest an all out bombing campaign [for 'victory over whatever']. On who? Guess Who? Not THE WHO - greatest band ever apart from the Strolling Bones, Jimi Hendrix, the KINKS just to name a few. But I digress. The testing of the F-35C AHS will be amazing. I hope we see the 'near crash' fly-ins on video and the like. Of course I want know harm done to humans or the aircraft however it can get tricky if the 3 year SHornet testing is anything to go by.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2014, 22:32
by spazsinbad
Just a friendly reminder about how the SHornet was tested in this story.

Unnatural Acts of Landing The Kneeboard | Spring 2012 Page 4
"For most people, the idea of flight testing means seeing how fast an airplane can go or how quickly it can maneuver. While answering these questions may be part of a flight test program, there is more to flight testing than speed and agility. Navy carrier aircraft must also withstand the stressful loads of repeated arrested landings (traps) that can exceed 6 Gs on the aircraft.

The landing gear must:
‣ Survive thousands of landing shocks
‣ Reduce the loads reaching the aircraft structures and crew
‣ Allow the pilot to stay in control of the aircraft’s behavior

Ground Loads Testing shows that an aircraft structure can withstand carrier operations at maximum takeoff and landing weights. Normal landings at these conditions are no problem. But testing must also show that an aircraft can absorb these loads when:

‣ Its sink rate (how fast it descends) is high (as much as 26 feet per second!)
‣ Its wings are not level when it lands
‣ Its tailhook catches an arresting cable to the side of the center line
‣ The carrier deck pitches and heaves

Many of these conditions require test pilots to perform semi-unnatural acts of flying. They must intentionally make landings that appear sloppy and awkward, which goes against all of their training as Naval Aviators. To make things even more challenging, the “sloppiness” must be precise and repeatable to give test engineers the information that they need. Achieving these normally undesirable landing conditions requires intense concentration and will power.

However, sometimes even superior flying skills are not enough to produce the required test conditions. Sometimes the aircraft itself must be modified to allow it to do things that it would not normally be inclined to do.

For example, for F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Ground Loads Testing, flight test engineers developed a flight control system that allowed test pilots to set the leading and trailing edge flaps in flight to positions that would not normally be available. This unique control system made it possible to approach the touchdown point at high speeds while descending rapidly with the nose pitched up higher than normal.

For such potentially high-risk testing, many operating and safety procedures must be followed. This takes time and careful attention to detail. (For example, the aircraft must be refueled often to keep the test weights the same.) A pilot might typically spend 5 or more hours in the cockpit for a single test flight and yet log less than 1 hour of actual flight time. Patience was mandatory!

During Super Hornet development, Ground Loads Testing required 125 test flights, 370 catapult launches, 471 traps, and three years to complete. Incidents included blown tires and various airplane parts (other than the wheels and tailhook) hitting the deck.

My thanks to Mike “Sting” Wallace and Tom “Gurns” Gurney for their help!"

http://api.ning.com/files/8OBnZkm85rrIM ... ng2012.pdf (1Mb)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2014, 22:51
by spazsinbad
Article a repeat mostly of news already told with a few extra detail excerpted below....

With New Hook, First F-35 Carrier Trap Set For October
11 Feb 2014 (NAVY TIMES 17 FEB 14) … Mark Faram

"Navy officials say the Navy’s F-35C variant of the Lightning II joint strike fighter could “call the ball” sometime in October for the plane’s first shipboard landing....

...The first carrier arrested landing will happen off the West Coast on board the aircraft carrier Nimitz, Meyers confirmed....

...Those tests will be conducted by test pilots from Pax River.

Strike Fighter Squadron 101, the Navy’s JSF fleet replacement squadron currently based at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., could begin carrier qualifications as early as 2015, if all goes well.

The Navy has received eight F-35Cs to date; five are test versions at Patuxent River, the other three are the service’s first production aircraft in use at VFA 101...."

Source: http://hrana.org/news/2014/02/with-new- ... r-october/

Re: Tailhook update - GO LAKEHURST THREAD

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2014, 01:05
by Lieven
lookieloo wrote:@Mods: Can we have an an "ignore thread" or "mark permanently as read" function on the board for these DELIBERATE concern-troll redundancies, which are obviously meant to start arguments out-of-context?


There is the 'add foe' function where you can block out all posts from user X

alloycowboy wrote:Just for the record, I wasn't trolling for comments, had I known the article was already posted, I wouldn't have posted it. But I do think it is a valid question given some of the USN actions of late.


I merged the two threads :-) Simple as that.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2014, 01:55
by spazsinbad
I see the video above has 'gone PRIVATE'. Apologies - I have no control over that. Probably for the best anyway.... :doh:

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 18:22
by hookswing
There we go.....

Some fly-in footage @ 2:21....


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2014, 19:58
by spazsinbad
A year old today but anyway there is a different way to make youtube videos here, I'll test the time to start thingo:

Nope - time to start at arrest is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... yQzc#t=142

STRING TO MAKE Utubbies appear ( just add first missing bracket [ ) - - youtube]8HvOFTIyQzc[/youtube]


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 20:31
by spazsinbad
F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts 18 Feb 2014
...Highlights of the Last Two Months...
...Navy’s F-35C Completes Shore-based Testing at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst, NJ. (Jan. 16)

SOURCE: https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/down ... ry2014.pdf (182Kb)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 21:06
by sferrin
In HD here:


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 21:50
by spazsinbad
Well OK then if you think this video is worth repeating endlessly then here we go.... :D

viewtopic.php?t=22010
&
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&start=300

F-35C Arrest SloMo Orig NOW 1-8slow Again HiDef


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 22:34
by spazsinbad
Long Version 2012 one eighth speed slow motion F-35C Fly In Arrests


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 19:13
by spazsinbad
I would like to see more info about the AHS testing plus videos but youse canna have everything eh....

GAO JSF/F-35 Report to Congress March 2014 page 15

"...Arresting Hook System - allows the F-35 carrier-suitable variant to engage landing wires on aircraft carriers, was redesigned after the original hook system was found to be deficient. The program determined that the original hook assembly was not strong enough to reliably catch the wire and stop the airplane. As a result, the program modified the hook system’s hydraulic components, and made structural modifications to the plane. In March 2013, the program completed a critical design review of the hook system to verify that the new design is sound. Land testing of the redesigned system has been successful, and the program anticipates that it will be ready for carrier testing in October 2014...."

SOURCE: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/661842.pdf (1.6Mb)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 03:10
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:I would like to see more info about the AHS testing plus videos but youse canna have everything eh....
*Pfft* As if the GAO is going to detail anything going well in the program. Software is the big risk (or at least it was when the information for this report was compiled), so that's obviously what they're gonna focus on. One wonders how much money was spent soes they could repeat what everyone knew two years ago.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2014, 03:52
by spazsinbad
Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs
GAO-14-340SP: Published: Mar 31, 2014. Publicly Released: Mar 31, 2014.

"....Design Maturity
...The carrier variant's new arresting hook system successfully completed a critical design review and is expected to be ready for carrier use by October 2014...."

SOURCE: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/662184.pdf (11Mb)


Single Reprinted (PRN) Page attached of the relevant 2 pages of SAR PDF - suitable for wide screen viewing.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2014, 21:36
by spazsinbad
I'll attempt to make an excerpt on the segment about F-35C arrest tests (with more testing at Pax River to come as already indicated in earlier posts). NO mention of this testing in the video blurb - I give up. :doh: I guess it is more convenient to post the 'arrest' segment on Youtube? If not a low quality clip can be attached here.

NAVAIR Airwaves: 3 April 2014
On this edition of Airwaves at http://www.navair.navy.mil/Airwaves, hear about the Navy's newest maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft getting approved for full rate production. Plus, watch Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division scientists and engineers incorporate fun into learning for young students interested in science, technology, engineering and math. And, if you think you're seeing double, you are; watch two F-35B aircraft fly in formation over Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md."


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2014, 21:53
by spazsinbad
One F-35C fly in test seen then some roll ins at Lakehurst with note that further testing of FLY IN arrests will be undertaken at Pax River.


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2014, 23:03
by spazsinbad
Shortened 1/8th SLO MO version (edited again) of the firstly flyin then only two examples of ROLLies.... :drool: I'm guessing the caption is just wrong because these 'rollies' were at Lakehurst with LATER flyin testin at Pax. :mrgreen: HoKay? :doh:

http://youtu.be/Ko5QtXocbm0


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2014, 09:23
by spazsinbad
A TWOfer....

Navy to Test F-35C on Carrier This Fall 07 Apr 2014 Brendan McGarry

"The U.S. Navy for the first time will begin testing its version of the F-35 fighter jet from an aircraft carrier this fall, according to the No. 2 official in charge of the program.

Rear Adm. Randy Mahr, deputy director of the Defense Department’s Joint Strike Fighter program, didn’t specify a date or ship for the upcoming evaluations. But he spoke confidently of the planned milestone for the F-35C, the Navy variant designed for taking off from and landing on carriers.

“It’s going to be the year of the F-35C,” he said during a briefing at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space conference on Monday in National Harbor, Md....

...The program office has also made improvements to the Autonomic Logistics Information System, or ALIS (pronounced “Alice”), which determines whether the plane is safe to fly. A recent software upgrade to the system has drastically shortened the time it takes maintainers to load a webpage, to about 30 seconds from about five minutes, Mahr said."

SOURCE: http://defensetech.org/2014/04/07/navy- ... this-fall/

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2014, 19:05
by spazsinbad
[quote][b]U.S. Deputy Program Manager Outlines F-35 Fixes[/b] 08 Apr 2014 AINonline Bill Carey

"...The initially deficient tail hook of the F-35C carrier variant has been redesigned and proven at the Navy’s carrier suitability test site in Lakehurst, N.J., without requiring structural changes to the airframe, Mahr said. The redesigned tail hook catches an arresting wire “comparable to that of legacy airplanes, including the F-18,” he said. “Nobody catches the wire every time, but we’re in the high 90-percent [range]. The hook works.” The Navy plans to fly an F-35C for the first time to an aircraft carrier, the [b]USS Nimitz[/b], this fall...."

[b]SOURCE:[/b] http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... f-35-fixes [/quote]

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2014, 19:35
by sprstdlyscottsmn
with how fun the Wasp videos were I can't wait to see the Nimitz videos.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2014, 23:06
by neptune
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:with how fun the Wasp videos were I can't wait to see the Nimitz videos.


Agreed!, I'm anxiously awaiting them.

I think there will be two groups, those on the deck crew will be cheering the "trap" as well as the brass (program managers, bosses, etc. :) ....

and the groans will be from those believing that "trap" spells the beginning of the end for the SBUG and are sadly mistaken. :(

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2014, 07:31
by spazsinbad
One last chance for the 'slogan of long ago yore' eh (and a H/T I do not need - send 'em to the MARINES!)

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... -then.html

Soonish I gather we will start to hear more about the further testing at NAS Patuxent River? Now that the 'roll ins' and several flyins were OK at Lakehurst. I know ELP likes the A-4 but has serious misconceptions about it IMHO.

Current SAR says F-35C aircraft is within Vpa/weight limits. Who knew? Limits imposed by current arrestor gear. Perhaps AAG will allow higher limits but then the limits of airframe of the F-35C are relevant (of which I do not know).

Carrier Pilots are NOT sloppy landers like the USAFers! :devil: They are used to flying at Optimum Angle of Attack very accurately at the maximum allowed landing weight. The F-35C as we know from many articles will enable this accuracy for all - sprogs/FNGs and the rest. FLY NAVY! :mrgreen:

Performance F-35 December 2013 SAR UNCLASSIFIED

THRESHOLD:
F-35C: "Vpa at required carrier landing weight (RCLW) of less than 145 knots."

Current Estimate:
F-35C: "Vpa. Maximum approach speed (Vpa) at required carrier landing weight (RCLW) of less than 144 knots."

SOURCE: http://www.scribd.com/document_download ... ension=pdf (60Kb)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2014, 17:10
by spazsinbad
Just in case you were wondering about an historical fantasy resurrected by the above ELP post - then worry no more....
[peskyadatilly quotes missing again]
Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) Dec 2013
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft (F-35) As of FY 2015 President's Budget
Executive Summary...
"...The F-35 program continues to make slow but steady progress and is moving forward in a disciplined manner.
There were many successes as well as challenges in 2013. Successes include: signing the restructured SDD
contract modification; completing the Block 3 Critical Design Review; announcing the decision to terminate
development of an alternate Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS); completing the 2nd F-35B Ship-Trial period
(DT-II) operations on U.S. Ship WASP, accomplishing 95 Vertical Landings and 94 Short Takeoffs, with 19 night
takeoffs; rolling-out the 100th aircraft from the production facility at Fort Worth, Texas; and resolving lingering
technical design shortfalls to include the F-35C Arresting Hook
, Lightning Protection and Fuel Dump...."

SOURCE: http://www.scribd.com/document_download ... ension=pdf (0.7Mb) [2 page Summary attached]

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2014, 19:39
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:...[b]resolving lingering
technical design shortfalls to include the F-35C Arresting Hook...



Not so much about the hook but...what has happened to the failed?? (cracked) bulkhead design the hook connects on?

Is CF-03 the only one (SDD) to upgrade this bulkhead and is this retro-fit to be the new design norm for the F-35C?

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2014, 19:47
by spazsinbad
What failed hook bulkhead is that exactly? Got a reference?

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2014, 20:18
by spazsinbad
Reporters do get details wrong for whatever reason. I had thought F-35C Carrier Tests were for October this year [see top previous page] but perhaps not, according to this article. Substitute 'THIS' for 'Next' and we are good to go? :mrgreen:

F-35 strike fighter is focus of demonstration 23 Apr 2014 Hugh Lessig, Daily Press (Newport News, Va.)

"SUFFOLK — Fighter jock Randy Forbes, better known as that congressman from Chesapeake, climbed into an F-35 cockpit simulator on Tuesday, descended through clear skies and nailed his landing on an aircraft carrier....

'''Lockheed Martin Corp., the prime contractor, showcased the jet's capabilities at its Center for Innovation in Suffolk....

...The first Marine Corps F-35 squadron has been staffed and will go operational next year. Later next year, the Navy will go to sea with the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz for its first carrier-based F-35 landing....

...At Lockheed's center in Suffolk, the company analyzes the aircraft through computer modeling and simulation. That can be particularly helpful when determining how the Navy version of the aircraft will hold up in the rough environment at sea. It can simulate a launch, a mission and determine how that affects maintenance needs.

"We can do a day in the life of an F-35 on an aircraft carrier," said Jim McArthur, center vice president. "The airplane will tell you what needs to be done in terms of maintenance, and it will tell you when it needs to occur."..."

SOURCE: http://www.stripes.com/news/us/f-35-str ... n-1.279483

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 01:15
by spazsinbad
This snippet of HOOK news seems to have bypassed the rigid anti-F-35 crowd - but not for long eh? :devil: Just Dump Fuel and Ignite? [F-111 crowd pleaser]

...STATEMENT OF: Lt General Christopher C. Bogdan to SASC Program Executive Officer F-35 02 Apr 2014

"...Program Accomplishments in the Last Year
The F-35 program team achieved a number of accomplishments in 2013, including delivery of 35 aircraft; rolling-out of the 100th jet from the production facility in Fort Worth; completion of the Block 3 Critical Design Review; announcing the decision to cease development of an alternate Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS); and resolving lingering technical design shortfalls to include the F-35C Arresting Hook, Night / Instrument (IMC), Fuel Dump, and Lightning Protection....

...The program also saw improvements with the redesigned F-35C arresting hook system on our CF-3 aircraft. In January 2014, the F-35 team accomplished 36 for 36 successful roll-in arrestment tests at Lakehurst, NJ. The aircraft is now at Patuxent River where it is continuing its ship suitability testing. Thus far CF-3 accomplished 8 for 8 fly in arrestments while at Patuxent River; however, testing has been delayed for approximately 60 days as we discovered a minor nose gear issue. These tests are expected to lead to a certification of the F-35C for shipboard flight trials, which are planned to commence fourth quarter 2014.

The program has also made progress on the redesigned fuel dumping seal and port. The F-35 employs a unique fuel dumping port on the underside of the wings in order to maintain its stealthy signature. Early fuel dump testing revealed that fuel was collecting within the wing flaperon cove, which led to significant external fuel wetting and pooling of fuel at the wing/fuselage root. We redesigned the fuel dump port to more efficiently move fuel away from the wing surface and designed a new and improved flaperon seal to minimize fuel collecting in the cove. Fuel dump testing with the redesigned seal and port has been successful and we are incorporating the new design in all three variants.

SOURCE: http://www.airforcemag.com/testimony/Do ... bogdan.pdf (100Kb)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 04:44
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:What failed hook bulkhead is that exactly? Got a reference?


Not yet, hoping you did! Maybe soon or I'll delete it; yuck!

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 06:58
by popcorn
AFAIK no structural changes were required in connection with redesigning the arrestor hook.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 07:07
by spazsinbad
Hmmm, there is a difference between 'failed' and 'AHS attachment point not strong' enough as I recall. Easy enough to look back on this thread and will do so now. On previous page with have this: & wait... there will be more...

GAO JSF/F-35 Report to Congress March 2014 page 15

"...Arresting Hook System - allows the F-35 carrier-suitable variant to engage landing wires on aircraft carriers, was redesigned after the original hook system was found to be deficient. The program determined that the original hook assembly was not strong enough to reliably catch the wire and stop the airplane. As a result, the program modified the hook system’s hydraulic components, and made structural modifications to the plane...."

SOURCE: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/661842.pdf (1.6Mb)


U.S. Deputy Program Manager Outlines F-35 Fixes 08 Apr 2014 AINonline Bill Carey

"...The initially deficient tail hook of the F-35C carrier variant has been redesigned and proven at the Navy’s carrier suitability test site in Lakehurst, N.J., without requiring structural changes to the airframe, Mahr said. The redesigned tail hook catches an arresting wire “comparable to that of legacy airplanes, including the F-18,” he said. “Nobody catches the wire every time, but we’re in the high 90-percent [range]. The hook works.” The Navy plans to fly an F-35C for the first time to an aircraft carrier, the USS Nimitz, this fall...."

SOURCE: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... f-35-fixes


F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) DOTE Jan 2014

"...F-35C Air-Ship Integration and Ship Suitability Testing...
...-- The program began testing its redesigned arresting hook system on a flight test aircraft in late CY13. The redesign was necessary after the original system failed to engage the cable and demonstrate sufficient load-carrying capacity...."

SOURCE: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... Report.pdf (48Mb]

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 07:20
by spazsinbad
I wonder if this nose gear modification has anything to do with the 60 day 'fixit' period now before restart arrest test?

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) DOTE Jan 2014

"...F-35C Flight Sciences
Flight Test Activity with CF-1, CF-2, and CF-3 Test Aircraft
• F-35C flight sciences focused on:...
...-- Carrier suitability testing in preparation for the first set of ship trials scheduled for mid-CY14. The program
configured aircraft CF-3 with a modified and instrumented nose landing gear system to begin initial catapult testing in August 2013. The test team modified CF-3 with the new arresting hook system
and began on-aircraft testing with rolling engagements in late CY13...."

SOURCE: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... Report.pdf (48Mb)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 19:56
by spazsinbad
An interesting (to me anyways) statistic which probably explains (to those not familiar with NavAv) why the USN insist on going slowly slowly but surely with their testing of the carrier bits (including the X-47B)....
Admiral: China Will Likely Learn Carrier Ropes Faster than U.S. USNI News Editor
Published: May 16, 2013 Updated: March 6, 2014

"...The U.S. Navy’s education in carrier aviation came at a high price. From 1949 to 1988, “the Navy and Marine Corps lost almost twelve thousand airplanes of all types (helicopters, trainers, and patrol planes, in addition to jets) and over 8,500 aircrew,” according a section of the book “One Hundred Years of U.S. Navy Airpower” by Robert C. Rubel.

SOURCE: http://news.usni.org/2013/05/16/admiral ... r-than-u-s

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 06:38
by spazsinbad
Very good story with some excellent photos about HOW USAF Arrest Test their FOBs - this time in Estonia.

48th AEG takes critical step to validate NATO FOB 25 Apr 2014 by Airman 1st Class Dana J. Butler
48th Fighter Wing Public Affairs

"4/25/2014 - SIAULIAI AIR BASE, Lithuania -- Airmen from the 48th Air Expeditionary Group recently took a trip to Amari Air Base, Estonia, to engage and certify the aircraft arresting system, taking a critical step toward validating the new NATO Forward Operating Base....

...Two F-15C Eagles, originally from Royal Air Force Lakenheath, U.K., helped conduct the certification.

Fighters staged at each end of the runway took turns engaging the barrier by taxiing at about 130 miles per hour with their tail hook lowered so as to hook onto the cable, which gradually slowed the aircraft to a safe, complete stop, much like what occurs on an aircraft carrier. [NO WAY JOSE! Not sure now of pullout length on USN carriers - I think it is less than 350 feet? I would have to check - a carrier arrested landing is something else again in comparison with a runway arrest but whatever...]

Once the aircraft was no longer moving, emergency crews, already standing by, rushed in to tend to the pilot and shut down the plane's engines before setting up for the next engagement.

According to Nicholson, the Air Force requires barrier engagement tests every 12 months if not engaged by a plane in a one-year time span.

"The initial certification of the aircraft arresting system involves taking an active aircraft and approaching the cable at a designated speed based on the weight of the aircraft; it engages the cable, which will stop the aircraft in around 1,000 feet," said Nicholson...." [Older systems stopped aircraft in around 1,200 feet as I recall.]

SOURCE: http://www.usafe.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123408579

F-15 Arresting Side View:
http://www.usafe.af.mil/shared/media/ph ... 34-315.JPG

CAPTION: "An F-15C Eagle engages a barrier at Amari Air Base, Estonia, April 22, 2014. Members of the 48th Air Expeditionary Group recently took a trip to Amari AB to engage and certify the aircraft arresting system, taking a critical step toward validating the new NATO Forward Operating Base. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Dana J. Butler/Released)"

F-15 Arrested Rear View:
http://www.usafe.af.mil/shared/media/ph ... 34-363.JPG

CAPTION: "An F-15C Eagle sits on the runway after a certification barrier engagement at Amari Air Base, Estonia, April 22, 2014. Members of the 48th Air Expeditionary Group recently took a trip to Amari AB to engage and certify the aircraft arresting system, taking a critical step toward validating the new NATO Forward Operating Base. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Dana J. Butler/Released)"

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2014, 15:05
by spazsinbad
Earlier (but later 2012) reference on this thread page 24 here: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=261799&hilit=longitudinal#p261799

STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter 2011 Issue

FIXED WING SHIP SUITABILITY (SHAKE, RATTLE AND ROLL) LT David “La Douche” Hafeman - Page 18

"Every aircraft, store, or sensor that flies off the ship at some point needs to be tested to ensure that it
can meet the demanding loads associated with a catapult shot or an arrested landing.

Sometimes referred to as “Shake, Rattle and Roll” testing, this is a unique specialty area of flight test that we do more of than anyone else in the world. Shake testing includes both catapults and arrested landings. Catapults build up in longitudinal acceleration up to 5.5g, and include shots with the aircraft deliberately off center in the shuttle. Arrested landings include high sink rates up to 20 feet per second (which translates to 1200 feet per minute or about a 5° flight path angle), maximum deceleration points, free flight engagements, and 18 foot off center points. There is both art and science involved in flying and waving these demanding test points...."

SOURCE: http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index ... oad&id=769 (PDF 3Mb)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2014, 19:21
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:Earlier (but later 2012) reference on this thread page 24 here: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=261799&hilit=longitudinal#p261799

STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter 2011 Issue

FIXED WING SHIP SUITABILITY (SHAKE, RATTLE AND ROLL) LT David “La Douche” Hafeman - Page 18

"Every aircraft, store, or sensor that flies off the ship at some point needs to be tested to ensure that it
can meet the demanding loads associated with a catapult shot or an arrested landing.

Sometimes referred to as “Shake, Rattle and Roll” testing, this is a unique specialty area of flight test that we do more of than anyone else in the world. Shake testing includes both catapults and arrested landings. Catapults build up in longitudinal acceleration up to 5.5g, and include shots with the aircraft deliberately off center in the shuttle. Arrested landings include high sink rates up to 20 feet per second (which translates to 1200 feet per minute or about a 5° flight path angle), maximum deceleration points, free flight engagements, and 18 foot off center points. There is both art and science involved in flying and waving these demanding test points...."

SOURCE: http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index ... oad&id=769 (PDF 3Mb)


Can't wait to see the crazy pictures that will quickly "prove" F-35C is unlandable. :doh: Thank you for the F-15 pics

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2014, 02:36
by spazsinbad
:devil: Maybe this guy'll dance a jig for us instead of walking the plank? :devil:

Tailhook13 HOOK Explanation VADM Dunaway NavAir 07 Sep 2013 Aviation Flag Panel


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2014, 03:22
by sferrin
spazsinbad wrote:Very good story with some excellent photos about HOW USAF Arrest Test their FOBs - this time in Estonia.


That's pretty cool. Coincidentally enough, this video popped up a few weeks ago of some F-16s doing the same thing at the Denver airport.


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2014, 04:51
by spazsinbad
Thanks. A 'Mile High Arrest'! - Always Wanted One of THOSE! :mrgreen:

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2014, 06:24
by spazsinbad
'zerion' posted a link to the WHOLE story here recently whilst I'll post the pic and text relevant to the F-35C hook testin' here if that is OK?

Looks like F-35C HOOK testing is underway. Yay! Break De Fence Y'all.

F-35CarrestHighestSinkRate29may2014.jpg


Breaking Defence 29 May 2014

"The F-35C passed landing at max sink speed of 21.4 feet per second [1,284 feet per minute] to test landing gear, airframe arrestment system"

Source: https://twitter.com/BreakingDefense/sta ... 89/photo/1

F-35 Achieves Three Major Flight Test Milestones On Same Day 29 May 2014

“...The F-35C, designed for aircraft carrier operations, completed a landing at its maximum sink speed to test the aircraft’s landing gear, airframe and arrestment system at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. “Five sorties were conducted, building up the maximum sink rate test condition of 21.4 feet per second, which represents the maximum sink speed planned for this test,” McFarlan said. During the tests, the F-35C did three arrestments, several touch and goes and one bolter. The landings were to demonstrate structural readiness for arrested landings on an aircraft carrier at sea.

Fleet-wide, the F-35 has, to date, amassed more than 17,000 flight hours, with all three variant aircraft at the F-35 Integrated Training Center at Eglin AFB, Florida, surpassing the 5,000 sorties milestone this week....”

Source: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/p ... e-day.html

STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter 2011 Issue

"...“Shake, Rattle and Roll” testing... Arrested landings include high sink rates up to 20 feet per second (which translates to 1,200 feet per minute or about a 5° flight path angle)...”

Source: http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index ... oad&id=769

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2014, 18:03
by spazsinbad
Not a whisper about any arrest hook issues (perhaps it is all being covered up according to 'lookylookylooky'?). :devil:

Navy Joint Strike Fighter Set for October Tests at Sea
03 Jun 2014 Dave Majumdar

The Lockheed Martin F-35C carrier-based version of the Joint Strike Fighter is making steady progress towards sea-trials onboard USS Nimitz (CVN-68) in October according to a company official.

“We are working very hard to get the airplane ready for sea trials, DT-1 sea trials, starting in mid-October,” Eric Van Camp, Lockheed’s domestic F-35 business development director, told USNI News on May 30. “The at-sea period I believe extends from roughly the 12th of October to the third of November.”

However, there are still many tasks that the F-35 integrated test force must complete before the C-model jet can make its first carrier launches and arrested recoveries onboard Nimitz.

One of the biggest remaining hurdles is a structural survey of the jet’s landing gear and airframe. “When we say structural survey it sounds like what we’re doing is parking it some place and doing some inspections, but actually what we are doing is we doing a specific set of flight test points that are designed to understand how the airplane reacts both aerodynamically and structurally when we put it in off-nominal conditions,” Van Camp said.

[...]

Source: http://news.usni.org/2014/06/03/navy-jo ... -tests-sea

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2014, 19:27
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Not a whisper about any arrest hook issues (perhaps it is all being covered up according to 'lookylookylooky'?). :devil:
October then... good enough for me. :mrgreen:

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2014, 19:43
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: I thot that would wake youse up! :devil: :shock: :twisted: :roll: :D :doh:

The full kids refrain is "Looky Looky Looky - Here Comes Chooky" (Hen/Rooster/Chicken)

AND SOMEONE KEEPS MESSING WITH THE FORMATTING. HOW ABOUT POSTING GUIDELINES ON HOW TO DO IT AND LEAVE IT AT THAT STANDARD RATHER THAN CHANGING STANDARDS WILLY NILLY BECAUSE I HAVE HAD ENOUGH!

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2014, 04:11
by spazsinbad
For some perspective on how often USN carrier aircraft are tested these days - here is the chart.
F/A-18E/F Catapult Minimum End Airspeed Testing
Briefing presented December 1996.

Frequency Trend of Sea Trial Testing
Source: Tribino, Michael. “F/A-18E/F Initial Sea Trials Briefing.” Patuxent River, Maryland:

Source: http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcont ... k_gradthes (PDF 3.6Mb)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2014, 19:38
by spazsinbad
Lockheed Outlines Small Surface Combatant Option
10 Jun 2014 OTTO KREISHER, Special Correspondent

"...At Lockheed’s annual media day,...

...Starting the briefings for defense reporters at Lockheed’s Crystal City offices, chairman [LM] Marillyn A. Hewson ...

...She said the F-35C carrier variant being built for the Navy successfully completed shore-based testing for arrested landings and catapult launches and will be tested on a carrier in October.

The 2B software program that is the minimum needed for the Marines to declare initial operational capability (IOC) of the short-takeoff, vertical-landing F-35B version in 2015 is “tracking to be complete by year end,” she said.

The 3i software that the Air Force needs for IOC of its F-35A model started flight test two weeks ago, Hewson said...."

Source: http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories ... 10-LM.html

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2014, 00:06
by spazsinbad
This post was started here earlier today also: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=25636&p=273276#p273276
Navy Prepares F-35C for Carrier Landing
13 Jun 2014 Kris Osborn

"...shore landings, taking place at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., are designed to replicate the range of conditions which the F-35C is likely to encounter at sea – to the extent that is possible.

Test pilots are working on what they call a structural survey, an effort to assess the F-35C’s ability to land in a wide range of scenarios such as nose down, tail down or max engaging speed, said Lt. Cmdr. Michael Burks, or “Sniff,” a Navy test pilot.

Max engaging speed involves landing the aircraft heavy and fast to determine if it is the aircraft or the arresting gear that gets damaged, Burks explained.

“The whole purpose is to make sure the landing gear and the aircraft structure are all suitable to take the stresses that the pilot could see while trying to land aboard the deck of an aircraft carrier,” Burks explained.

While recognizing that the mix of conditions at sea on board a carrier cannot be replicated on land, Burks said the test landings seek to simulate what he called unusual attitudes such as instances where the aircraft is rolling with one side up or descending faster than normal with what’s called a “high sink” rate.

“We’ve done about 90 carrier-style landings,” said F-35 Test Pilot Lt. Cmdr. Tony Wilson, or “Brick.”

High sink rate is reached when an aircraft is descending 21-feet per second, much faster than the typical 10-feet per second descend rate, Burks explained....

...“On an aircraft carrier, the landing area is off about 10-degrees. The boat’s motion itself is moving away from you — so you can’t just aim at the boat,” Burks said....

...The aircraft also needs to be able to withstand what’s called a “free flight,” [I would call it an 'inflight engagement'] a situation where the pilot receives a late wave off to keep flying after the hook on the airplane has already connected with the wire, he explained.

“We need to be sure that the engine and the aircraft itself can handle the stress of essentially being ripped out of the air by the interaction between the cable and the hook,” Burks added...."

Source: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/06/13/navy- ... r-landing/

Then there is the actual (likely) inflight arrest which damaged the MiG-29K described below. (In flights are not common in USN these days I'll guess and likely the aircraft can take the stress albeit they will need to be thoroughly checked afterwards for any damage.)
Safety scare on Gorshkov
05 Jun 2014 SUJAN DUTTA

"New Delhi, June 4: A new fighter jet of the Indian Navy was partly damaged after a “hard landing” on the deck of the INS Vikramaditya today,...

...…Navy sources described today’s incident as a “hard landing” to distinguish it from a crash. The nose wheel of the jet, a MiG29K — also procured from Russia like the Vikramaditya — is said to have been partly damaged. The MiG29K has tandem cockpits. Both pilots are safe, navy sources said....

...Apparently, the shock of the trap and the landing was so much that the nose of the aircraft pointed skywards before the plane dropped down on its nose wheel. [probably a description of an inflight arrest] The impact damaged the nose wheel....

Source: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140605/j ... 5E_P5B-8kI

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2014, 01:37
by spazsinbad
Just gathering some quotes here for 'johnwill' or anyone knowledgeable to comment upon. Particularly please explain the difference between maximum design value of 26.4 feet per second and the 20-21 feet per second sink rate that the Navy Test pilots use ashore (I'll get their term). I gather no aircraft when flying is tested to the 'max. design value'?

[addition] There are some quotes at the top of this page of this thread about sink rates and such with one replicated: "...maximum sink rate test condition of 21.4 feet per second, which represents the maximum sink speed planned for this test..."
The Joint Strike Fighter: A plane for all reasons
07 Mar 2002 Stephen Mraz | Machine Design

"...FLY NAVY:
Carrier operations account for most of the differences between the Navy and other JSF variants. Carrier landings, for example, are so severe, they're often referred to as "controlled crashes." The JSF, in a low speed approach to a carrier landing, will descend at about 11 fps, and will withstand sink rates up to almost 18 fps. By comparison, the typical sink rate for an Air Force JSF will be about two ft/sec.

To help handle better at low speeds, the aircraft will have larger wing and tail-control surfaces. The increased wingspan also boosts the strike-fighter's range and weapon or fuel load. Even without external fuel tanks, the JSF has almost twice the range of the F/A-18C. Larger leading-edge flaps and wingtips provide the extra wing area, while the wingtips fold so the aircraft takes up less space on the carrier's crowded flight and hangar decks. The Navy's JSF will also have two extra control surfaces — ailerons outboard of the flaperons on the wings — for additional lowspeed control and flying precise glide slopes. The Navy JSF currently flies landing approaches at about 130 to 135 knots, about 25 knots slower than the Air Force version...."

Source: http://machinedesign.com/article/the-jo ... asons-0307

“…The tests were successfully carried out between March and April [2010], and included dropping CG-01 95 inches at 20 feet per second, with an 8.8 deg pitch [near Optimum AoA 12.3], two degree roll, and 133 knot wheel speed, simulating a carrier-deck landing.…”

Source: http://www.key.aero/view_feature.asp?ID ... n=military [does not work at moment]

LM F-35 Navy Jet Confirms Carrier-Landing Strength Predictions
23 June 2010

2010, June 23 -- A Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II carrier variant successfully completed testing in which it was dropped from heights of more than 11 feet during a series of simulated aircraft-carrier landings. The tests validated predictions and will help confirm the F-35C's structural integrity for carrier operations.

The jet, a ground-test article known as CG-1, underwent drop testing at Vought Aircraft Industries in Grand Prairie, Texas. No load exceedances or structural issues were found at any of the drop conditions, and all drops were conducted at the maximum carrier landing weight. The drop conditions included sink rates, or rates of descent, up to the maximum design value of 26.4 feet per second, as well as various angles and weight distributions. The tests were used to mimic the wide range of landing conditions expected in the fleet. "The completion of the drop tests is an important step in clearing the way for field carrier landing testing and shipboard testing at high sink rates – a necessary feature for a carrier-suitable strike fighter," said Larry Lawson, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager. "This testing also validates the design tools & analysis used in building a structurally sound, carrier-suitable fighter."....”

Source: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 83089.html

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2014, 02:38
by johnwill
Spazsinbad, I'll be glad to comment on your sink rate topic. I just finished commenting on the same topic on dodbuzz.

(http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/06/13/navy- ... r-landing/)

This statement from prnewswire 23 June, 2010 "The drop conditions included sink rates, or rates of descent, up to the maximum design value of 26.4 feet per second" is incorrect. The maximum design sink rate is 21.4 fps.

Airplane structural certification almost always involves a lab test, followed by flight test. The lab test conditions usually apply 150% of the largest loads expected in service usage. Flight test requires demonstration at 100% of the largest loads expected in service usage. In the case of carrier airplanes, flight test is conducted on land first, followed by carrier landings, up to 100% limit conditions.

The 26.4fps sink rate test was a lab drop test, designed to provide assurance the airplane could withstand 150% of design load for high sink rate conditions. The sink rate limit of 21.4fps will result in 100% of design load on service airplanes.

Why was 26.4 fps chosen for the lab test? Because gear loads at high sink rate landings are roughly proportional to sink rate squared. (26.4 /21.4) ^2 = 1.52 very close to the ratio of 150% to 100% gear load.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2014, 02:58
by spazsinbad
Many thanks 'johnwill' I'll have to go and look at your other post now. TAH.

I luv it! :mrgreen:
'John': "You are completely in error. The Navy supplied an incorrect dynamic model of the arrestment wire for LM to design the F-35C hook installation. Using the correct wire model, LM has redesigned the hook point and damping force, and guess what? The hook works fine now, even at only 7 feet behind the gear. You may apologize at any time."

Source: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/06/13/navy- ... r-landing/


[Addition] I see the 'talkwench' does not want to give up with the comments/theory etc. - maybe the wingnuts need tightening - and the skyhook re-arranged? :devil:

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2014, 03:12
by smsgtmac
johnwill wrote:Spazsinbad, I'll be glad to comment on your sink rate topic. I just finished commenting on the same topic on dodbuzz.

(http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/06/13/navy- ... r-landing/)

This statement from prnewswire 23 June, 2010 "The drop conditions included sink rates, or rates of descent, up to the maximum design value of 26.4 feet per second" is incorrect. The maximum design sink rate is 21.4 fps.

Airplane structural certification almost always involves a lab test, followed by flight test. The lab test conditions usually apply 150% of the largest loads expected in service usage. Flight test requires demonstration at 100% of the largest loads expected in service usage. In the case of carrier airplanes, flight test is conducted on land first, followed by carrier landings, up to 100% limit conditions.

The 26.4fps sink rate test was a lab drop test, designed to provide assurance the airplane could withstand 150% of design load for high sink rate conditions. The sink rate limit of 21.4fps will result in 100% of design load on service airplanes.

Why was 26.4 fps chosen for the lab test? Because gear loads at high sink rate landings are roughly proportional to sink rate squared. (26.4 /21.4) ^2 = 1.52 very close to the ratio of 150% to 100% gear load.


I gave you 'up' votes before I even knew it was you :salute: -- for all the good it will do in that crowd. If they don't make the connection that it's 'you', you might escape ELP's 'minions' responding to a call to arms. I'm probably minus 30-40 points by now on an A-10 post earlier in the week. Good Luck! :thumb:

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2014, 03:53
by count_to_10
I wonder: does the short distance between the F-35 main gear and hook relative to older aircraft (particularly the F-14) have anything to do with stability? The older designs were aerodynamically stable, so the center of gravity (and thus the main gear) would be relatively farther forward.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2014, 05:35
by johnwill
count_to_10 wrote:I wonder: does the short distance between the F-35 main gear and hook relative to older aircraft (particularly the F-14) have anything to do with stability? The older designs were aerodynamically stable, so the center of gravity (and thus the main gear) would be relatively farther forward.


You might think stability would be enhanced with the hook farther aft, but that is not always the case. It is true that the airplane will tend to go straight ahead, but only if the hook is straight behind the airplane. However, if the hook is displaced laterally, the side load component will tend to turn the airplane sideways. If the hook is far aft, it will have a longer moment arm to the CG, thus turning the airplane. How does the hook get displaced laterally? An off-center engagement will pull the hook sideways and apply a side load to the aft fuselage hook attachment.

Turning the airplane sideways is a bad deal for all concerned, as it may turn over or depart the landing area.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2014, 06:12
by spazsinbad
The carrier pilot must approach within acceptable limits for the aircraft and arrestor gear when known (I guess we do not know the absolute limits for the F-35C from this LSO / Operational viewpoint). This is what is becoming known via the testing at PaxRiver. The 'aircraft recovery bulletin' will be published and refined after further ship testing. The LSO will wave off an aircraft that is not within prescribed limits by the time it gets to the wave off window some distance from the ship.

Aircraft approach (or did in my day with perhaps less stringent limits from what I have read in the Hornet/Super era) on the angle deck centreline without any yaw at all. Because, as mentioned probably a few times in this thread and in the long recent article above, the angle deck is moving from left to right during the approach (when the aircraft is on centreline lined up with the angle deck). The carrier is moving straight ahead making the natural wind, from the WOD Wind Over Deck, down the angle deck centreline as best it can (depending on other factors - often there is a slight crosswind because of operational reasons or other issues). The LSO will inform the pilot of the WOD and such during the approach. Anyway the pilot will have to nip the right wing down and back up several times to recover/maintain the angle deck centreline.

I have read how with the HUD a pilot may 'crab' / yaw a little to maintain centreline (whilst it is moving from left to right) but must cease that method by the time he gets to the wave off window or before so as to be within the prescribed limits for yaw (nose off the angle deck centreline when crossing the ramp to catch a wire) and also within the off center touchdown limits. As 'johnwill' described above bad things will happen when the off centre engagement it out of limits. The PaxRiver testing will probably go beyond any ship limits because for one thing the runway is not moving. The ship/carrier moves sometime predictably (for the LSO) whilst the pilot will not grok this much (unless the carrier deck is moving a lot) because he is concentrating on the three things: Meatball Line Up and airspeed (Optimum Angle of Attack).

Over the years there are many photos of offcentre arrests with the aircraft going over the side, often hanging there still connected to the wire whilst the pilot gets out as best he can. Sometimes the aircraft is recovered or just dropped overboard depending on operational factors.

The A-4 was notorious for rolling onto the left wing tip/drop tank during an off centre arrest - often exacerbated by the rolling ship deck and any cross wind. Remember even winds at sea may not necessarily blow in the exact same direction all the time and so on. A wallowing ship is not a pretty sight for a deck lander. The A-4 had a particularly high/long oleo landing gear which exacerbated the roll tendency on touch down. The A4G pilot landing aboard HMAS Melbourne was lucky enough to have only a 5.5 degree angle deck rather than the 9 or 10 degrees angle of recent times in the USN. MELBOURNE had not a lot of 'burble' whilst CVNs have quite a bit which may upset the approach parameters just before reaching the ramp (the wave off window is before this yardstick).

The WALLOW is horrendous during this approach with the A4G going from right to left over the ramp as seen in this video:


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2014, 12:11
by quicksilver
smsgtmac wrote: I'm probably minus 30-40 points by now on an A-10 post earlier in the week...


And you actually care about such a thing?

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2014, 16:53
by smsgtmac
quicksilver wrote:
smsgtmac wrote: I'm probably minus 30-40 points by now on an A-10 post earlier in the week...


And you actually care about such a thing?


Nope. I EXPECT such a thing. :wink:
I dropped a t*rd in the punchbowl of their pity party early, danced with a couple of their most earnest ignorami a day or two to bring out a logical fallacy here or there and then left them to their appeals to emotion, knowing my job was done. :devil:

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2014, 08:55
by spazsinbad
F-35C Carrier Plan Closely Watched As Flights Remain On Hold
03 Jul 2014 Amy Butler | AWIN First

"The F-35 flight test program has missed about 30 "flight test opportunities," or scheduled flight test sortie slots, since the fleet remains on the ground after an F-35A caught fire June 23 while preparing for takeoff, says U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the program executive officer overseeing the project.

Two days after the fire, local commanders of F-35 bases across the country had all decided to halt flights of the single-engine fighter. This included a stop on all flights of each of the three variants, including at manufacturer Lockheed Martin. Additionally, Pratt & Whitney has stopped tests of its F135 engine, thought to be the source of the fire.

The incident marks what will likely be the first F-35 Class A mishap, a term associated with damage over $2 million. The pilot safely egressed.

"Is it a big deal in the big scheme of things? It is not," Bogdan said of the effect of the stand-down thus far. To catch up, testers can simply add a couple of flights weekly for a short period — but only if flights resume soon and if no major shortcomings are found in further flight tests.

The F-35C, designed for use on U.S. aircraft carriers, is the variant most sensitive to schedule disruptions at the moment because it is being tightly managed leading up to its initial at-sea trials on an aircraft carrier this fall. "That is the thing to make up the most time on" once aircraft return to flight, Bogdan says, noting carrier schedules are rigid. "Their schedule is not going to flex for us."

If the F-35C misses its window for sea operations in the fall, Bogdan says there are backup opportunities for those tests in 2015.

No software development has been delayed due to the fire and Bogdan predicts commitments to declare initial operational capability for the Marine Corps next summer, followed by the Air Force in 2016, will be met...."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/awin-only/f-35c ... emain-hold

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2014, 22:23
by spazsinbad
The main photo from the AIR International July? 2014 Special Edition about the F-35....
Shake Rattle and Roll
Air International Special F-35 Edition July 2014

"The US Navy is to stage three Development Test (DT) periods involving the F-35C embarked aboard a Nimitz-class super carrier to prove and verify the type’s carrier suitability to launch and recover safely. The fi rst event, DT I, is scheduled for late 2014, subject to completion of the necessary prerequisite testing that is currently being undertaken.

Shake Testing
“At this point, we have to complete a survey on the aircraft, also known as a ‘shake, rattle and roll’,” explained LCDR Tony Wilson, F-35C carrier suitability lead with Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 (VX-23) ‘Salty Dogs’ based at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland.

“We fly various manoeuvres here at the field to our Mk7 arrestor site, which models the same arresting system installed on the carrier, to explore the corners of the aircraft’s envelope in the worst case scenarios a pilot can find himself at the boat.”

Shake testing includes catapults and arrested landings. Catapults build up in longitudinal acceleration up to 5.5g and include shots with the aircraft deliberately off the centre in the shuttle. Arrested landings include high sink rates up to 20 feet per second (1,200 feet per minute or about a 5-degree flight path angle), maximum deceleration points and free flight engagements.

“Here at the field we don’t have the ability to heave or roll the runway pitch like the boat does so we high sink the aircraft up to its limits and simulate a very hard landing. We come down at various roll and yaw attitudes, and a combination of both, to simulate pitching and rolling of the deck.

“And finally we do what we call ‘max Nx’ [maximum engagement speed] – really hit the gear hard to see the effects on the aircraft and the gear and whether we can get the hook to engage the wire prior to the aircraft coming down.

“We do that in a very controlled manner. We call it a free flight [inflight arrest], to ensure that both the arresting wire and aircraft can handle the stress in the event that a pilot tries to fly away from the boat and grabs the wire while the ‘plane is either going straight [ordinary] or on an upward vector [inflight arrest].”....

...To address these issues, the programme has designed modifications to the tailhook point and hold-down damper components. The hook point redesign both reduces the blunt face geometry with a pointed front end and lowers its apex point by 0.5 inches (68%) such that it is now below the arresting gear cable centreline to better enable scooping performance. The hold-down damper redesign consists of modifications to the AHS actuator damper such that a lesser number of orifices will temper tailhook bounce dynamics. The AHS redesigned components underwent Monte Carlo probability of engagement analysis as a lead-in effort for design review....

...Since rolling engagements represent only the initial stages leading into full carrier suitability demonstrations of the F-35C, proof of the redesigned components’ ability to perform under nominal and off-nominal approach to engagement conditions could not be gained until testing at Lakehurst and Pax River started.

The Pax River F-35 Integrated Test Force first received the new tailhook in October 2013 and has been testing it since December. Wilson explained: “It’s very promising. It differs from the original hook in that the structure itself is more substantial, to handle the stresses, and the hook point has a different profile to allow it to engage the wire more successfully than the old hook.”...

...the focus of the testing with the F-35C is on the wing fold system, the launch systems, the recovery systems, the avionics specific to the Instrument Carrier Landing System (ICLS) which allows us to recover on the boat at night and the approach handling qualities with the new delta control flight path.

He described the boat as the great equaliser. “You can only simulate so much while shore-based so we have a wide range of LT&E [Logistics Test & Evaluation] testing planned: jacking, tyre changes, elevator runs, engine runs and many different maintenance activities typically performed when under way.”

The LT&E division conducted chain down testing at Pax in February 2013 to determine if the chains interfered with the landing gear doors or if there were any problems with the procedure. None was found. “But the majority of testing when embarked will focus on catapult launches and recovery because our goal is to provide envelope launch and recovery bulletins to the fleet,” concluded LCDR Wilson...."

Source: Air International July 2014 F-35 special edition

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2014, 09:25
by spazsinbad
Further to the above post here are the final paragraphs about testing onboard the CVN....
...Nimitz Class
When AIR International closed for press a 14-stage plan was in place for DT I which currently involves personnel, support equipment and aircraft deploying to Naval Air Station North Island in California prior to the first carrier landings onboard a Nimitz-class carrier.

“In a very similar way to when a fleet squadron embarks on a carrier, we’re going to pack up all our materials, tools and the equipment required to support the aircraft and move out to the boat to start the testing,” said LCDR Wilson.

This will include a group of up to 250 personnel, aircraft CF-03 and CF-05, two F/A-18s for chase support, four F-35 pilots and others to fly the F/A-18s. Immediately prior to repositioning for DT I, the four F-35 pilots selected will conduct field carrier landing practice (FCLP) events with the landing signal officers (LSOs) assigned to VX-23. This involves flying a carrier-style landing pattern at Pax to ensure they are safe to go to the carrier."

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2014, 03:23
by spazsinbad
THE HOOK is me favourite problem chile so I'll post this lot here even though a lot could go elsewhere - feel free to paste and cut....

Salty Dogs & Funky Jets
Jul 2014 Mark Ayton, AIR International F-35 Special Edition

"...Flight Sciences Testing in 2012...

...BF-01 also continued loads testing with unflared slow landings in Mode 4, also known as STOVL mode. Mode 4 envelope expansion continued and included the first flight with internal stores...

...[BF-02 carried] a fully instrumented version of the gun pod on station 6. The missionised gun pod is being developed to house the 25mm GAU-22/A cannon on both naval variants. The tests were performed to characterise the environment around the pod during flight, to ensure the store was not excessively vibrating and that the stresses placed on the racks are within the design limits.

BF-02 also tested dry runway brake performance, propulsion, flying qualities and conducted night evaluation of a modified taxi light....

...CF-03 returned to Pax after completing final finishes in Fort Worth in early March and continued mission systems testing and initial catapult tests on the standard steam TC-7 system and the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System.

The aircraft also performed a tailhook evaluation which included cable roll-overs and roll-in arrestments at Pax and Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division Lakehurst, New Jersey. The new hook point design was validated at speeds up to 100 knots, trapping on each attempt....

...On May 10 [2013], F-35B BF-01 completed the first-ever Vertical Take-off (VTO) – a capability required for repositioning the STOVL variant in situations where it cannot perform a short take-off but, with a limited amount of fuel, can execute a VTO to fly a short distance....

...CF-03 conducted carrier suitability testing at Pax and NAWCAD Lakehurst, defining the scope of the technical challenges discovered with the F-35C landing and arresting gear systems. During this testing, the aircraft performed the first field roll-in arrestment to MK-7 arresting gear. Later in the year, CF-03 conducted more than 40 successful roll-in arrestments to MK-7 and E-28 EMALS arresting gear and performed five operationally representative fly-in arrestments to MK-7 arresting gear....

...Fuel Dump Subsystems
The OT-IIE report gave the following details about the Fuel Dump Subsystems: “The current fuel dump design has shown to be ineffective in dumping fuel clear of the aircraft surfaces, resulting in pooling and wetting aircraft surfaces with the potential risk of fire due to integration into the Integrated Power Package exhaust. Fuel dump test results on CF-01 and BF-04 were non-compliant with airworthiness certification criteria and JCS requirements due to the aircraft landing with wet surfaces and fuel spillage on deck from fuel accumulation in the flaperon. This situation poses a fire risk, more critical to STOVL given the larger number of hot surfaces and exhaust flow, as fuel on the deck could be ignited during aircraft taxi after landing. This also presents a maintenance burden for inspection, panel removal, and LO restoration following dump event.

“Due to these issues, the Air Force and Navy consider the present fuel dumping capability unacceptable. Two STOVL fuel dump design modifi cations were attempted unsuccessfully, resulting in an aircraft operating limitation (AOL) preventing fuel dumping except in an emergency situation or in pursuit of specific flight test points. Operationally, this could lead to the need for stores jettison as an alternative to adjust landing weight. The Air Force has prohibited fuel dump on CTOL.

“Further development of a long-term solution is required; however, the path forward is unknown at this time. Repositioning of the fuel dump valve would present a significant concurrency issue. Any additional structure, such as dump mast, would potentially impact LO properties for all variants.
Conclusion: Major Concurrency Risk – This is a significant current safety hazard and requires an aircraft hardware change.”

Landing weight is a big factor for approach speeds to L-class Landing Helicopter Dock amphibious assault ships and CVN-class super carriers, so the F-35B and F-35C variants need to be able to offload fuel. Each variant has a fuel dump system first evaluated on the F-35B while last year VX-23 undertook the first fuel dump evaluation with the F-35C.

Capt Etz described the work undertaken to resolve the fuel dump issues: “We are actually testing changes to the STOVL system here at Pax which may have correlation to F-35C. On the F-35B the IPP exhaust is below the aircraft so, if any fuel migrates out of the dump exhaust to elsewhere on the airframe, that can be a concern. The minor changes in test here at Pax have allayed those fears although we are still pursuing a technical resolution.”

In mid-2013, BF-04 received additional modifications - including a reshaped dump nozzle and redesigned flap blade seals - in order to increase fuel separation from aircraft surfaces and minimize fuel dripping on deck. BF-04 was flown through early 2014 to complete 15 fuel dump test points, in both CTOL and STOVL modes, some of which were conducted with external pylons to assess the risk of weapon wetting. Results have shown that these modifications have eliminated post-flight fuel dripping and fuel migration to hot areas and have significantly reduced fuel retained in the flap cover during the dump process. The results have led to the approval of identical design changes for production F-35B aircraft, and the programme is on-track to authorise the regular use of fuel dump in the F-35B fleet by early 2015.

In late 2013, CF-01 received similar modifications and its fuel dump performance has improved similar to BF-04. Aircraft CF-01 also completed a fuel dump test point while carrying external GBU-12s to confirm that the weapons are not wetted by the dumped fuel.

Aircraft CF-03 and CF-05 will be also be modified in time for Developmental Test Phase One, the first sea trial of the F-35C scheduled for later this year....

[Then some paragraphs about the IPP which are not excerpted herein.]

...Arresting Hook System
One of the tests undertaken by VX-23 with the F-35C over the past 24 months involved the Arresting Hook System (AHS). “We completed a lot of work to both characterise the issues we had with the [original] tailhook and to analyse the changes made to the system,” said Etz.

During the initial roll-in arrestment testing at NAWCAD Lakehurst, New Jersey, the tailhook failed to engage with the MK-7 arresting gear in eight attempts. Analysis identified three key design issues: the aircraft’s geometry, the design of the tailhook point and the performance of the tailhook’s hold-down damper (for more details see Shake, Rattle and Roll p74-79).

Before the new hook was fitted, testing continued using the original version to characterise performance and determine the loads being induced on the airframe during arrestment. In the summer of 2012 the VX-23 F-35 test team successfully engaged the MK-7 arresting wire on five out of eight attempts, a good demonstration of progress in the arrestment capability of the F-35C.

Design modifications were made to the tailhook point and its hold-down damper mechanism and, according to Capt Etz, achieved a 100% pick-up rate during the latest test period which started in October 2013.

The DOT&E FY2013 AR stated: “The AHS remains an integration risk as the development schedule leaves no time for new discoveries. Other risks include the potential for gouging of the flight deck after a missed cable engagement (due to an increase in weight of 139lb) and the potential for sparking from the tailhook across the flight deck because of the increased weight and sharper geometry of the redesigned hook.”...

...On December 6-7, 2013, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force engineers from the ITF tested a prototype remote-controlled trolley known as an Electric Shipboard Handler (Aircraft) by moving F-35B BF-05 around the Pax flight line. Designed to move the Lighting II around the hangar deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth-class carriers, this was the first time it had been used....

...Another major test programme currently under way at VX-23 is high angle-of-attack (AoA) envelope expansion. Initial envelope expansion and intentional departure testing, which required the use of a spin recovery chute, was conducted with F-35B BF-02 and F-35Cs CF-01 and CF-05. The ITF then conducted initial low-speed departure resistance testing, high AoA loads testing, and high AoA buffet testing with F-35B BF-03 and F-35C CF-02 to prove the recovery characteristics of each variant from uncontrolled flight.

“The ‘B was not expected to be much different from the ‘A because the wings are a similar shape, the tails a similar shape, but the mass properties distribution differs because the propulsion systems are different, and each variant’s fuel load is carried differently. Fundamentally the aerodynamic shape of the ‘B and ‘A is broadly similar, whereas the C has a different wing and a massive tail. While the B is turning out to be very nice, the C is the most remarkable, it’s absolutely awesome at 50 alpha and very controllable,” said Peter Wilson STOVL lead with the Pax F-35 ITF.

Testing will continue during 2014. Jake Piercy explained: “The first part of the programme repeated some of the testing at lower angles-of-attack without a spin chute. This was required to characterise and hopefully eliminate the possibility of the spin chute causing a difference in handling qualities of the aircraft.” Both aircraft will have the chute removed for the remaining test points....

....VX-23 also tested internal and external weapon load asymmetries on the F-35B for the first time. This involved carrying a 1,000lb bomb in the internal weapon bay on one side only and similarly, but in a separate test, with just one missile carried externally. The objective of both tests was to determine if the aircraft could be brought to the hover carrying an asymmetric load. According to BAE Systems test pilot Peter Wilson, STOVL lead with the Pax F-35 ITF: “We can. The pilot doesn’t even notice it.”

The test team also completed vertical landings loaded with external stores (pylons), AIM-9 missiles on stations 1 and 11 and the gun pod on station 6 for the first time in 2013.

The first vertical landings with weapons carried externally will follow this year.

And the most recent event is wet runway testing and cross-wind envelope expansion using F-35B BF-04. The aircraft left Pax on April 10 for an expected two-month stay at Edwards where the tests will be conducted. Edwards was chosen because it gets regular cross-winds of 25 to 30 knots which are required to complete that part of the F-35B’s envelope. The resident 412th Test Wing and 461st Flight Test Squadron have personnel experienced in wet runway testing having already completed a series for the F-35A...."

Source: AIR International F-35 Special Edition Jul 2014

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2014, 09:02
by KamenRiderBlade
spazsinbad wrote:“The ‘B was not expected to be much different from the ‘A because the wings are a similar shape, the tails a similar shape, but the mass properties distribution differs because the propulsion systems are different, and each variant’s fuel load is carried differently. Fundamentally the aerodynamic shape of the ‘B and ‘A is broadly similar, whereas the C has a different wing and a massive tail. While the B is turning out to be very nice, the C is the most remarkable, it’s absolutely awesome at 50 alpha and very controllable,” said Peter Wilson STOVL lead with the Pax F-35 ITF.



I love the 'C' model even more with that crazy High AoA controllability.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2014, 16:13
by spazsinbad
PUHleez. Did you really have to 'quote' all the post to add your one liner? Puhleez.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2014, 21:18
by KamenRiderBlade
spazsinbad wrote:PUHleez. Did you really have to 'quote' all the post to add your one liner? Puhleez.


Fixed for you

^_^

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2014, 23:04
by spazsinbad
Thanks.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2014, 06:56
by spazsinbad
From the ubiquitous AIR International F-35 Special Edition July 2014....

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2014, 17:13
by spazsinbad
F-35s Flying In Restricted Envelope
17 Jul 2014 Amy Butler | AWIN First

"...Though the aircraft have returned to flight, these limits will affect the kinds of test points the team can address. Last week Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said the lag thus far did not jeopardize the planned operational debut of the F-35B for the Marine Corps on July 1, 2015. However, the constraints could affect the F-35C's ability to address test points needed to conduct its first round of ship trials on the aircraft carrier Nimitz this fall, he said."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35s-f ... d-envelope

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2014, 08:08
by spazsinbad
ON page 18 of this thread [ viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=232640&hilit=F+111B#p232640 ] and various other pages there is info for 'johnwill' about the F-111B whilst he himself has provided a ton of interesting info about same throughout these forum pages/sections. Here is some more info:
A Brief History of the F-111B Flight Test Program
17 Jul 2014 Tommy H. Thomason

Bunch o'info about the Bs and how they ended up and....

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Rn5QEY6IIws/U ... erview.jpg

Source: http://thanlont.blogspot.com.au/2014/07 ... -test.html

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2014, 08:32
by lookieloo
Ok, soes I plops over to Wiki for a quick look at F-111B.

ImageFor the first time, I'm noticing what appear to be a pair of fully-movable forward canards. I really hope johnwill can tell us more.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2014, 09:07
by spazsinbad
I was interested to get a better quality pic: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ly1968.jpg

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2014, 10:48
by basher54321
lookieloo wrote:For the first time, I'm noticing what appear to be a pair of fully-movable forward canards. I really hope johnwill can tell us more.


I think they all had those canards - they do look fairly unique.

Image

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2014, 11:34
by gtg947h
basher54321 wrote:
lookieloo wrote:For the first time, I'm noticing what appear to be a pair of fully-movable forward canards. I really hope johnwill can tell us more.


I think they all had those canards - they do look fairly unique.


That was the "glove vane". I think it worked something like a vortex generator. From http://www.456fis.org/LANGLEY_FLIGHT_TE ... _f-111.htm:
The model free-flight tests also indicated an unusual unsteadiness in lateral behavior at moderate angles of attack for the landing configuration. The unsteadiness was apparently caused by an unsteady flow off the wing root glove (the fixed, highly swept inner wing). In early 1965, extensive flow visualization tests were made in the Langley 12-Foot Low-Speed Tunnel in an effort to change the vortex-flow field set up by the glove and to delay separation on the inner wing for the landing configuration. This work included an investigation of a rotating glove vane, which was then evaluated during the free-flight model test in the Full-Scale Tunnel. The glove vane cured the roll unsteadiness previously noted and was subsequently incorporated into the F-111 landing configuration.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2014, 13:17
by basher54321
Good find - thanks for posting that

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2014, 20:43
by spazsinbad
I'm pleased 'johnwill' figured out some cable snatchin' also (RAAF AMBERLEY, QLD, Oz - 18 Jul 2006). Story here (date of accident correct however date of publication is suspect eh):

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews ... tory01.htm

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2014, 23:50
by johnwill
Thanks to all who posted interesting F-111 information. Please note the AIM-9 on the left inboard pylon of the OZ F-111.

Almost all F-111s had what was called the rotating glove assembly, which included a hinged lower door that doesn't show well in the photos. The first twelve A models (USAF) and the first three B models (USN) did not have those assemblies. Because of weight and performance issues, the Super Weight Improvement Program was accomplished. SWIP redesigned much of the structure for less weight, had a completely new trailing edge flap system, and added the rotating glove assembly. The new flap system was much simpler, lighter, and easier to maintain (faint praise there), and the rotating glove, in addition to the benefits described by basher54321 (I did not know that), provided increased lift at low speeds for better carrier TO&L performance by allowing the leading edge slats to extend inboard an a additional foot or so. SWIP changes were applied to all subsequent F-111s.

I was really pleased to see the F-111B flight test schedule. If you look carefully at the schedule for 151974 (Navy 5), you can see the "Carrier Trials Workup' in early 1968. I was picked to be the GD structural loads engineer on that test at Pax River. That was my first flight test engineering assignment and I was both nervous and excited about it, as I had no leader to show me the ropes so to speak. There were about four or five GD engineers there to support Grumman in running the test. The Grumman guys were great and provided me with much help in getting up to speed on carrier suitability testing. My parts to watch were landing gear and hook loads during launch and arrestment. All went well as the loads were within design limits.

Unfortunately, the Navy 111 program was cancelled before we could take the airplane to the boat for full carrier trials. But Navair did allow the airplane to go to the Coral Sea for one day of testing. In that brief test, the airplane accomplished ten launches and ten arrestments without difficulty. I did not get to go for that test, but such is life.

I learned one very important thing in that test - I wanted to do flight test engineering support for the rest of my worklife, and was able to do that to a great extent.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2014, 23:49
by spazsinbad
Engine Problems Still Cloud F-35 Progress
28 Jul 2014 Chris Pocock, AINonline

"...It is not yet clear whether the flight restrictions will affect the start of sea trials with the F-35C–already postponed until November this year...."

Source: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... 5-progress

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2014, 22:28
by spazsinbad
Earlier in this thread 'neptune' [page 32: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=270105&hilit=bulkhead#p270105 ] inquired about a 'failed bulkhead' (I think) and for some reason I missed posting this quote later. It seems to me the hook AHS attachment point was the issue but not now:
Navy F-35C Prepares for Ship Trials, Faces Headwinds
17 Feb 2014 Sandra I. Erwin

"...A more significant concern is the performance of the redesigned tail hook, which has been tested six times so far. “It's a bit early to say we have definitely nailed this problem,” says Burks. “The tail hook has been a major issue for the development of this airplane. It was unexpected until it was discovered in 2011.” The first problem was not being able to catch the arresting wire. There was also a structural flaw that caused excessive stress to the bulkhead where the tail hook attaches to the airframe. The [AHS] redesign took a year and a half. Manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corp. has so far delivered one F-35C with the new tail hook at the Navy’s test site at Patuxent River, Md.

Gilmore says the arresting hook system “remains an integration risk as the JSF development schedule leaves no time for new discoveries.” He cautions about the “potential for gouging of the flight deck after a missed cable engagement due to an increase in weight of 139 pounds and the potential for sparking from the tail hook across the flight deck because of the increased weight and sharper geometry of the redesigned hook.”..."

Source: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... a2&ID=1415

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2014, 23:40
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:Earlier in this thread 'neptune' .... “The tail hook has been a major issue for the development of this airplane. It was unexpected until it was discovered in 2011.” The first problem was not being able to catch the arresting wire. There was also a structural flaw that caused excessive stress to the bulkhead where the tail hook attaches to the airframe. The [AHS] redesign took a year and a half. Manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corp. has so far delivered one F-35C with the new tail hook at the Navy’s test site at Patuxent River, Md...]


Spaz,
Thanks,
I could never find the "bulkhead" reference for my comment. Maybe others will be forgiving about my delusional moments! 
...that said...hmmm…. improper design of the hook and excessive stress to the arresting gear bulkhead. Either the "Canoe Club" advisors don't know what they are doing or....they don't want this plane to work!
Personally knowing Annapolis grads and Johns Hopkins advanced degree grads as Naval officers (in and out of the service); they do know what they are doing. Now, not wanting it to work; the SB mafia has long arms which appear to be involved in many of the infrastructures required for all naval aircraft. Cases in point, the hooks for the F-35C and the X-47B and the stress calcs for the design of the bulkhead. The potential of replacing all of the “bugs, and bug drivers” might become tempting to leaders who are only looking for the “tip” of success and not feathering a bed of journeyman jet jocks that are only comfortable with what they know and not with what they might have to learn. The “C.C.” missing out on the many attributes of the F-35C will be another sad chapter in Naval Aviation, if……
By removing the distraction of the F-35C from the overall program, leaving only the F-35A/B would seem to leave a much smaller subset of issues and problems for the public/ representatives to ponder. Might this nonsense lead to having the A.F. designing the “C.C.” aircraft to preclude future squabbling over developing aircraft for our naval aviation requirements, hopefully not! But again it seems to be having a current impact on the UCLASS.
Lastly, re-doing the hook and revising the design and implementing the corrective manufacturing of the bulkhead again should be a minor effort considering the small number of test and LRIP a/c. Hopefully, more than one F-35C will fly out to the boat for flight recovery trials this fall. Hopefully it will not get accidentally “lost over the side”.  :oops:

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2014, 01:00
by archeman
neptune wrote:Lastly, re-doing the hook and revising the design and implementing the corrective manufacturing of the bulkhead again should be a minor effort considering the small number of test and LRIP a/c. Hopefully, more than one F-35C will fly out to the boat for flight recovery trials this fall. Hopefully it will not get accidentally “lost over the side”.  :oops:


Agreed the bulkhead hook attachment strengthening effort shouldn't be that big but...
If the redesign of the bulkhead is judged to force a reset of some portion of the Structural and Fatigue tests then that could get expensive and timely.

For example if the affected bulkhead is now stronger/stiffer, and that change forces adjacent connecting 'tissues' to bend more to compensate for the reduced flex 'expected' from the old bulkhead then perhaps existing test results are now invalid or at risk they may/must be reset/restarted. This would be especially true I suppose if the affected bulkhead was largely responsible for helping to carry the loads from the horizontal stabilizers .

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2014, 01:29
by spazsinbad
No need to go off the deep end. The hook AHS is fixed as far as we know. NO MENTION OF ANY BULKHEAD REDESIGN. However the hook attachment needed strengthening. What has this got to do with a sufficiently strong bulkhead? Nothing.

As for the continuing bulsshit about the USN not wanting the F-35C then PLEASE PRODUCE SOME EVIDENCE otherwise STFU. :devil: Thanks. :mrgreen: All I see in public comments are good expressions/thoughts for NEEDING THE F-35C NOW! Sure some are worried about all the worries of it all so far and the delays. Deal with it.

SO there is NO redesign of the bulkhead OR that would have been mentioned. NO?! IF more testing for the non-existent bulkhead redesign was needed we would have heard about it by now. NO?!

And further we have an admiral admitting at last TAILHOOK convention captured on fillum and audio from it that the misplaced decimal point was the cause of a lot of problems whilst those responsible have been wirebrushed. Were they civilians or USN I have no idea. Look for the scorch marks.

Invent all the B/S Hornet Mafia anti F-35 scenarios you like ('maus92' can probably be a good source) but provide some evidence for same thank you very much.


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2014, 01:43
by archeman
spazsinbad wrote:No need to go off the deep end.


Spaz, some of us LIVE off the deepend. We gotta go there just stepping out the front door...

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2014, 01:55
by spazsinbad
IS that proof somehow? MY deep end is bigga than you deep end and it is upside down. :doh:

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2014, 03:02
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:..STFU. :devil: Thanks...]


I find it hard to accept the small numbers (<12) of new a/c having been generated for the USN, by this time. Sorry but I'm not good at being #2 behind of all else the "(*&)&" AF. My a/c experiences were all in "used" USN a/c and numbers (100's)/ squadrons (10's) were never an issue. At the time of that article 18Feb14, only one F-35C (CF-3) had been generated with the "repairs". Proof will be in the a/c numbers (CF-3+) reporting for the ship tests this fall. I hope to agree with you that this is a “mole hill”, but that is not how I read it.

Yes, we all have opinions, some not as common as others, but as you say WTF. If we all speculated the same, then this would be a very short and boring web site. But fortunately on the occasion, someone brings a new nugget of information/ facts that is of interest to us and thus we keep hangin' on! :)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2014, 03:31
by spazsinbad
Speculation on what though? No bulkhead redesign required yet we have some mythical new testing regime for the mythical non-existent, not changed bulkhead. PuhLeez. My speculation would be the AHS was redesigned (which would include the attachment to the bulkhead - bulkhead not part of the AHS I gather) gaining weight along the way. If anyone has picked up an A-4 hook then be prepared for how heavy it really is and not like it may appear to be, IF it were constructed from ordinary steel. So the F-35C hook is heavy and heavier than earlier and sharper to boot. All the better to catch dem wires wid.

As for the small numbers of LRIP F-35C then it has been stressed (perhaps not to you because you read differently apparently) that with an IOC years away from now the USN is not in a hurry. They are doing nicely thank you very much whilst they require all the bits to work with software unlike the udderbruddersfromuddermudders in the mix. So what?

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2014, 06:18
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:Speculation ... So what?


Spaz, calm down!

We will both see when the three wire is caught this fall!

:cheers:

done

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2014, 10:06
by spazsinbad
How fings like the AAG are tested & stuff....
PICTURES: Jet Sleds and the Snort Course
05 Aug 2014 John Croft

Source: http://aviationweek.com/blog/pictures-j ... ort-course

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2014, 20:48
by spazsinbad
Mebbe one day we will see an F-35C movie like this Super Hornet F/A-18 E video. The original was speeded up so this clip has been slowed to one quarter to approximate the '18-20' second nominal groove length (however I do not know when the groove started in video - I have only the start of what is in a larger video) to arrest and then a few seconds more as the pilot/aircraft is dragged backwards 'til when the pilot puts hand on HOOK handle to bring it up (to get out of the wires). Then his right hand goes up to the camera to switch it OFF.


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2014, 23:45
by spazsinbad
Further to 'non-existent bulkhead redesign' non-efforts on previous page here is a direct quote:

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=270118&hilit=Mahr#p270118
U.S. Deputy Program Manager Outlines F-35 Fixes
08 Apr 2014 AINonline Bill Carey

"...The initially deficient tail hook of the F-35C carrier variant has been redesigned and proven at the Navy’s carrier suitability test site in Lakehurst, N.J., without requiring structural changes to the airframe, Mahr said...."

Source: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... f-35-fixes

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2014, 23:50
by spazsinbad
Also on 14 June 2014 is reference to the [old?] 22 feet per second naval aircraft requirement sink rate. Just heard this in the commentary for the HerkyBird on FORRESTAL testing video (near end) recently released by LM:
On The Deck With The Hercules
Uploaded on Aug 12, 2014 LM

"In 1963, a US Navy aircrew made twenty-one full-stop landings aboard the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal—in a four-engine KC-130F tanker that didn’t have a tailhook. This video documents one the most unusual test programs ever flown in a Hercules. The video, taken from film, also includes footage of Marine Corps KC-130Fs refueling and Navy LC-130Fs Ski-Hercs in action."



Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2014, 00:32
by spazsinbad
An F-4 TOOM blast from the past - 1960. Does anyone think LM will make a 'carrier suitability' brochure such as this? Nah. They'll make a movie with crap music eh... :devil: This PDF has excellent info which I hope is near to what the F-35C will accomplish whenever.
About Me:
"My name is Ron Downey. I am a retired Aeronautical Engineer who worked for McDonnell Aircraft and McDonnell Douglas Corp for 40 years and collected many photos, info and brochures of their products. While the F-4 is my favorite, I have many other MDC items and these will be scanned and presented here. In addition, I have been an aviation historian for most of my adult life and I have amassed a large amount of info over my 50+ years of collecting and will be bringing that here also. My aim is to bring aviation material visually to this blog before it is lost; but, not in-depth explanations as any good search engine can be used for that purpose." I may be contacted at: aviationarchives(at)gmail.com

Source: http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com.au/


PDF attached (PRN reprinted to make smaller): http://aviationarchives.net/F-4H%20Carr ... bility.pdf (5.2Mb)

PHOTO: http://lh6.ggpht.com/-uCdjl_mfnlw/U20EH ... 25255D.jpg

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2014, 02:43
by spazsinbad
From same website above the McD JSF concept:
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
03 Aug 2013 JSF_1JSF Team_1

"The McDonnell Douglas early concept for the JSF and the team behind the bid.

The McDonnell Douglas, Northrop Grumman and British Aerospace JSF for the US Air Force takes off in this artist’s concept. The teams JSF features a unique near tailess design for maximum stealth and an all-axis thrust vectoring nozzle for maximum maneuverability. Photo D4C-122347-36 dated 10/96."

PHOTOs: http://www.smdcmodels.com/JSF%20Team_1.jpg
&
http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com.au ... r-jsf.html

Source: http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com.au ... r-jsf.html

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2014, 03:45
by archeman
spazsinbad wrote:From same website above the McD JSF concept:

"The McDonnell Douglas early concept for the JSF and the team behind the bid.

The McDonnell Douglas, Northrop Grumman and British Aerospace JSF for the US Air Force takes off in this artist’s concept. The teams JSF features a unique near tailess design for maximum stealth and an all-axis thrust vectoring nozzle for maximum maneuverability. Photo D4C-122347-36 dated 10/96."



---off topic apologies---

Does anyone on this forum know with accuracy why the MD/NG JSF concept was downselected?

I can't believe it was the tailless design alone.
Perhaps the lift-jet wasn't believable?
Perhaps their proposal was so late (relative to the LM & Boeing proposals) that it wasn't given due consideration?
Perhaps it was too physically similar to the LM proposal but unlike the LM proposal included risky choices (tailless, thrust-vector, lift-jet) where it didn't need to?

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2014, 05:19
by popcorn
archeman wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:From same website above the McD JSF concept:

"The McDonnell Douglas early concept for the JSF and the team behind the bid.

The McDonnell Douglas, Northrop Grumman and British Aerospace JSF for the US Air Force takes off in this artist’s concept. The teams JSF features a unique near tailess design for maximum stealth and an all-axis thrust vectoring nozzle for maximum maneuverability. Photo D4C-122347-36 dated 10/96."



---off topic apologies---

Does anyone on this forum know with accuracy why the MD/NG JSF concept was downselected?

I can't believe it was the tailless design alone. I386
Perhaps the lift-jet wasn't believable?
Perhaps their proposal was so late (relative to the LM & Boeing proposals) that it wasn't given due consideration?
Perhaps it was too physically similar to the LM proposal but unlike the LM proposal included risky choices (tailless, thrust-vector, lift-jet) where it didn't need to?

It required a separate lift-engine which the Corps rejected, McD and Co. paid no heed, focusing on the much larger AF and Navy requirement and submitting their design anyway,thinking they could win the contact despite the Marines' objections. History shows that it was LM's lift-fan design that was the key to winning the competition

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2014, 07:19
by spazsinbad
Continuing from previous page MORE F-111B Lurve for the likes of those interested. Yes indeed it is.... :mrgreen:
Production F-111B Fuselage
29 Jan 2014 Tommy H. Thomason

"...I'll note once again that the at-sea F-111B trials were conducted with an F-111B that did not have all the changes known to be forthcoming in the production aircraft (see http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2009/03/f- ... rials.html). As a result, any deficiency related to visibility on approach was already being corrected.

For more on the F-111B, see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009 ... -111b.html and http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/01/f- ... -time.html and
http://thanlont.blogspot.com.au/2009/03 ... rials.html "

Photo: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GQW73ijRwJE/U ... selage.jpg

Source: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com.au/2 ... elage.html

F-111B Envelope Expansion Wing
01 Sep 2014 Tommy H. Thomason

"One of the remaining mysteries to me about the F-111B program was the presence of the four-segment flap wing (i.e. the F-111A wing) on F-111Bs #1 and 4. I didn't even notice it in the picture of #1 on the cover of my F-111B monograph until someone eventually pointed it out....

... I was pretty sure that it was #4 because it appeared to have the rotating glove flap on the fixed portion of the wing and did not have the pod on the fin tip. However, Tim noted that it had a four-segment flap with the ferry tip.

My speculation is that this set of wings was specifically instrumented for high-speed envelope expansion and the use of the ferry tips allowed it to be used by both General Dynamics on an F-111A and Grumman on an F-111B. In fact, #4 was used for flutter/envelope expansion in late 1966 and early 1967. After its crash, #1 was used for flutter/envelope expansion at Edwards in the fall of 1967, which is likely when the monograph cover picture was taken.

Source: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com.au/2 ... -wing.html

F-111 Auxiliary Flaps
02 Sep 2014 Tommy H. Thomason

"One of the fixes required of the F-111B for Navy acceptance was restoration of the requisite over-the-nose visibility for carrier landings. It had been accounted for, of course, in the original design.

However, as the overly optimistic empty-weight prediction began to be exceeded, the angle of attack on approach increased and the carrier deck began to be less and less visible to the F-111B pilot. There are three basic ways to restore the required sight picture without going faster on approach: lowering the nose/raising the cockpit, reducing the weight, and increasing lift. All were employed (weight reduction being the hardest to achieve), with the production airplanes after the first two to have a raised cockpit....

...The auxiliary-flap function was reportedly disabled fairly early as being a maintenance burden and not being very effective from a lift standpoint."

Graphics: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BZvfcYStGvA/V ... age%2B.jpg
&
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NqirQ-odBX8/V ... BFlaps.jpg

Source: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com.au/2 ... chive.html

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2014, 04:20
by spazsinbad
UhOh - F-35C CVN testing....
F-35 head: Delays coming if test planes grounded through September
03 Sep 2014 Aaron Mehta

"WASHINGTON — The head of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is warning that there is a real danger of missing deadlines if his test fleet of aircraft are not flying regularly by the end of September.

“I need all of [the test airplanes] back to full envelope by the end of this month,” Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said at Wednesday’s ComDef conference in Washington. “Otherwise we will start seeing some delays in future milestones.”...

...The entire F-35 fleet were placed under restrictions following a June 23 fire that heavily damaged an F-35A conventional takeoff-and-landing model at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Since then, the small test fleet has had some restrictions relieved, but is still not allowed to operate at full capacity.

While insisting that the Marines remain on track to take the F-35B jump-jet variant operational next summer, Bogdan said there has been a “headwind” of about 30- to 45 days added to test points due to the restrictions. Testing the Navy’s F-35C model at sea is one of the tests affected by potential delays.

“Can we make some of that [time] up? Yeah I think we can,” Bogdan said. “But we have to get all of those airplanes up and flying again.”...."
Source: http://www.navytimes.com/article/201409 ... -September

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2014, 06:58
by spazsinbad
Which ONES but...? Anyhoo soon for the F-35C testing perhaps for finishing testing dat hook.
UPDATE 2-Pentagon says nearing fix for F-35 engine, Pratt to pay
03 Sep 2014 Andrea Shalal

"...Bogdan said six of 21 F-35 test planes had been cleared to fly a full flight envelope, and he hoped to get approval for the rest by the end of the month to keep the test program on track...."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/ ... 1M20140903

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2014, 10:13
by spazsinbad
Doubtless weezel hear about the F-35C hook testing progress and potential CVN testing soonish from TAILHOOK 2014 videos starting this weekend. The FLAG Panel should have good info like last year but who knows (Fnose). :devil: Along with the AVIATION TEST Panels Saturday

http://new.livestream.com/wab/tailhook

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2014, 01:42
by spazsinbad
Right now the next OP-NAV 98 (whatever that means) kicks off in a few minutes OR has kicked off with a time delay? Be there or Be Square. & DON'T EAT the MAGIC CARPET whenever that was. What I did not realise is that the beginning fifteen minutes is just mumblemingling so it is EASY to drag the slider down to FIFTEEN MINUTES into the video so that the PANEL for OP-NAV 98 are introduced and lahdedah. There is an F-35 guy there.

USMC update slide with more F-35Bs on WASP in May 2015 with F135 engine transport via V-22 thereabouts.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2014, 02:39
by spazsinbad
Not having flown these new fangled jetlies in a playsuit I will have to listen to the MAGcarpet explanation a few times but simply put the engine remains the same while the software changes the wing via flaps and stuff (similar to F-35 IDLC) to put the aircraft on glideslope with the engine still at high RPM and at Opt AoA I guess so that the pilot with the SRVV Ship Relative Velocity Vector on the deck will effectively (so to speak) DECK SPOT! Wot? :devil: There is more to it than that so that is why I need a brain software upgrade.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2014, 04:02
by spazsinbad
Youse can look forward to some smashing F-35C videos perhaps at HOOK15?


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2014, 05:17
by spazsinbad
There are no details about whys and wherefores but it is sad for NavAv in general. One reason for why the SHAKE, RATTLE & ROLL testing is so important - amongst all the other stuff.
Two PLA Pilots Have Died Testing Fighters for Chinese Carrier
05 Sep 2014 Sam LaGrone

"At least two People’s Liberation Army Air Force pilots have died in testing jets slated to operate from the Chinese carrier Liaoning, according a little noticed report published by Chinese state-controlled media.

“Two test pilots of the squadron sacrificed their lives during the tests,” read the Aug. 27 report that went on to list a series of citations for the test pilots who flew the Shenyang J-15 Flying Shark in testing on China’s first modern aircraft carrier.

The report provided no additional details on the dead flyers or the condition of their aircraft.

A Friday report in Jane’s Defence Weekly concluded it was, “likely that at least two aircraft have been lost.”...

...The Chinese are reportedly learning carrier aviation from the Brazilian Navy pilots— who operate from a 1960s former French ship a third the size of a U.S. Nimitz-class carrier....

...From 1949 to 1988, “the Navy and Marine Corps lost almost twelve thousand airplanes of all types
(helicopters, trainers, and patrol planes, in addition to jets) and over 8,500 aircrew,” according a section of the book “One Hundred Years of U.S. Navy Airpower” by Robert C. Rubel....

...According to the report from Jane’s, Liaoning has recently left a four-month dry dock period and will likely soon resume flight tests."

Source: http://news.usni.org/2014/09/05/two-pla ... se-carrier

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2014, 06:34
by spazsinbad
Shake Rattle & Roll VX-23 Hook14


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2014, 03:57
by spazsinbad
A certified blast from the past by Coonts:
The Joint Strike Super Fighter
01 Jan 2011 Stephen Coonts

"It has been 34 years since I flew a carrier approach, so I got a rock in the pit of my stomach when my tour guide at the Lockheed Martin plant in Fort Worth, Texas—retired U.S. Navy Capt. Craig Williams, an F/A–18 Hornet pilot and former air wing commander aboard the USS Ronald Reagan—suggested I fly one in the F–35 simulator. Crashing the sim wouldn’t do much for my ego or reputation, such as it is. Oh well.

“Sure,” I said blithely.

In just a few seconds I was there, approaching one of the Navy’s big gray flattops on a clear, sunlit day, on a wide, empty sea. “Damn small boat,” I muttered.

In the cockpit demonstrator, the flight data symbology that will be projected on the inside of the pilot’s helmet visor in the real airplane was projected on the screen that held the ship. There was the track line, the angle of attack symbol, the altitude and airspeed, the sink rate symbol….

I snapped the gear handle down and pushed the button to lower the tailhook. The weapons were safe. That was the entire landing checklist. Flaps and slats are automatically deployed as the airspeed bleeds off. This supersonic fighter-bomber is easier to fly than anything I ever sat in.

Now I started descending, slewing the airplane with rudder (“Probably better keep your feet flat on the deck,” Williams suggested diplomatically) and overcontrolling the airspeed, which should be 143 knots at max trap weight; lined up fairly well, looking for the ball. And by glory, there it was! Now too fast, now too slow—but coming down at about 600 feet per minute.

The ship got bigger and bigger, I got fast…and would have bolted but the sim, being forgiving, let me catch a wire.

“No grade eight-wire,” I told Williams, grinning like a fool...."

Source: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All- ... er-Fighter

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2014, 09:58
by spazsinbad
MORE on Shake Rattle & Roll + JPALS with emphasis on Carrier Suitability for F-35C which is going OK and due for NIMITZ soonish.

Carrier Suitability F-35C SR&R Hook14


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2014, 10:38
by spazsinbad
Magic Carpet F/A-18EnF&G EMALS AAG X-47B Hook14


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2014, 23:34
by spazsinbad
Another OPNAV N-98 video munchies carpet explanation DLC for the Super Hornet (the F-35C will use something similar called IDLC). Tare differences (TWO) with the CARPET for how things are done. I'll guess when testing is finished there will be good explanations about it all.

Magic Carpet DLC Super Hornet Explanation Hook 14


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2014, 01:44
by spazsinbad
Bogdan: F-35 Engine Fix May be Ready by Year’s End
15 Sep 2014 Brendan McGarry

"NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — The U.S. Defense Department official in charge of the F-35 fighter jet program said he hopes to have a fix in place for a defective engine part by the end of the year.

Speaking Monday at the Air Force Association’s annual conference, Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said...

...Problems with such components as the helmet, carrier hook and lightning protection have either been solved or are in the process of being addressed, Bogdan said. “These are all past problems,” he said....

...Bogdan said he expects the Marine Corps will still begin operational flights of the F-35B jump-jet variant next July as scheduled, followed by the Air Force in 2016 and the Navy in 2018...."

Source: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/09/15/bogda ... years-end/

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2014, 05:04
by spazsinbad
F135 Test Fleet Retrofits Could Start in November
16 Sep 2014 Amy Butler

"FORT WASHINGTON, Maryland — Retrofitting a fix to the F135 propulsion systems in the 21-aircraft-strong F-35 test fleet could begin in November and be complete as soon as early next year, according to Bennett Croswell, president of Pratt & Whitney military engines....

...The probable retrofit schedule appears to be far later than hoped for by U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 program executive officer. He said two weeks ago that if he is unable to get the testing fleet back into full-envelope operation by the end of this month, "we will start seeing some delays in future milestones that we talked about that we haven’t pushed up against yet." He was referring to such milestones as the first arrested landing and catapult trials on the USS Nimitz planned for November, and possibly items leading to the U.S. Marine Corps initial operational capability date set for July 1, 2015. When asked about the Nimitz tests, he said they are still not off the table. Regarding Marine IOC, he said it is "fundamentally on track," though needed mods to the F-35Bs and the delivery of mission data packages could be late...."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/f135-te ... t-november

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2014, 17:25
by spazsinbad
SCHEDULE FRICTION
22 Sep 2014 Amy Butler

"....He [LtGen. Bogdan] was referring to events such as the first arrested landing and catapult trials on the USS Nimitz planned for November, and possibly items leading to the U.S. Marine Corps initial operational capability (IOC) date of July 1, 2015. He affirms that Nimitz tests are still on the table, and a program source notes that of the two aircraft slated for those tests, CF-3 is cleared to get to the deck. CF-5 is still undergoing validation flights for deck work, but these are not impeded by the flight-envelope restrictions, the source adds...."

Source: Aviation Weak & Spec Technology 22 Sep 2014

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2014, 21:52
by spazsinbad
F-35 'On Track' for Carrier Tests in November
25 Sep 2014 AARON MEHTA

"WASHINGTON — The F-35 joint strike fighter is on track to conduct trials aboard a US Navy aircraft carrier in November, but there are still variables as to what may be tested, the program’s top official said today.

“The November deployment will happen,” Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the head of the F-35 joint program office, said during a news briefing in Oslo. “It will most likely happen with two airplanes. Whether both those airplanes are fully capable of doing all the work remains to be seen.”

“We have some work to do as we lead up to that point in November,” he added.

That work will decide what trials the pair of F-35C models will end up performing while aboard the US Navy’s carrier Nimitz, located off the west coast of the US. The biggest question is whether both jets can perform catapult launch and arrestment trials or if only one is ready for that.

If the latter is the case, the second jet will be left on dock for what Bogdan called “logistics testing.”...”

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... s-November

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2014, 04:40
by spazsinbad
F-35Cs Will Be Deployed To Carrier, With Caveats
25 Sep 2014 Tony Osborne | AWIN First

"...Jeff Babione, vice president and deputy general manager of the F-35, told Aviation Week that only a series of flight trials involving abnormal carrier approaches – dubbed the "shake, rattle and roll" tests – as well as electromagnetic interference tests now remained before the aircraft could embark on the ship.

The trials will see test pilots intentionally landing the aircraft at high sink rates, with roll to the right or left, nose or tail down to test the landing limits of aircraft in adverse conditions on land first, before the aircraft goes to sea.

"The testing should finish up next week, once complete parts and equipment will be staged out to the West Coast," Babione said."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35cs- ... er-caveats

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2014, 20:56
by spazsinbad
Be there or be square in November.... :mrgreen:

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2014, 20:18
by spazsinbad
IN ANTI cipation of events in NOV ember here is some pert inent info - in cludes F-35C in a bunch of course m'lud, orright?
Arrest HOOK & Ship-Shore Arrest Info FOLDER on SpazSinbad OneDrive page

FILE NAME: Hooks & Arrest Gear 03oct2014 pp391.pdf (191Mb)

On the SpazSinbad OneDrive URL: http://1drv.ms/1n3C8di (shortened URL)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2014, 07:48
by spazsinbad
Further info on the MAGIC CARPET (applicable to Supers/Cees) and will attach PDF. GO HERE FOR THE SCALE innit:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=16196&p=205251&hilit=Cooper#p205251
&
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-3300/fig66.jpg & http://history.nasa.gov/SP-3300/ch4.htm#27
Project MAGIC CARPET A Breakthrough in Carrier Aircraft Landing
INNOVATION; Office of Naval Research; Vol. 10 | Spring 2013 Mr. John Kinzer, Program Officer, Air Vehicle Technology, Office of Naval Research

"...Traditionally, pilots control rate of descent with power (left hand on the throttles), airspeed with pitch attitude (forward/aft stick), and heading with roll (left/ right stick). It’s hard enough to do these three things at once, but complicating the problem is that these control axes are cross-coupled and only indirectly influence what is really intended: glideslope and lineup. The pilot is required to integrate the disparate control problems and anticipate the need for adjustments. The change that is being developed is to reduce the number of controls, eliminate control cross-coupling, and provide direct control of glideslope and lineup (Figure 1).

At the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, engineers under the leadership of James “Buddy” Denham, and with partial Office of Naval Research (ONR) sponsorship, this breakthrough change is becoming reality in a program called MAGIC CARPET. First, they incorporated the use of reliable automated approach power control to allow the pilot to control the entire landing with just the right hand on the stick. Second, they developed flight control laws which did two things: (1) utilized wing flaps and ailerons to instantly adjust lift on the wing, and (2) augmented aircraft stability to allow the pilot forward and aft stick inputs to directly control glideslope angle. Third, they provided displays to the pilot on the Head Up Display (HUD) with desired glideslope reference and actual glideslope flight path vector. The task for maintaining glideslope then becomes greatly simplified: fly level until the ship comes under the desired glide slope reference and push the stick forward until the actual glide slope vector matches the glideslope, and release the control. Slight adjustments high or low can be accomplished in a similar manner.

These breakthroughs have been tested and demonstrated in simulators with two different aircraft. In flight simulator evaluations in a Joint Strike Fighter configuration at BAE Wharton, the workload for carrier landing was reduced from a Handling Qualities Rating (HQR) 6 (extensive pilot workload), to 2 (minimal pilot workload)—a dramatic reduction! These results were confirmed in an F/A-18E/F simulator at Patuxent River in late 2012, in which landing touchdown performance was improved by over 50%.

MAGIC CARPET technology development is continuing. Flight control augmentation for lineup is being developed and tested in the flight simulator, and HUD displays are being refined. Planning is underway to conduct testing of the control laws and displays in both the F/A–18E/F and the F-35C...."

Source: http://www.onr.navy.mil/Science-Technol ... Vol10.ashx (PDF 2.8Mb)

CAPTION: Figure 1. "Carrier landing area as seen through the HUD. Pilots need to monitor glideslope using the Fresnel Lens, angle of attack (speed), and lineup simultaneously. (background photo: U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Kenneth Abbate)"

Image

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2014, 14:06
by quicksilver
To read some of these articles, one might think that NAVAIR was designing and building aircraft these days.

From a couple years ago -- http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stor ... -it-works/

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2014, 17:09
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2014, 19:25
by spazsinbad
I guess a new thread could be started when the SEA (Cee) actually does start deck landing trials (for the milestone in it) but meanwhile - again - in anticipation....
Navy readies for first F-35 carrier landing
23 Oct 2014 Jennifer Hlad, Stars & Stripes

"ABOARD THE USS NIMITZ — Before the Navy’s oldest active aircraft carrier docks for a 16-month maintenance period, it’s helping other ships get ready for deployment, and next month, will host the first landing of the F-35C on a carrier.

The Marine version of the Joint Strike Fighter, the short-takeoff, vertical-landing F-35B, has made successful landings aboard ships at sea. But the Navy’s version, the F-35C, which is designed to land on carriers, has not — in part because of problems with the tail hook.

The landing test will take place on the Nimitz after the conclusion of the current task group exercise, which began Monday off San Diego..."

Source" http://www.stripes.com/news/navy-readie ... g-1.309808

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2014, 22:42
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I can't wait for the video of THAT!

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2014, 23:34
by spazsinbad
Let us hope they have some decent music in the LM video eh.


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2014, 21:15
by spazsinbad
More teasers....
Nimitz Getting Ready for First F-35C Flight at Sea
24 Oct 2014 GIDGET FUENTES

"...“It’s the first time anybody will see it,” said CAPT John C. Ring, Nimitz commanding officer. “The F-35C, the carrier version, that will be the first time the carrier variant lands on an aircraft carrier.

“We are kind of dedicated to making sure they’re good to go and they can demonstrate the things they want to demonstrate. We are completely here to help make them succeed,” said Ring, speaking on the bridge Oct. 22 as flight deck crew maneuvered aircraft for another round of flight operations. The afternoon blue sky provided good conditions following a day where poor weather conditions kept the flight deck quiet.

“It’s developmental testing, so they are going to do some envelope expansion. So I’ll try to give them the perfect winds every time,” Ring said. “Whatever they want me to do, I’ll do it.”...

...To ready for the testing team, Nimitz will clear the decks, literally. Jet squadrons using its flight deck for squadron and individual training and certifications will fly off by month’s end to provide ample room on the flight deck and hangar bays for testers, evaluators and observers for the important mission in developmental testing.

Navy officials have said it’s likely two F-35Cs will be used for the sea trials, although officials haven’t announced details.

Ring, a veteran naval flight officer, is among the Nimitz curious and eager to see how the jet flies, maneuvers and looks. He’s asked the Navy for video of an F-35 going around in a pattern, “so we would recognize what normal will look like, so we can recognize what not normal looks like. I’m going to have a JSF guy standing right here when they are landing,” he added, gesturing to the captain’s chair in the bridge...."

Source: http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories ... imitz.html

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2014, 03:10
by spazsinbad
Some OLD NEWs about CVN non-skid - again - wait for it.... two three.... for F-35Cs on CVN (will NIMITZ deck be resurfaced for F-35C tests?):
Truman Flight Deck Receives New Non-Skid
20 Feb 2010 Lt. Katharine Cerezo, USS Harry S. Truman Public Affairs Story Number: NNS100220-11

"USS HARRY S. TRUMAN, At Sea (NNS) -- USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) began preparations for resurfacing the landing area of the flight deck with new non-skid Feb. 8, following several training exercises and carrier qualification periods at sea.

At nearly 50,000 square feet, the landing area of the flight deck has safely completed over 16,000 arrests since it was last resurfaced in October 2007.

"The actual layer of non-skid is about 1/8th of an inch thick," said Cmdr. Herbert C. Sanford, Truman's mini air boss. "As you can imagine, the landing area sustains a lot of wear-and-tear from the force of multiple arrested landings and tailhooks dragging cables across the non-skid."

The non-skid surface provides both aircraft and crew members the traction they need to move and operate safely.

"A jet moving on a surface that has been stripped of non-skid is like riding a car on ice," said Lt. Alonzo Wynn, flight deck officer.

Although non-skid is found on the exterior deck of every Navy warship, the operations that take place on the surface of a carrier flight deck are unique and require a particular type of non-skid.

"Other ships use 'G'-skid, a general purpose non-skid," said Chief Aviation Boatswain's Mate (Handling) (AW/SW) Donovan Mahiai, flight deck crash chief. "Carriers use 'L'-skid, which is non-abrasive and specifically designed for the landing area."

Special attention is required to ensure that the non-skid is properly cured and treated. The existing non-skid surface is removed via high-pressure water jet and pumped to an Environmental Protection Agency approved storage tank on the pier. After the flight deck is stripped to bare metal, it is treated and primed under the protection of a climate-controlled tent.

The tent is heated to approximately 70 degrees and safeguards the area being worked on from rain, snow and ice-elements which could induce rust and expedite non-skid erosion. The temperature also helps with the adhesion of the material and results in a faster drying time.

According to Sanford, most carrier flight decks undergo resurfacing after 8,000-10,000 arrested landings and prior to each deployment. After Truman's deployment shifted late in 2009, resurfacing was postponed in to support other fleet-wide requirements, to include two sustainment training exercises and several Fleet Replacement Squadron carrier qualifications.

"The landing area receives the most wear-and-tear," Mahiai said. "We wanted the flight deck non-skid in the landing area to be as fresh as possible for our upcoming deployment.""

Source: http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=51351

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2014, 05:00
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:..(will NIMITZ deck be resurfaced for F-35C tests?):..]


Not likely, ....to busy!

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=83960

Nimitz to Participate Alongside Canadian, Japanese, other US Ships in Task Group Exercise
..
Story Number: NNS141020-10
Release Date: 10/20/2014 5:23:00 PM

SAN DIEGO (NNS) -- Canadian, Japanese and U.S ships will participate
in a U.S. 3rd Fleet-led Task Group Exercise (TGEX) off the coast of Southern California, Oct. 20-31.

The TGEX will serve to train independently-deploying units in air defense, anti-submarine warfare, surface warfare, and maritime-interdiction operations while building cooperative relationships with partner nations.

Units participating include Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 15, Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 11, .., Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 11, aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68), .., and a submarine, Royal Canadian Navy Halifax-class frigates HMCS Calgary (FFH 335) and HMCS Winnipeg (FFH 338), Kingston-class coastal defense vessels HMCS Brandon (MM 710) and HMCS Yellowknife (MM 706), and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JS) Teruzuki (DD 116). ..

Specific events Nimitz will conduct include: flight operations, tracking different ships, conducting underway replenishments, and communications exercises. ... Joint interagency and international relationships strengthen U.S. 3rd Fleet's ability to respond to crises and protect the collective maritime interests of the U.S. and its allies and partners.

CAW11 flys off after 31 Oct and clears the decks for the F-35C tests on a "well broke-in" flight deck.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2014, 01:11
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: More TEASE - as long as it doan get sleazy.... :devil:
DoD, Lockheed Shake On 29 F-35s; Price Drops 3.6%
27 Oct 2014 Colin Clark

"...Meanwhile, we hear that after initial worries that only one F-35C would be ready for arrest testing on the USS Nimitz due to start early next month the program will have two planes ready for testing..."

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/10/dod- ... drops-3-6/

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2014, 16:16
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: Here comes the MAD HATTER "I'm Late, I'm Late - for a very important DATE"! :devil: [but not with 'slowly engine fix' amy - I guess the dribble double text will be edited out one day?] May I predict that she will have a headline "F-35C FINALLY blah blah blah Arrests on USS Nimitz" :doh:
Lockheed, Pentagon Agree On Latest F-35 Production Lot
27 Oct 2014 Amy Butler

"...The LRIP deal comes as the F-35 team plans for its first F-35C deployment on a carrier. The F-35C is slated to execute its first arrested landing on a carrier deck on the USS Nimitz on Nov. 3 [MONDAY] off the coast of San Diego. Developmental testing is slated to last until Nov. 17, according to Navy officials. The F-35s to be used on the carrier will employ the newly redesigned tail hook made by Lockheed Martin. The original design was scrapped after it failed to snag the arresting wire repeatedly...."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/lockhee ... uction-lot

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2014, 18:03
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote::.... The F-35s to be used on the carrier will employ the newly redesigned tail hook made by Lockheed Martin..


I hope more than CF-3 show up for the date!

Pinning our hopes on only one a/c is very disappointing.

"More the Merrier!"

:)

PS: has anyone else seen a video or photo of a trap by other than CF-3?...if so, where?

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2014, 18:08
by spazsinbad
'neppie' you have not read or misread an earlier post where this was said by Brake Dat Fence above and the Butler dun it says plural:
"..."...Meanwhile, we hear that after initial worries that only one F-35C would be ready for arrest testing on the USS Nimitz due to start early next month the program will have two planes ready for testing..."


CF-3 was specially instrumented for the arrest hook testing whilst the other one needed to be modified/instrumented also perhaps? Why would it matter if only one F-35C arrested with production arrest hook? Shirley that means they all will?

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2014, 19:06
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:...]the program will have two planes ready for testing[/b]..."
..Why would it matter if only one F-35C arrested with production arrest hook? Shirley that means they all will?[/quote]



Did you "Ever" waltz out to the flightline, only to come dragging back in ..cuz the plane broke?

Granted, they have two weeks to snag one (any?) wire but.....that danged murphy guy! :roll:


.....the general said the second one might be left (parked for parts?) at the dock. :D

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2014, 20:35
by hookswing
CF-3 was indeed specially instrumented for the arresting hook testing. 8)

CF-5 is also instrumented for the arrest hook testing and completed some successfull landbased arrestments last weeks. :D

Both go to the USS Nimitz early next week!!! :shock: :shock:

I am hoping for some nice footage :drool:

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2014, 22:15
by spazsinbad
:devil: Thanks 'swingeinghooky'. Go here for a swinGing A4G hook video: OMG a single engine job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mrgreen:


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2014, 22:30
by hookswing
Hehe, I'll hold my breath for the CF footage. :oops:

Allready enjoyed the prelude on land. Guess it can only get better than that :o

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2014, 17:31
by neptune
hookswing wrote:..CF-5 is also instrumented for the arrest hook testing and completed some successfull landbased arrestments last weeks...



Thanks

:)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2014, 18:30
by spazsinbad
AND... 'neppie' found this info here: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=24651&p=280779&hilit=Boat#p280779
....Going to the Boat
Lockheed Martin is currently finalising the configuration of two System Development and Demonstration aircraft (CF-03 and CF-05) that will deploy aboard the USS Nimitz (CVN 68)...."

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2014, 03:58
by spazsinbad
Back on page 37 of this thread is an article about 'caveats' by Osborne which has this to say also (missed it agin - truble with only postin' short bits):
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=279205&hilit=Caveats#p279205
F-35Cs Will Be Deployed To Carrier, With Caveats
25 Sep 2014 Tony Osborne

"...He suggested that the second aircraft, CF-5, may not conduct carrier launches and landings, but may have to remain on deck for logistics testing. [But that was then and this is now... so never fear - FUD is DEAD]...

[And because stuff happens]...Jeff Babione, vice president and deputy general manager of the F-35, told Aviation Week
that only a series of flight trials involving abnormal carrier approaches – dubbed the "shake, rattle and roll" tests – as well as electromagnetic interference tests now remained before the aircraft could embark on the ship.

The trials will see test pilots intentionally landing the aircraft at high sink rates, with roll to the right or left, nose or tail down to test the landing limits of aircraft in adverse conditions on land first, before the aircraft goes to sea.

"The testing should finish up next week, once complete parts and equipment will be staged out to the West Coast," Babione said." [AND that must have been all good OR they would NOT be goin'.]

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35cs- ... er-caveats

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2014, 04:46
by spazsinbad
Not often does one see such a great series of 'life on a CVN' [USS Eisenhower 2012] 83 photos with some terrific details - perhaps not of interest to some but so what: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/photo ... lf-2012-11

:mrgreen: If things go spaz then the LSOs can jump down their escape chute after seeing bad shite on their screens (mebbe) :devil: :

http://static.businessinsider.com/image ... /image.jpg
&
http://static.businessinsider.com/image ... /image.jpg
&
http://static.businessinsider.com/image ... /image.jpg
&
http://static.businessinsider.com/image ... /image.jpg

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2014, 09:32
by spazsinbad
Salty Dog at NAS Ft Worth on way to San Diego (today?) before Monday - CF-05.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attac ... 1414702728

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2014, 14:25
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2014, 16:40
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks Carl - ..CF-03



Got it!

CF-03 White Tail
CF-05 Red Tail

:)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2014, 21:09
by spazsinbad
Meghann gets the prize for the first 'finally' - we await the Butler did it 'FINALLY' plus lots of drivel about the USN indifference - we await the 'maus92' missing in action....

Navy F-35 starts first sea trials with new tailhook
31 Oct 2014 Meghann Myers

"If all goes according to plan, the F-35C Lightning II jet will roar into its first flattop trap Nov. 3 as news cameras roll, an event 17 years in the making.

Two Joint Strike Fighters are set to head out that morning from Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona, bound for the carrier Nimitz for two weeks of testing off the coast of San Diego, Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the JSF program manager told reporters in the run-up to the carrier tests.

“And I will tell you, this summer, that was thought of as not even possible, because of the problems with the [tail]hook, the problems we were having with the nose gear, the problems we were having with a whole host of things to get there,” Bogdan said Thursday.

A series of setbacks pushed the carrier landing milestone back nearly a year, before more issues edged it further out in 2014. The tailhook redesign will allow the Navy to finally carrier test the F-35, an aircraft that would bring stealth fighters to carrier air wings, along with greater costs. The naval aviation brass are taking a wait-and-see approach to F-35C development, one influential aviation expert said....

...The carrier test comes after the redesign of the F-35C’s tailhook, the bar [best description yet] that catches one of the three tensioned wires on the flight deck to stop the jet safely.

Lockheed Martin had some issues designing a working tailhook that blended into the aircraft’s stealthy body, in contrast to hooks on legacy airframes, which are mounted on the outside of the skin. The first iteration wasn’t catching in 2013 tests.

Pilots successfully tested the redesigned tailhook in testing earlier this year at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst, New Jersey, setting up for the sea trials.

Now, Bogdan said, he’s confident the aircraft has been put through its paces. He recalled watching tests at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, in which pilots forced the jets to land on their nose gear or on either wheel, to simulate the uneven angles created by a pitching and rolling ship....

Coincidentally, the F-35C is landing on Nimitz 35 years and five days after the F/A-18A made its first carrier landing, aboard the carrier America in 1979, according to Naval Air Forces [SOURCEs - blech].

...The F-35C carrier tests are scheduled to run through Nov. 17, according to Naval Air Forces [SOURCES] :-) ."

Source: http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20 ... /310310062

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2014, 21:20
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:Meghann gets the prize for the first 'finally' -..]


...some firsts are lame...

staff airforce times shouldn't write about Naval Aviation, it comes across as a little clueless..

:) enjoy

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2014, 21:47
by spazsinbad
I (not being USN) would have thought that the first landing for either pilot in an F-35C would be a HOOK UP touch and go to allow both the pilot and LSO to get their 'eye in' with subsequent (perhaps) deck landing being with HOOK DOWN arrest?

Perhaps the cameras rollin' will militate a first TOUCH And go Before a first arrest on first landing I suppose BUT the X-47B did not do that - so why this time? Oh well - maybe an :mrgreen: boggeddownairfarce :devil: thing eh. :doh:
F-35C’s First Carrier Landing Scheduled for Next Week
31 Oct 2014 Dave Majumdar

"The naval variant of the tri-service Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter is set to land upon the deck of USS Nimitz (CVN-68) next week. Two of the single-engine F-35C stealth fighters are set to carry out a set of sea trials onboard the carrier to ensure that the jets can operate safely from the flight deck.

“They will fly on the third of November, and the first time that they touch the deck of the Nimitz will be with a trap,” Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, the Joint Strike Fighter program executive officer told reporters on Oct. 30.

“We’re not putting them on the ship with a crane.” [X-47B ref?]

The Joint Strike Fighter Program Office is deploying test aircraft CF-3 and CF-5 to the carrier. The jets were set to arrive at Yuma, Arizona, from Fort Worth, Texas, on Oct. 30, Bogdan said. The two aircraft will be prepared for their trials at Yuma over the next “couple of days,” he added.

The two jets are fully instrumented and are cleared to operate with a full flight envelope, Bogdan said. Once onboard Nimitz, the jets will be run through the gamut of carrier operations...."

Source: http://news.usni.org/2014/10/31/f-35cs- ... -next-week

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2014, 22:55
by spazsinbad
One for the money, two [F-35Cs] for the show, three to get ready and go cat go.... A VX-?? Squadron has a bat insignia. I'll try to find it but anyway the salty dogs [VX-23] have the floor/deck....

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2014, 03:35
by spazsinbad
Let us hope this guy becomes familiar with Navy Jargon also - not hopeful. :twisted:
F-35 Ahoy! Navy Version Of JSF Faces Nimitz’s Tests
31 Oct 2014 Colin Clark

"WASHINGTON: The next two weeks will be enormously important for the Navy’s carrier-based version of the Joint Strike Fighter as two F-35Cs undergo extensive testing operating from the USS Nimitz. The Navy has been the least committed of the three services [proof for this mememe puhleez] buying versions of the Joint Strike Fighter, so if the two planes being tested perform well it could help change the views of some senior Navy leaders. Anything less than a sterling performance, of course, could well give reluctant Navy officials more ammunition to buy more F-18s and stretch out or shrink their planned purchase of F-35Cs. Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan was very upbeat about the aircraft during a program briefing with reporters yesterday. The two F-35Cs are flying directly to the carrier and will land using arresting gear [I frickin' hope so] :doh: , he said. No cranes gently lifting the planes onto the Nimitz’s deck. Nope. These aircraft will fly the last portion of their trip and are expected to execute the carrier version’s very first landing on a carrier with a small group of reporters watching [why? because we like you - I wonder if BS gonna be there or be square?].

After several months of uncertainty whether CF-3 and CF-5 would both be ready to fly — complete with new tail hook assemblies and huge amounts of test instrumentation — Bogdan told us yesterday they would both fly to the ship. As Breaking D [hoorah] readers know, the tail hook on the F-35Cs had to be redesigned. The initial design did not reliably engage the cable and wasn’t strong enough. The Arresting Hook System got better damping, changed the shape of the hook and made it and where it connects with the airframe, much stronger. During tests over the last five months, F-35C test pilots had to deliberately land their aircraft on the nose gear to mimic what can happen when pitching [wot? the deck pitches] seas may drive a carrier deck right up into a plane as it lands. A Navy pilot I spoke with said the physical punishment of such a landing is “pretty impressive” — not to mention the stresses it can place on the plane. I’ll be in San Diego and on the Nimitz all next week covering the tests for you. :doh:

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/10/f-35 ... tzs-tests/

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2014, 05:06
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: IF youse've missed the billion [ruf internet quantification dontcha know] other pages talking about carrier landings earlier :devil: then here is a precis to prepare ye for Monde. I had to laugh at this sentence: "...As pilots, we are innately aware of several things going on with our aircraft at all times – one of those is our fuel level...." No kiddin'. :doh: :roll: But as always anyway.... it is a long screed so only part is below. I have forgotten the number of wires on NIMITZ - 3 or 4? - I'll look for an ANSwer. I'll presume it is still four as per the graphic for NIMITZ class of CVN from an LSO briefing from VX-23 some years ago now.
How it Works: F-35C Carrier Operations
28 Oct 2014 Feature Article

"...When at the stern, or back of the boat, pilots are at 800 feet in right echelon. When it’s time for them to land, the lead aircraft will break and his wingmen will break about 17 seconds afterwards. This will allow for the perfect 45 second interval between all landing aircraft. Once a pilot is downwind and heading toward the stern of the boat, they can descend to 600 feet. At this point, the pilot is 1.2 to 1.3 miles from the back of the ship and should have their gear down, flaps full down and arresting hook down. This is the start to a perfect approach.

Once in position, our pilots will start their left-hand descending turn to line up with the landing area on the boat. This is no easy task because the boat is always moving away from them, so beginning the turn at the back of the ship sets them up for a nice start to their landing. The second challenge is that the runway is on an eight degree angle to the left from the line the boat is traveling on. This slight angle means our pilots are constantly correcting for line-up as they’re coming down the chute.

Once lined up with the landing area, pilots use the data on their cockpit displays and a tool called the Fresnel Lens, or “ball,” on the deck of the ship to guide them to the wire. The Fresnel Lens is simply an amber light centered between two horizontal rows of green lights that lets each pilot know where they are on the glide slope at all times during the descent. If the “ball” is above the horizontal row of green lights, the pilot’s aircraft is high. If the ball is below the green lights, they are approaching low. If the ball shows red, the pilot is really low and could be in danger of hitting the boat, known as a ramp-strike. This is definitely not good.

As a second line of defense, all landings are monitored by a team of Landing Signal Officer’s (LSO) that are stationed just to the left of the landing area to watch every landing and grade that landing for safety. All LSOs are also pilots themselves. If there is trouble with an approach, the LSO will come on the radio and tell the pilot to add power, check his line-up, or wave-off if they’re making an unsafe approach. Ideally, if a pilot has a good start, flies a smooth approach, constantly corrects line-up, and keeps the ball in the middle of the lens they’ll be rewarded by catching a three- wire, which is considered excellent in terms of landings.

There are four arresting wires stretched across the deck and the Fresnel Lens is usually adjusted for the pilots to target the three-wire. This means that the pilot snags the third of the four wires with their arresting hook when landing. Once a pilot’s wheels touch down on the flight deck, they instantly go to full power on their throttles. That may seem counter-intuitive, but if you miss the wire and you pull the throttle to idle you’re going to be going swimming because the plane will not have the power to get airborne again. If they do miss the wires and go to full power they’ll be fine. This maneuver is called a “bolter.”

Once a pilot has successfully caught the wire and gone to full power, they’re going from about 145knts to 0knts in two seconds. It’s pretty eye-opening. Once they’re safely in the wire, one of the taxi directors will tell the pilot to throttle back and raise your hook. The pilot then quickly taxis out of the landing area because the next plane is probably already in the landing groove. Every 45 seconds this will happen until the recovery is over, then these planes will be turned around, refueled and made ready for the next launch."

Source: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/how-it- ... -a-carrier

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2014, 15:59
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:....The two jets are fully instrumented and are cleared to operate with a full flight envelope......


Wot!, no JPALS?? :roll:

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2014, 16:23
by spazsinbad
JPALS has certainly had some downs and ups: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=23791&p=250948&hilit=JPALS#p250948
"...Status
JPALS completed MS B in June 2008, with contract award on September 15, 2008. Sea-based JPALS IOC is 2016. The system is on schedule for installation in CVN 78, the lead ship of the Gerald R. Ford new-design aircraft carrier program...."

An earlier X-47B compatible JPALS like system is installed on any CVN which has hosted the X-47B. Meanwhile here is a recent 23 May 2014 double dutch explanation of a recent look at JPALS messed up by the FAA, USAF and ARMY declining to participate.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/parca/docs/20140 ... -jpals.pdf (1Mb attached below)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2014, 17:13
by spazsinbad
Introduction to GPS
28 April 2011 Zhang Liu; Navigation Engineer Northrop Grumman Corporation
Source: http://www.zhang-liu.com/tutorials/GPSTutorial.pdf (1.8Mb)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2014, 19:34
by spazsinbad
Naval Aviation Maintenance Officer Symposium 28-30 June 2011

http://www.amdo.org/JSF_Program_and_33_FW_Updates.pdf (3.5Mb)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2014, 21:34
by spazsinbad
Consider it SLATED...
Lockheed's F-35 fighter to start testing on USS Nimitz carrier
02 Nov 2014 (Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Chris Reese)
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp's (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet is slated to begin two weeks of developmental testing on board the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier, marking another key milestone for the Pentagon's biggest weapons program.

Weather permitting, the first of two F-35 C-model jets slated for the testing is due to arrive on the carrier on Monday. That will mark the first time the new warplane will land on a carrier using a tailhook that had be redesigned after initial problems engaging the cable.

The tailhook system has been tested [SLATED?] extensively on land.... [so there should be no probs]"

Source: https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/lockh ... 25346.html

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 02:15
by spazsinbad
I could have imagined the X-47B hook position but decided youse can....

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 13:32
by spazsinbad
Flight Test No DATE except I guess date of yesterday:
"Key flight test accomplishments to-date in the program include:

...F-35C
...
• Land-based steam and electromagnetic catapult launches
• Land-based fly-in arrestments
• Carrier approach and bolter handling qualities..."

Source: https://www.f35.com/about/life-cycle/testing

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 14:05
by spazsinbad
Have not seen a photo of a land catapult with pilot 'hand off stick' launch before but I think that was made clear earlier in a text? Whatever. Photo from a 2 page PDF brochure with details of the F-35C from LM here: https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/down ... /f-35c.pdf (0.8Mb)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 22:05
by spazsinbad
Just so you know - winnie the wheedler is on the case - FUD merchant supreme - however the aircraft have been HAMMERED already in Shake Rattle and Roll arrest testing (see previous videos and stories) so WTF? Over:
F-35 jet starts aircraft carrier drills
03 Nov 2014 Jeanette Steele

"...Winslow Wheeler at the Center for Defense Information also said it will be telling if either of the test planes develops engine problems in the days or weeks following the test landing.

“Carrier landings are very stressful on structure,” [no kidding - genius insight - just pure luck that the Cee has been designed and tested for it all] Wheeler said. “The recent engine problem and grounding occurred because of flexing of the engine casing, and the airframe itself has had some strength and cracking issues.”

Source: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/nov ... takeoff/2/

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 22:39
by cantaz
So slamming an aircraft repeatedly into concrete is not a sufficient approximation for slamming it repeated into an aircraft carrier? Damn those soft concrete, better start making runways out of steel.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 22:42
by Raptor_claw
First trap successful.
Also, other sources indicate both jets are onboard..
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/03/lockheed-martin-fighter-idUSL1N0ST2J320141103

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 22:43
by hookswing

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 23:03
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: Many thanks - worth putting the news here. Should another thread be started? Anyway - all good stuff - as they say. :mrgreen:
Lockheed F-35 fighter jet lands on US aircraft carrier-spokesman
03 Nov 2014 Andrea Shalal

"Nov 3 (Reuters) - The first of two Lockheed Martin Corp F-35C fighter jets landed successfully on the USS Nimitz off the coast of San Diego on Monday, marking the first time the new warplane has landed on an aircraft carrier using its tailhook system, a spokesman [Joe DellaVedova] said...."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/ ... J320141103

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 23:18
by XanderCrews

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 23:34
by spazsinbad
Air Framers Do a QUICK repair....

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 23:37
by lamoey

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 23:51
by Raptor_claw

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 23:52
by cantaz
Thanks for the video link!

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 00:06
by sferrin
Good thing it caught the 3rd wire or we'd be hearing all kinds of innuendo about how the F-35 isn't an effective carrier aircraft. :roll:

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 00:14
by SpudmanWP
If it was any good , it wouldn't have missed the first two ;)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 00:15
by spazsinbad
Again thanks for the video - so the 'greybeardtail' CF-03 got the first one. I'll post a pic from vid soonish.... I was looking for photos earlier but.... and as 'sferrin' said above it is the three wire. AND it got out of the spaghetti UNAIDED! :doh: :mrgreen:

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 00:21
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Wahoo!

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 01:07
by arcturus
This is a sight I've waited a long time to see. 8)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 02:32
by spazsinbad
This screenshot shows the No.4 wire with the BARRICADE sheave empty, as per the diagram. The Barricade can be rigged very quickly using the empty sheave. Diagram from: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA432176 (PDF)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 02:44
by quicksilver
arcturus wrote:This is a sight I've waited a long time to see. 8)


A beautiful thing to behold. And, relative silence to go along with it as most of the trolls have crawled back under their respective bridges.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 02:56
by smsgtmac
SpudmanWP wrote:If it was any good , it wouldn't have missed the first two ;)

Well, 'technically' it only completely missed the first one :wink:

Can hardly wait for some ne'er-do-well to seize onto the irrelevant minutia as signs of a 'problem' or gasp! --a 'failure'.

Yea verily Spaz. Good idea. We need a new thread, because three-four years from now, NOBODY is going to be looking for the first carrier landings at Lakehurst. :D

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 03:08
by airframe
spazsinbad wrote:This screenshot shows the No.4 wire with the BARRICADE sheave empty, as per the diagram. The Barricade can be rigged very quickly using the empty sheave. Diagram from: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA432176 (PDF)


Hi spaz, AFB from DT, betcha didn't recunize me with my silk scarf and flying goggles,,,beautiful approach and arrestment for the F-35c on the Old Nimitz, anyway, great to run into you over here bro,,, but I was hoping CF-05 was on final for a two ship, but hopefully before the end of the next two weeks????

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 03:18
by bring_it_on

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 03:27
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'brung_it_with_ya' for video - new fred by pop request of two here: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=26634

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 04:21
by popcorn
smsgtmac wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:If it was any good , it wouldn't have missed the first two ;)

Well, 'technically' it only completely missed the first one :wink:

Can hardly wait for some ne'er-do-well to seize onto the irrelevant minutia as signs of a 'problem' or gasp! --a 'failure'.

Yea verily Spaz. Good idea. We need a new thread, because three-four years from now, NOBODY is going to be looking for the first carrier landings at Lakehurst. :D

Great sequence smagtmac.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 05:28
by neptune
[quote="popcorn"][...Good idea. We need a new thread, because three-four years from now, NOBODY is going to be looking for the first carrier landings at Lakehurst../quote]

.....second that emotion! :)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 05:31
by robert117
This must be causing quite the stir over at SNAFU; after all, just a few days ago Sol posted this assertion that the F-35 wouldn't be able to handle the force of a carrier landing (and exactly how is he in a position to know that?):

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2014/11/f-35-news-can-plane-take-carrier.html

Let's see how the trolls in Sol-land are handling this now...

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2014/11/f-35c-lands-on-carrier-so-did-c.html

Wow, it looks like Sol totally admitted that he was just pulling an assertion out of his a$$ and was totally wrong!

Just kidding! Apparently, the carrier landing is now "no big deal," despite being a "make or break moment" prior to actually succeeding. Now that the F-35 has shown it can land on a carrier, Sol has commenced his tactical backpedaling maneuver, and is saying that this "wasn't the real test," (after all, a C-130 also landed on a carrier, and I think a U-2 did as well!), before making a few more totally unsubstantiated "the death spiral IS TOO HAPPENING!" statements.

The more I check out SNAFU and other sources like it, the more I'm absolutely galled that these people are actually considered to have valid opinions by some, and are in some cases even used as sources for media puff pieces.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 05:53
by spazsinbad
'robert117' this place - F-16.net SubSection F-35 - is notorious over at several places (such as Pprune) for being 'the worst'. This flipflopping will be never ending until we all cark it. :devil: Reminds me of the singing fish on the wall from the Sopranos "Take me to the river, put in the water..." :mrgreen: Opinions are one thing however here I like to think people try to back them up with references that have some credibility. Sadly our references have no credibility at these 'other' places. So the self-defeating 'death spiral' at these other places will continue until they disappear up their own whatname. :doh:


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 06:32
by popcorn
neptune wrote:
popcorn wrote:[...Good idea. We need a new thread, because three-four years from now, NOBODY is going to be looking for the first carrier landings at Lakehurst../quote]

.....second that emotion! :)

Actually credit smsgtmac for that quote.. I agree it's a good idea.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 07:05
by spazsinbad
'airframe' said: "Hi spaz, AFB from DT, betcha didn't recunize me with my silk scarf and flying goggles..." OK gotcha. My that is a slow forum. More excitement here. :drool:

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2014, 04:45
by spazsinbad
Just because all of the links here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=26708&p=282536&hilit=Manazir#p282536 appear on this thread I thought that this thread was appropriate for this look at the JBD on a CVN and other Horneto stuff - particularly the use of the towel racks - so maybe it should go on the follow on thread anyway [racks] - you decide. Screenshot is from the video:

JBD CVN Catapult Towel Rack HORNET F/A-18


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2014, 06:38
by SpudmanWP
I would love to see the overhead view (HOTAS movements) of the F-35C's landing.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2014, 07:09
by spazsinbad
Not sure if this is a repost - so apologies - but anyway perhaps LM will read this thread and comply? Seems as though they have thought the SLO MO arrest onboard was useful so anyway.... Here is the superHorny teaser:

Super Hornet FA-18E Control Movements Carrier Landing

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2014, 07:48
by spazsinbad
Earlier there was concern about the F-35C bumpy catapult ride. Here is a Super Hornet F-18E and screenshot of a right hand on towel rack.

Ely Flight 14 Nov 2012 Guest Blogger ~ Captain Dave Kindley, PMA 265
"...Imagine that you’re sitting on the deck of a carrier, about 50 feet above sea level. It’s the darkest night you’ve ever seen, not even starlight to give some illumination. You’ve just signaled the shooter that you’re ready to go. Your Super Hornet is straining at the holdback fitting, 44,000 pounds of thrust visible as two bars of superheated fury roaring into the jet blast deflector behind you. You’ve got one hand on the throttle, holding it in afterburner. The other holds on to the towel rack handle on the canopy, safely keeping your hand from the stick because the jet knows a cat shot and how to rotate away from the waves.

Then the cat hits you, a mule kick to your back. You’ve already shoved your head back against the seat but you’re pressed harder as you accelerate from a standing start to 150 mph in about 1 ½ seconds. But as soon as it starts, it’s over and you’re airborne and climbing away. Your senses are reeling, and all you see ahead is blackness, no reference at all to up or down. You remind yourself to trust the glowing green symbols in your HUD and you climb away, one adventure behind you, another about to begin....”


Source: http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index ... ost_id=108[/quote]

SLOW MOTION Catapult Super Hornet F/A-18E


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2014, 02:42
by spazsinbad
This video is OLD now but relevant to the OLD info on this thread. Towards the end youse'll see the arrest testing at wherever at end of 2012. I'll excerpt these bits and put them in the NEW other thread soonish but soonish like. Hokay?

Found a HIGHER QUALITY Video published one year earlier (as one would expect) so low quality one replaced.
F-35 Year In Review (2012)
Published on Jan 18, 2013 AIRBOYD Credit: Naval Air Systems Command NAVAIR JSF Program

"Highlights of the flight test accomplishments by the Patuxent River F-35 Integrated Test Force in 2012. Includes weapons separations and arrested landings."



Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2014, 06:07
by spazsinbad
These excerpts from video above more relevant here than in newer thread so here goes....

F-35C 2012 ITF Pax River Land Arrest & Steam Cats


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2014, 14:34
by sferrin
Wish they'd release the 2013 year in review. It's got some good stuff in it.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2014, 20:03
by spazsinbad
Yes it is mysterious how these Year In Review Videos from NavAir do not seem to gain traction however the good news is here it is at good quality. We await the 2014 version eh. It seems the videos are published late and overlooked? Anyway it seems we have a pointer to this video somewhere on this forum at about the time it was published in MAY this year..... but anyway... here 'tis again. AND... AGAIN... Earlier: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=13143&p=271028&hilit=Integrated#p271028

F-35 Lightning II Integrated Test Force 2013 Year in Review
Published on May 7, 2014 NAVAIRSYSCOM

"Highlights of the flight test accomplishments by the Patuxent River F-35 Lightning II Integrated Test Force (ITF) in 2013. Video produced by the Pax River ITF Lockheed Martin Multimedia Team."


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2015, 23:40
by spazsinbad
Searching this thread for 'carpet' revealed for such instances.... so dusting out said carpet is relevant here? Must be fun for SINBAD.
Semi-autonomous aviation controls coming to the fleet
05 Feb 2015 Meghann Myers

"They say the most stressful job in the world is landing on an aircraft carrier at night in rough weather. On Thursday, Navy aviation officials are carrying out another round of tests on a control system that promises to take the edge off that sometimes harrowing experience.

Meanwhile, showgoers at the Naval Future Force Science and Technology Expo in Washington, D.C., got a chance to sit in a faux cockpit and try out the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division’s system.

Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies, or MAGIC CARPET, is already integrated into the F-35Cs that pilots from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron will take for a spin, NAWCAD aerospace engineer Steve Moss told Navy Times on Wednesday.

MAGIC CARPET allows a jet to self-correct its altitude, Moss said, as opposed to the constant pushing and pulling pilots do now to stay on course while approaching a carrier.

“You’re constantly moving the throttles, because a jet’s engine is always lagging,” Moss said. “So you’re doing a three-part power correction: You add the power to go forward, pull power off because it’s always too much, then add power because you’ve overcorrected.”

With the other hand, Moss added, the pilot is steering the jet left or right to line up with the carrier. But with every lateral movement, the plane tilts and loses altitude, so the pilot has to balance every movement with another shot from the throttle.

“It’s very complicated and very hard to do, and hard to keep that currency up,” Moss said. “So you have to keep training for it, keep taking training life off of our jets to do that.”

With MAGIC CARPET, pilots are able to steer the jet to the carrier without losing lift, because self-adjusting flaps in the jet’s wings compensate for any path changes, without having to hit the throttle.

“So let’s have the flight controls do the hard part, do the integration part,” Moss said. “Instead of fixed flaps, raise the flaps up a few degrees so you have authority, so the longitudinal stick is now commanding symmetric flaps.

“You’re not fighting it, you’re just flying,” Moss said.

To make things even easier, the cockpit’s heads-up display show’s the carrier’s relative velocity, taking into account its horizontal movement, to help pilots aim at the flight deck.

The Navy’s F-35Cs come with MAGIC CARPET, Moss said, while the fleet’s F/A-18 Hornets will get an upgrade in the 2017-18 time frame.

The integration will be purposely slow, he added. First-tour pilots won’t be flying with MAGIC CARPET, he said, but second-tour pilots who’ve mastered the old system will upgrade.

But the question is, will they want to? Navy fighter pilots have a notoriously difficult job, and are well known for the pride they take in mastering it.

“Every single pilot that’s flown in this has come in with the hairy eyeball like,’ Are you kidding me? You can’t change this. You can’t change the way we fly the aircraft — it’s supposed to be hard,’ ” Moss said.

Their attitudes quickly changed to, “Why don’t we have this already?” he added."

Source: http://hrana.org/news/2015/02/semi-auto ... the-fleet/

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2015, 18:01
by spazsinbad
ALL ABOARD! Gentlemen START YOUR ENGINES....
First airborne flights completed for MAGIC CARPET
16 Mar 2015 Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD)

"NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – Recently, engineers and test pilots at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division successfully transitioned the newly-developed F/A-18 flight control software called MAGIC CARPET from the virtual world of the simulator to the blue skies above the Chesapeake Bay.

MAGIC CARPET is an acronym for Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies. The software is designed to make landing on an aircraft carrier easier by maintaining a commanded glideslope and angle of attack, giving the pilot the opportunity to focus more attention on maintaining a proper line-up.

On Feb. 6, Navy test pilot Lt. Cmdr. Tyler Hurst flew the first flight in “Salty Dog 222,” an F/A-18F Super Hornet assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23. On Feb. 11, Navy test pilot Lt. Brent Robinson flew a follow-on test flight to expand the MAGIC CARPET’s flight envelope.

“With the initial set of flights, we were able to confirm that these new flight control laws performed very much in line with our predictions from the simulators,” said Robinson, MAGIC CARPET project officer. “The initial airborne response characteristics observed in both Path and Rate modes with both Full and Half flaps are very encouraging.”

Test pilots from VX-23, working closely with engineers manning the control rooms of the Atlantic Test Ranges, will put the flight control system “through its paces over the next few weeks with myriad of approaches and touch-and-go landings in preparation for the initial shipboard testing,” Robinson said.

The engineering group responsible for developing the flight control software, new heads-up displays, and simulators was encouraged by the first initial flights, which included practice field carrier landings.

“After the first test flights, we needed only minor tweaking of a few feedback gains which showed good correlations with our aerodynamic models and flight response predictions,” said James “Buddy” Denham, a senior engineer in the aeromechanics division at NAVAIR. “We also received very positive feedback on the enhanced heads-up displays, we are now completing much of the off-nominal work, and the initial results and pilot feedback are favorable.”

Test pilots, engineers, and landing signal officers (LSO) from VX-23 will continue to test MAGIC CARPET on F/A-18E/F aircraft through nominal and off-nominal approaches in the coming weeks, leading up to an at-sea testing period scheduled for later this year."

Source: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=5864

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2015, 01:50
by neptune
[quote="spazsinbad...MAGIC CARPET..... giving the pilot the opportunity to focus more attention on maintaining a proper line-up..[/quote]

This is a great enhancement and achievement for Naval Aviators and I am certainly looking forward to when it can be implemented across the board in all carrier a/c including the Dassault Rafale.

No question, great stuff.....but...given this is limited to "tail-hooks" and the dynamics are greatly more involved than the land based a/c requirements. Now that it is a given that Magic Carpet is a goal and/ or a reference, how will it compare/ complement JPALS as implemented by the X-47 and is to be implemented by the JSF and Helos. Do you see these Magic Carpet algorithms being integrated into JPALS, or is JPALS another independent technology that is future oriented and a competitor to Magic Carpet?

To me, an Aviator is a "tail-hook" flyer and automated landings do not mitigate that distinction and ability to ride the seat. Is this great advance with Magic Carpet ( a great thing!) going to be enhanced by the precision of JPALS and provide even better approach and engagement control for the a/c/ aviator; or not?

Unlike the "tail-hook", I have had landings when it was impossible for anyone to tell the instant when the wheels made contact and we landed and quit flying (load shifted off the lift surfaces, onto the gear); different conditions (hydroplaning was involved) and not to digress. Perhaps this is why the Air Force and Army have backed off the JPALS wagon for a while??.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2015, 02:21
by spazsinbad
JPALS is an aid to FIND the runway/carrier. Then - because of the precision guidance made available - JPALS can allow an 'auto landing aircraft' (Super Hornet/F-35BorC/X-47B/UCLASS) with / without sentient beings inside, to land on the carrier without other intervention (except in emergency when for example the X-47B could be waved off during a carrier approach when near/in the groove by those few individuals responsible for safety - LSOs / Air Boss). JPALS has been demonstrated in this auto land mode very successfully with the X-47B; whilst JPALS continues to be refined for use by the humans in their respective aircraft. JPALS is much more than just a precision carrier approach I hope is understood. It is effective out to some 200 NM for getting aircraft to the carrier without the JPALS signals being intercepted. Then the closer the aircraft approaches more precision is provided by the JPALS system. JPALS is mostly outside the aircraft (with some enabling tech inside said aircraft).

Conversely MAGIC CARPET is inside the Super Hornet (with some enabling tech outside - I'll guess that will include JPALS when it is available for 'auto landings'). The equivalent in the F-35C is 'Delta Flight Path'. Magic Carpet is moving the aircraft control surfaces in such a way that the pilot is able to concentrate on fewer things during a carrier approach, as has been described a few times now on this thread. Not sure if a RAFALE has the capability to have a 'magic carpet' system installed. [Disclaimer: I'm only interested in F-35s and Super Hornets at this stage of their respective development.]

These computer controlled aircraft have their carrier approach precision made easier to achieve with all these new technologies - both inside and outside their respective aircraft. We saw the precision of the F-35C carrier approaches with unbelievable centreline landings and no.3 wire arrests/no unintentional bolters (however we know that it is likely deliberate off center landings - within limits - may have been tested [not sure on that score - certainly tested ashore as has been noted]). Then the video showing seven centreline landings of the X-47B could only be described as: the same approach repeated seven times! I jest. Hammering the centreline at touch down - aligned fore and aft - is not easy because said line is moving from left to right all the time - no buts or ifs.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2015, 02:56
by popcorn
Good explanation Spaz... these tech things tend to get jumbled up so that helps clarify.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2015, 03:46
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'popcorn' - one reason why I started the online PDFs about 'how to deck land' was my effort to learn about the new tech involved today but to help others understand the process - my old experience was with virtually very little technology except AoA Indexer/Mirror and a CCA at night (with an LSO NOT yelling at me). There are not that many conventional deck landers out there and thank heavens a goodly bunch of them have made an effort to explain it - at least online - sadly NepLex is no longer with us to continue his good works. I missed this part from 'neppie' above:
"...Unlike the "tail-hook", I have had landings when it was impossible for anyone to tell the instant when the wheels made contact and we landed and quit flying (load shifted off the lift surfaces, onto the gear); different conditions (hydroplaning was involved) and not to digress. Perhaps this is why the Air Force and Army have backed off the JPALS wagon for a while??."


I think various reports have said the US Air Force have declined to be involved with developing JPALS for their use because of sequestration effects/to save money; whilst they have a good amount of precision approach help already. Moving ships in a seaway are a different kettle of fish - with/without the spud locker. The US Army (and USMC I'll wager) would like to have a portable JPALS developed not only for fixed wing but for helo approaches - so I'll guess the portable JPALS is also on the back burner - ship JPALS no. Below the yellow marked ramp is the spud locker - look at those marks just above the line! I'm hoping they have been made NOT by any Fixed Wing Tyres. :doh:


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2015, 11:03
by gtg947h
spazsinbad wrote:. Below the yellow marked ramp is the spud locker - look at those marks just above the line! I'm hoping they have been made NOT by any Fixed Wing Tyres.


In all seriousness, I think those might be grease/oil spots from aircraft that were parked there... similar spots elsewhere on the deck resemble the spots in well-seasoned parking lots.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2015, 16:22
by spazsinbad
Thanks. Fair enough - did not think of that. Perhaps a visiting V-22 was melting the deck there? :mrgreen: BTW the angle deck on CdeG is 5.5 degrees - same same as HMAS Melbourne - which makes/made that moving to the right centreline less problematic, compared to a 9-10 degree CVN angle deck.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 04:04
by spazsinbad
Photo shows the ramp deck part as suggested by 'gtg947h' : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... aulle_(R91)_underway_2009.jpg#/media/File:Charles_De_Gaulle_(R91)_underway_2009.jpg
The French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91) underway in 2009

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2015, 19:13
by spazsinbad
:doh: BTW in the above comment on the CdeG I meant to type 'RAMP DECK PARK' (not 'part') DUH. :doh:

MORon the Magic Carpet (now also 'Delta Flight Path / same same F-35C with IDLC). PDF attached of two pages has all the text and NOW the pretty pictcha has been removed. :( Graphic below now is from previous post about these matters (modified) from:
STRIKE TEST NEWS | Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 Newsletter
2014 Issue VX-23

Caption: "Proposed F/A-18E/F Heads Up Display (HUD) upgrades, including a Ship Referenced Velocity Vector (SRVV), to aid carrier landings"

Source: http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index ... oad&id=820 (2Mb)

Safer Approach Easier, more accurate and repeatable carrier landings promise improvements
13-26 APR 2015 Graham Warwick

"New flight-control and guidance software for carrier landings will require a culture change within the naval aviation community if it is to deliver on its promise of easier, safer and more repeatable recoveries that reduce pilot workload and wear and tear on the aircraft.

U.S. Naval Air Systems Command (Navair) has completed land-based testing of the Magic Carpet software in the Boeing F/A-18E/F at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, and shortly will begin at-sea evaluations on an aircraft carrier of the U.S. East Coast.

Tests show the new flight-control laws and head-up display (HUD) symbology provide the reductions in pilot workload that were predicted in simulations. The Magic Carpet software upgrades are slated to be fielded on the F/A-18E/F in 2018.

In a carrier approach, the pilot must maintain a glideslope angle to clear the stern of the ship and stay aligned with the centerline of the flight deck to keep the wings clear of the superstructure, but also control the angle of attack to within 1 deg. to ensure the lowered arrestor hook catches the wire.

The pilot manually follows optical glideslope guidance from the ship, controlling descent rate with power, airspeed with pitch attitude and heading with roll. But these control axes are cross-coupled, and maintaining glideslope, lineup and angle of attack requires constant throttle and stick inputs.

“If I make a small power correction, I change angle of attack, which affects glideslope, and at the same time I can drift of lineup. There are a lot of things going on,” says Lt. Brent Robinson, test pilot with U.S. Navy evaluation squadron VX-23 at Patuxent River....

...In Magic Carpet, gains and settings in the digital flight-control computer are fine-tuned to hold angle of attack tightly while longitudinal and lateral stick inputs are decoupled. “The primary factor in glideslope is longitudinal stick and in lineup it is lateral stick,” he says.

The control system melds aileron, stabilator and rudder control to maintain attitude. Then the flaps are raised a few degrees from their nominal half or fully deployed position. This gives the control system a few degrees of flap movement to use for direct lift control.

“With aft stick, the flaps lower slightly to increase lift, the stabilator balances pitch, and I get almost pure vertical movement because angle of attack is being held for me. Near-pure lift increase or decrease gives me very high-fidelity control over glideslope,” Robinson says.

The flight-control computer also calculates and maintains the ideal glideslope — 3.5 deg. — using sensed windspeed and ship speed, either estimated by the pilot from the carrier’s wake or called out by the landing signal ofcer on deck.

If high or low, the pilot can make a longitudinal stick input, hold it until centered on the optical guidance “meatball,” then release the stick, and the aircraft will return to the ideal glideslope. “Now I have fine control available. I need to make much less input,” he says.

The new glideslope-holding flightcontrol law is called Delta Path. Magic Carpet also includes a “Rate” mode, which holds flightpath command and not glideslope. This is for use in the pattern and holds bank angle and pitch attitude in the turn to intercept the glideslope.

The other part of Magic Carpet is new HUD symbology that ties the flight control changes together. This includes a horizontal line drawn 3.5 deg. down from the horizon. If this is close to the optical guidance cue from the ship, Robinson explains, the aircraft will be near the required glideslope.

The bigger piece of the new symbology is the ship-referenced velocity vector. “This is referenced to the ship by basic geometry from the ship speed, and if I put it on the centerline and hold 3.5-deg. glideslope, I will land on the centerline,” Robinson says.

Simulator and flight tests indicate that, of the decrease in pilot workload and increase in the accuracy and repeatability of landings from using Magic Carpet, three-quarters come from the flight-control changes and a quarter from the HUD symbology, he continues....

...“When Magic Carpet comes to the fleet in the next few years, there has to be a large cultural change for pilots,” says Robinson. “We are attempting to make this the primary mode of landing and to make manual and autothrottle approaches obsolete.”

Presently, competition between pilots is a major factor in improving their manual-approach flying skills. “We make it competitive. It’s part of the learning curve, of staying sharp. Everyone wants a better score,” he adds.

“With Magic Carpet we will lose that competitive edge, but it will be far more safe and repeatable and will make it easier on maintaining the jets and the aircraft carriers,” Robinson concludes. “But it will be hard to change the mindset. I expect it will start out slow and be phased into the fleet.”

Source: AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY 13-26 APR 2015

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2015, 12:22
by spazsinbad
Paddles Monthly - APARTS Revival [‘Automated Performance and Readiness Training System’]
April 2013 LCDR Stan “Pleber” Hanley, LSO School

"...The transition path from APARTS to iParts has presented us with unique challenges over the past few years. Most recently, the funding for new systems has dried up. However, we are lucky that iParts has received enough funding to be on "life support" until the fiscal climate improves. Until that time, we at the LSO School have taken a few steps to improve the reliability of APARTS until iParts becomes fully online. We have made significant progress in this endeavor, but we still need your help.

As you may know, APARTS's flaws combined with the destructive capability of NMCI erased the LSO School database some time ago. Over the past month, we have slowly begun to rebuild the database. Currently, we have received over 650,000 passes, but we are still waiting on a few air wings. It is important that we get this data, so if you have not yet sent it, do so. First, it brings us into compliance with the CNAF instruction regarding the LSO School database. Second, it allows NAVAIR and fleet forces the ability to analyze this data for historical trends. Most recently, the data is being used to analyze the hook skip bolter rate for the fleet to compare with the future capability of the Joint Strike Fighter. It's something good to talk about over beer. Additionally, we are uploading the data to the iParts server. Because iParts is a modern program, we will be able to store all CV performance data in a centralized database for the first time...."

Source: http://hrana.org/wp-content/uploads/201 ... il2013.pdf (0.8Mb)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2015, 19:08
by neptune
[quote="neptune.....MAGIC CARPET..... giving the pilot the opportunity to focus more attention on maintaining a proper line-up..quote]


Latest Up date on Magic Carpet 24Apr15

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/04/24/navy- ... hter-jets/

Navy Starts Sea Testing New Carrier Landing Software for Fighter Jets

By Kris Osborn | Friday, April 24th, 2015

The Navy is preparing for its first at-sea test of a new software program for F-18s designed to make it easier for the multi-role fighters to land on carriers. “We’re going to take it to the ship this month,” Rear Adm. Michael Manazir, Director of Air Warfare, told Military​.com in an interview. The Navy will test the automated landing software system at sea following a string of recent successful land-based tests at Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md.

The software is called Magic Carpet, an acronym for Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies. The technology is slated to deploy by 2019 on F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and E/A-18G Growler electronic jamming aircraft. It is designed to make landing on an aircraft carrier easier by maintaining a commanded glideslope and angle of attack, giving the pilot the opportunity to focus more attention on maintaining a proper line-up, a Navy statement said.

“A pilot can take symbology on the HUD (heads up display) and he can move it to a symbol or a place on the flight deck and let go of the controls. The airplane knows with that symbol that is where I want to land. It will continually land on that spot,” Manazir explained. The software helps the approaching aircraft lock in on the correct landing approach, removing the need for the pilot to continuously adjust the aircraft. Landing on a carrier requires the pilot to account for the aircraft’s speed, the speed of the ship along with wind and weather considerations. Pilots seek to maintain the proper glide slope as they approach the carrier deck.

“When we land an aircraft on an aircraft carrier, it is kind of a three connection thing. You see the deviation, you correct, you re-correct and then you correct one more time as you go so there you are kind of chasing the parameters,” Manazir said. “With magic carpet, the pilot can move the stick and move reference point and the stick does not have to re-correct. That is where the airplane is going to go. It is control law software – and it actually moves the flight control surfaces to make that work — to where the aircraft is going to go. It is not just symbology,” Manazir said.

Navy test pilot Lt. Brent Robinson said the recent land-based flight and landing of Magic Carpet showed the technology could perform as was demonstrated in simulations. “With the initial set of flights, we were able to confirm that these new flight control laws performed very much in line with our predictions from the simulators,” said Robinson, a Magic Carpet project officer. “The initial airborne response characteristics observed in both Path and Rate modes with both Full and Half flaps are very encouraging. (Might this lead to "flaperon" controls for the F-18s??)

The flight control algorithms for Magic Carpet were developed by Naval Air Systems Command and the Office of Naval Research. If Magic Carpet becomes widely used throughout the Navy and emerges as a new standard for landing aircraft on carriers, pilots could then use more of their valuable training time working on weapons systems and other key avionics issues instead of practicing as much on how to land the plane on a carrier, Navy officials said.

Seems like this is lead by a visual selection/indication (reference) by the pilot; where as JPALS uses differential GPS to place the tailhook, any thoughts for discussion??

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2015, 19:27
by spazsinbad
Perhaps reviewing what has been artickled and what was discussed recently in this thread would be helpful. Think of it this way: MAGIC CARPET and Delta Flight Path are one and the same in effect for the Super Hornet and F-35C (and enabled in the other two to be used as required - ashore) respectively. JPALS is a different system that will be used by both aircraft to enable auto landings down to manual landings as required. JPALS will be used some hundreds of miles from the ship - all the way down to arrest as the JPALS becomes more and more accurate - whereas MC/DFP is used only 'in the groove' on approach to arrest. However as in the case of the F-35A/B doing conventional landings ashore then the SH/Cee can use the same there also.

This WARWICK quote from above article is noteworthy:
"...The new glideslope-holding flightcontrol law is called Delta Path. Magic Carpet also includes a “Rate” mode, which holds flightpath command and not glideslope. This is for use in the pattern and holds bank angle and pitch attitude in the turn to intercept the glideslope...."

Whilst this answers the SHornet FLAP question from same source:
".... ...In Magic Carpet, gains and settings in the digital flight-control computer are fine-tuned to hold angle of attack tightly while longitudinal and lateral stick inputs are decoupled. “The primary factor in glideslope is longitudinal stick and in lineup it is lateral stick,” he says.

The control system melds aileron, stabilator and rudder control to maintain attitude. Then the flaps are raised a few degrees from their nominal half or fully deployed position. This gives the control system a few degrees of flap movement to use for direct lift control. [DLC]

“With aft stick, the flaps lower slightly to increase lift, the stabilator balances pitch, and I get almost pure vertical movement because angle of attack is being held for me. Near-pure lift increase or decrease gives me very high-fidelity control over glideslope,” Robinson says...." [THE HEAVE EFFECT used by F-35C also in wot is called IDLC Integrated DLC]

BACK in this thread would be this article: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=280314&hilit=Tegler#p280314 ORIGINAL INPUT: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20155&p=249976&hilit=Tegler#p249976
F-35C Integrated Direct Lift Control: How It Works IDLC will make carrier approaches easier
09 Oct 2012 Eric Tegler

"...In a few years the F-35C’s flight control system will pair with the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) to enable data-linked approaches controlled from the carrier. IDLC will take relevant incoming data from the flight control computer and aid in making the process that much more precise.

With its larger wing and flaps and control harmony, the F-35C benefits more from IDLC than its sister variants. But they too enjoy more precise approach control with the system, Buus maintains. And he adds that it could [WILL with MAGIC CARPET] be integrated into legacy aircraft such as the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler...."

Source: http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stor ... -it-works/

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2015, 21:20
by spazsinbad
The VENERABLE 'HOOVER' S-3 VIKING in a calm sea state gets down nicely as if on AUTO


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2015, 08:05
by spazsinbad
IF not on this thread but others there was discussion about BINGO fuel and 'why does a carrier aircraft try to land at MCLW Maximum Carrier Landing Weight OR go here for RCLW = Required Carrier Landing Weight:

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=24111&p=253669&hilit=RCLW#p253669

Anyhoo this story from APPROACH - USN Safety Magazine is a great illustration of the mental/whatever else gymnastics required for getting back with the MAX fuel - OR NOT! :doh:
That Nagging Feeling
Nov-Dec 2014 APPROACH Mag'n LT KORY KEYMER VFA-15

"It was a sunny afternoon in the Gulf of Oman, with a hint of clouds on the horizon. The USS George H. W. Bush was on her second month of the long, 9-month deployment, and I was just starting to get used to flight operations in our new AOR.

We thoroughly briefed a 1.5-hour day launch and night recovery, and everything went as planned – until the return home. After the mission portion of the flight, I fenced out, came back and checked in with strike and marshal. They gave standard instructions for a normal CV 1 approach.

Once I commenced, I completed my habit pattern of adjusting gross weight to arrive at max trap on the ball. I dumped my extra fuel and reset the bingo bug to briefed tank state. Passing through 5,000 feet, marshal told me to switch to approach button 17. I checked in with approach, and they passed, “99 MOVLAS, Hornets half flaps, 33K.”

This was completely unexpected. Per the brief, it was supposed to be a normal case 3 recovery. At this point, I reached down and turned my dumps on to adjust the last 1,000 pounds required to reach the 33K fuel state. CATCC then said, “303, turn right 130.”

Another change! Every other time I’d executed the CV 1, it had been a standard, self-contained approach. To respond to the call, I took my hand off the dump switch to actuate the comm switch and then executed my right hand turn to 130. I continued to fly the aircraft by CATCC’s vectors to get to final bearing. As I was executing my turn to arrive on final bearing, things started to settle down. I returned to my normal habit patterns around the boat.

Something nagged at the back of my brain. I knew I’d forgotten something but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. Suddenly it dawned on me: fuel! I looked at my fuel gauge, and to my dismay found that I was only 500 pounds above tank state. I had taken my hand off the dump switch without resetting my bingo bug.

I turned off the dumps and assessed what my fuel state would be on the ball. Even if I held off on dropping the landing gear as long as possible, I would be just above tank state when I called the ball. Using my best radio voice, I called CATTC: “Approach, 303 is going to be tank on the ball.” This wasn’t what they were expecting, since just 5-10 minutes earlier I updated my fuel state well above tank. I sat there waiting for a response for what seemed like an eternity, knowing that everyone on board knew that I had screwed up. I was sure that all of the big wigs in CATCC were discussing what to do with me.

After a minute or so, I got heard the dreaded call: “303, clean up, take angels 2. Your signal is tank.” After my earlier mistake, I wasn’t going to screw up twice. I set the bingo bug to 3,000 pounds, which was the fuel required to execute a minimum-fuel profile to land at the nearest divert field with the minimum fuel state required by SOP.

Upon joining on my tanker, I realized that my night was nowhere near over. I got into the pre-contact position and found the refueling basket bouncing all over the place. The clouds on the horizon had moved in, and the same weather conditions that drove the boat into a MOVLAS approach were wreaking havoc on the basket. This would be a challenging plug under any conditions, but I had just made an idiot mistake and I knew it. Worse yet, I knew that everyone on board the ship knew it too. I was angry about getting into this situation, so I found myself recklessly stabbing at the basket. I jousted with the basket for what felt like 20 minutes to no avail. I looked down at my fuel (3,200 pounds) and realized I had maybe two more shots at getting in the basket before I had to divert.

It took everything I had to forget about what all of my friends were going to say and focus on nothing but getting into the basket. I pulled back into the pre-contact position and sat there for 10 seconds or so, wiggling my fingers and toes, releasing my anger, tension, worry, and shame. Once I had forgotten everything except for the task at hand, it became much easier. I got into the basket on my next try, with just 100 pounds above bingo fuel. Once I received enough gas to put me back at max trap on the ball, I got out of the basket and contacted CATTC to let them know I was tanking complete.

My night was still only half over. I had to come back and land on the carrier at night. Nothing had changed. It was still a MOVLAS recovery at night to a pitching deck. The only thing I had going for me was the valuable tool I had just practiced: compartmentalization. I forgot about everything else and told myself nothing else in the world mattered except flying the ball. I made my final radio call, thinking of nothing else except the next 15-18 seconds of my life; “303, Hornet ball, 4.8.” After recovering back aboard, I had to compartmentalize one more time. I had to face my ready room."

Source: http://www.public.navy.mil/comnavsafece ... ov-Dec.pdf (1.3Mb)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2015, 20:49
by spazsinbad
Some more on the MAGIC CARPET testing.... Original Story here: http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=86765
US Navy Tested the MAGIC CARPET Software to Assist F/A-18E/F/G Landing on Aircraft Carriers
28 Apr 2015 NavyRecognition

"...This underway marked the first use of the MAGIC CARPET technology on an aircraft carrier," said Lt. Cmdr. Dan Marzluff, assistant air operations officer. "This software greatly reduces misses and wave-offs, which translates into more time on-mission and makes us an overall more effective force."

MAGIC CARPET is software designed for F/A-18E/F/G aircraft that automatically adjusts the jet's speed and angle of attack in relation to the intended landing surface. Initial tests of the system took place in early February at Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md.

"The majority of flight operations with the system were touch-and-goes," said Marzluff. "We didn't have to actually land to determine how the software takes the aircraft to the flight deck."

Photo Caption: "ATLANTIC OCEAN (April 20, 2015) An F/A-18E Super Hornet attached to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 lands on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77). George H.W. Bush is conducting training exercises in the Atlantic Ocean. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Christopher D. Gaines/Released)" http://www.navyrecognition.com/images/s ... _VX_23.JPG


Source: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... riers.html

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2015, 19:45
by spazsinbad
First sea trials completed for MAGIC CARPET
07 May 2015 NAWCAD Public Affairs

"NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division engineers and test pilots successfully completed the first at-sea testing of the newly-developed F/A-18 flight control software on USS George H. W. Bush (CVN 77) April 20.

The Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies, or MAGIC CARPET, is designed to make landing on an aircraft carrier easier by incorporating direct lift control, an augmented pilot control mode that maintains a commanded glideslope, and improvements to heads-up display symbology tailored for the shipboard landing task.

Navy test pilot Lt. Brent Robinson hit the two wire as planned when he landed “Salty Dog 100,” an F/A-18F Super Hornet assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23.

“This was a huge technology milestone in the history of carrier landings,” said Robinson, MAGIC CARPET project officer. “What we saw at sea was essentially the same as the land-based testing we did at [Naval Air Station Patuxent River]. We are still analyzing the data, but from the [landing signal officer’s] position, the landings looked very good.”

NAWCAD engineers and VX-23 test pilots specifically used the two wire for testing because unlike most Nimitz-class carriers, CVN 77 has 3 arresting gear wires and aiming for the number 2 wire is standard operating procedure.

The flight test team, which included engineers from NAWCAD, the Atlantic Test Ranges, and industry partner Boeing, executed more than 180 touch-and-go landings with 16 arrested landings in the advanced control modes during three days of testing. The two F/A-18F test aircraft were flown in both nominal and off-nominal approaches and in varying wind conditions.

The engineering group responsible for developing the flight control software, new heads-up displays, and simulators was encouraged by the sea trials.

“This initial sea trial confirmed that carrier landings can be achieved at lower pilot workload while maintaining or reducing current touchdown dispersions performance,” said James “Buddy” Denham, a senior engineer in the aeromechanics division at NAVAIR. ”The results from this test clearly show the benefits we expected to achieve with this level of flight control augmentation. The data we have now collected in both the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the F-35C Lightning II in the Delta Flight Path mode show that the Navy’s fleet of tactical aircraft, to include the EA-18G Growler, is well on its way with a safer, more predictable method of accomplishing the unique naval aviation task of shipboard landings.”

According to Lt. Cmdr. Daniel Radocaj, carrier suitability testing department head at VX-23, MAGIC CARPET reduces touchdown dispersion, which refers to the repeatability of aircrafts' tailhooks to land in approximately the same spot on the carrier deck, and improves the overall success rate for carrier landings.

As an added benefit, MAGIC CARPET can help to minimize hard landings, reduce the number of required post-hard landing aircraft inspections, and improve overall aircraft availability. The results from this initial round of testing give good confidence that MAGIC CARPET can provide substantial benefits to reduce initial and currency training for pilots and lower the costs of Naval Aviation, said Radocaj.

Test pilots, engineers, and landing signal officers (LSO) from VX-23 will continue to test MAGIC CARPET demonstration software on F/A-18E/F aircraft for the remainder of 2015 and early 2016. Production-level software for the Fleet is scheduled to start flight testing in 2017, with general fleet introduction to follow via the F/A-18 and EA-18G program office."

PHOTO CAPTION: “Salty Dog 100,” an F/A-18F Super Hornet assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., lands on USS George H. W. Bush (CVN 77) Apr. 20, 2015. The landing was part of the first sea trials for MAGIC CARPET, new flight control software and display symbology for F/A-18 aircraft designed to make carrier landings less demanding for Navy pilots." http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/ ... 7-crop.jpg


Source: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=5904

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2015, 09:48
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: ONLY for the inna GEEKS for sure :devil: (mostly a woman talking so do not listen if youse have a problem) :doh:
Aircraft Carrier Communications - Military Aviation Scanner Audio
Uploaded on Jan 5, 2012 pdgls

"A collection of several recordings of carriers off the southern California coast when ducting propagation was in effect. Jets close to the carrier but above the duct were not heard or very weak. When recording one of them i was also watching a movie on the computer and a little of that can be heard. "Link engaged" and "switched channel" came from a audio feed i was using at the time. The main focus was to record passes where the pilots needed some help from the LSOs at night. Most of the passes had few or no calls from the LSOs other than the "roger ball". Most of these passes were cut out in the edit."

FROM elsewhere:
"Several clear and unique traffic calls after about 1hour:47mins:25secs such as advising when a qual had been completed. Some are two separate combined into one call - one right after the other."



Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2015, 01:35
by spazsinbad
More CARPET (never mind the quality - feel the width) of the MAGIC kind VIDEO explanation: NOW ON YOUTUBE - see below

It is interesting to me that the transcript of the explanations in the video is NOT entirely accurate - I'll add some important words in square brackets that I think are necessary.
TRANSCRIPT: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... 18A15E6C76 (magic carpet script_final.doc 26Kb)
NAVAIR Home | NAVAIR News | Flight Ready Video Gallery
Flight Ready: Magic Carpet

14 May 2015 NAVAIR

"MAGIC CARPET, which stands for Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies, is a new technology designed to lift the stress off of naval pilots who have to land on carriers. Watch to learn more about this control system that will reduce the pilot's workload and make carrier landings easier and safer."

NAVAIR Flight Ready: Magic Carpet
"The broader idea of MAGIC CARPET [Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies] is simply to make landing at the ship easier; to make it repeatable, to make it safer and just in general less work or easier for the pilots to do a very difficult task, to do that repeatedly.

Magic carpet is kind of a two-part program; it is a change to the flight controls on the Super Hornet so it adds direct lift control and then the other part is the HUD symbology, it gives us some ships cueing that makes it easier to land on the boat.

What we are doing differently here is we are really providing the pilot direct control of what he is trying to do which is to control the flight path; so the flight control computer is controlling and closing the loops around flight path, which is important for landing on the carrier and is something we don’t do today.

As you are trying to land on the boat, the boat is moving away from you, [AND TO THE] right, so you have to continuously chase after the boat to get to it. All of the symbology we have right now in the HUD, or in our heads up display, is kind of in reference to the actual airplane, so what is the airplane doing? Well, this new HUD symbology, you actually input the speed of the boat and it takes into account the winds, so now, it accounts for that movement of the boat, so I don't have to worry about that, so I don't have to lead, I don't have to have that experience to figure out what is the boat doing, I just put the velocity vector now in the landing area of the boat and that is exactly where the airplane goes because it already compensates for the movement of the boat.

It is going to reduce the workload so we can focus on maintaining the proper glide slope and proper approach so we don’t get too low and we don’t get too high and it will be easier for day and night and we can take that reduction in workload and stress overall throughout the flight and maybe apply that to other areas, to tactics or whatever. So they can focus more on that and make the ship landing a more administrative task.

It definitely makes it a lot safer. I flew about 30 touch and gos in a 2-hour period, and I don’t think I would have had the mental capacity to be able to do that safely if it wasn’t for this technology. And I think that is just going to make it safer when guys are coming back from long missions, six to seven hours over Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever and they come back to the boat, and they are tired and exhausted and this is just going to make it a no-brainer to land at the boat.

Another perspective is from the LSO perspective, the landing signal officer, the guys on the ship that are helping the planes land, safety is their number one concern, so (cut) the LSO knows, that the jet hopefully the throttle is linked up and the altitude of the jet is constant, so he is not worried as much about the new pilot, (cut) pulling the throttles back to idle and possible crashing into the back of the ship.

So to date, we are really getting very good correlation with our simulation results to what we are seeing in the airplane, so in terms of lowering the pilots workload, in terms of performance on the flight path, holding and controlling the meatball for landing is all there.

So the overall result has been much more repeatable, much more consistent between pilots even with different techniques and that is the goal with taking this to the fleet between new guys and very old Salty guys that have been around for 25-30 years, the deviations that you should expect are now going to be much smaller across the board.

It is awesome to be able to be in one of the first landings in Magic Carpet to experience this technology, and you know, I just want to tell everyone in the fleet that it is awesome and the first time anyone gets to fly it they are going to be like, “this is wow, this is what I want, this is what I need.”"

Source: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... 18A15E6C76 [magic carpet script_final.doc (26Kb) ]


VIDEO:
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... 4EAADC623C


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2015, 14:48
by spazsinbad
Now I know where I went RONG - I didna doo enough mathematicks in me head goldarnit? Wait WOT?
DoD Lab Day Celebrates Innovation At All Levels
21 May 2015 Megan Eckstein

"...Magic Carpet
NAVAIR senior engineer Buddy Denham said Magic Carpet creates two advantages for pilots trying to land on an aircraft carrier.

First, it turns control of the plane’s throttle and angle of attack over to flight control computers, allowing the pilot to focus on the glidepath instead of thinking about metrics like engine revolutions per minute.

“When he’s trying to do lineup and is banking left and right to line up, that will cause the airplane to settle today, and he has to get back into what he was happy with, the flightpath,” Denham said. “Now [with Magic Carpet], he’s not having to do the gymnastics and mathematics in his head.” [Oh NOES!] :mrgreen:

Second, it provides an enhanced heads-up display (HUD) symbology that gives direct feedback on the flightpath corrections, taking the guesswork out of trying to land on a carrier. [There is no guesswork darlin' otherwise - just different when oldeschule]

Denham said NAVAIR installed the two software changes into Super Hornets aboard USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77) and performed 200 landings from April 20 to 22. The tests showed the pilots performed better with the system, having better control over where their tailhooks hit with less work during approach.

The Bush testing was the phase 1 proof of concept demonstration, he said. The second phase, expected next year, will bring the system out to the fleet and conduct degraded mode testing and other software tests. Denham said he hopes to field the system by 2018. He said the Magic Carpet software would go on Super Hornets, and the Navy is working with Lockheed Martin to incorporate it into the F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter."

Source: http://news.usni.org/2015/05/21/dod-lab ... all-levels

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2015, 00:14
by spazsinbad
Bulk of this long screed is here: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=27414
Navy Air Boss: F-35C Advanced Sensors, Situational Awareness a ‘Game-Changer’
09 Jun 2015 Gidget Fuentes

"...The helmet doesn’t just protect the pilot’s head, Johnson said. It pulls and displays data for the pilot. Cameras around the aircraft provide views – a “360-degree, full situational awareness,” he said – that allow the pilot, literally, to see what’s below the jet without having to bank the jet as is needed with fourth-generation aircraft.

The advanced F-35 is touted as easy to fly, with advanced controls that enable almost a hands-free landing on an aircraft carrier at sea. That same capability – added into older aircraft via the Navy’s software project “Magic Carpet” – has been installed on some Super Hornets, Shoemaker said. It will mean pilots will have to conduct fewer Field Carrier Landing Practices, or FCLPs, before becoming proficient in the jet, and that reduction in required flight hours for training will help preserve the planes’ service life....

Source: http://news.usni.org/2015/06/09/navy-ai ... me-changer

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2015, 20:40
by jetnerd
[DELETED]

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2015, 21:38
by spazsinbad
There is a thread already with this video 'titled' EMALS/JPALS: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14115&p=292532&hilit=Newport#p292532

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2015, 22:37
by jetnerd
Thanks, Spazs, my bad. I've been out of town for a few days and thought I was onto something new. Shoulda searched! Moderators please delete that post, thanks.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2015, 00:35
by spazsinbad
No worries. IF anyone new saw that EMALS video then they can go to the EMALS thread to find out more.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2015, 00:54
by spazsinbad
Boeing helps test software that makes carrier landings easier and safer
Published on Jul 20, 2015 BOING!

"The U.S. Navy and Boeing recently tested the technology during successful sea trials onboard the USS George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier. It’s called MAGIC CARPET, Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies, and it helps guide pilots to the carrier deck."


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2015, 01:25
by quicksilver
Holy guacamole...

Are my aged eyes deceiving me or is that a NAVAIR engineer prominently featured in a contractor's infomercial? :wink:

Boeing didn't develop this stuff -- NAVAIR did (witness the audio in the video from :26-:30). It was first trialed in F-35C during DT-1 last fall ("Delta Path" or "Delta Flight Path").

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2015, 17:42
by spazsinbad
:devil: LADYhawke has KRAKEN the MAGIC CARPET Approach - so NavAir get Crackin'.... :mrgreen:

Magic Carpet Ladyhawke Kraken Carrier Approach Simulation


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2015, 13:26
by spazsinbad
Best simple explanation for MAGIC Carpentry I have seen so far - GO NAN!
First Sea Trials Completed for MAGIC CARPET
Naval Aviation News Summer 2015 Jennifer Neal

“The Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies, or MAGIC CARPET, automatically adjusts the jet’s speed and angle of attack in relation to the intended landing surface and includes improvements to the heads-up display, making it easier to land on an aircraft carrier. Initial tests of the system took place in early February at Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland.

“This was a huge technology milestone in the history of carrier landings,” said Navy test pilot Lt. Brent Robinson, MAGIC CARPET project officer. “What we saw at sea was essentially the same as the land-based testing we did at [Patuxent River].”

The flight test team, which included engineers from Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, the Atlantic Test Ranges and industry partner Boeing, executed more than 180 touch-and-go landings with 16 arrested landings in the advanced control modes during three days of testing. Two aircraft, an F/A-18E and an F/A-18F, were flown in ideal-and less-than-ideal approaches and in varying wind conditions.

“This initial sea trial confirmed that carrier landings can be achieved at lower pilot workload while maintaining or reducing current touchdown dispersions performance,” said James “Buddy” Denham, a senior engineer in the aeromechanics division at NAVAIR. Touchdown dispersions refer to the differences between the actual and ideal landing points.

The idea for MAGIC CARPET started with a desire to simplify carrier-based air operations and pilots’ carrier qualifications (CQ). Landing F/A-18s with current flight-computer software requires adjusting multiple, interconnected variables simultaneously.

“Normally when a pilot is attempting to manage glideslope, line-up and angle-of- attack all at the same time, a change in one of those parameters affects the other two,” Robinson said. “MAGIC CARPET lets us unlink those parameters, so when a pilot wants to change glideslope, all he has to do is push or pull on the stick. The system can essentially hold the ideal glideslope for the pilot, so he doesn’t have to make very large corrections. When he wants to make line-up changes, all he has to do is move the stick left or right.”

The new heads-up display design aided this process, which includes symbols tailored for the shipboard landing task. This effectively enhances the pilot’s situational awareness and inputs needed to capture and track those approach parameters, Denham said. [Sadly the graphics in the PDF do not show this at all - I'll look for better quality grafix]

Traditionally, landing an F/A-18 on a moving aircraft carrier requires months of training and hours of qualifications. MAGIC CARPET greatly reduces the amount of time required to qualify a pilot.

“CQs train pilots to learn how to effectively address and adjust each aspect of landing the aircraft,” said Denham. “It’s like learning how to juggle — you start slowly and work your way up to proficiency. Now, we can let the computer do the work. With this software and 15 minutes in a simulator, we can teach anybody to safely land on a ship.”

Test pilots, engineers and landing signal officers (LSO) from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 will continue to test MAGIC CARPET demonstration software on F/A-18E/F aircraft for the remainder of 2015 and early 2016. Production-level software for the fleet is scheduled to start flight testing in 2017, with general fleet introduction to follow via the F/A-18 and EA-18G program office.

Jennifer Neal, Naval Aviation News contributing editor, compiled the articles by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Patrick Ian Crimmins, USS George H.W. Bush Public Affairs; and Victor Chen is director of Corporate Communication, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Md.”

Source: http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodli ... 5-web1.pdf (6.6Mb)

And an OLDen Style Sh!t Hot Break Viddy

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2015, 13:36
by spazsinbad
Olde Style MAGIC 3D Glasses for Betta Crarrier Landin's (see vid above)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2015, 08:17
by spazsinbad
On Friday 11th Sep 2015 there was a Magic Carpet briefing by VX-23 at Tailhook 2015. I'll look for video:

http://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2015 (what does WAB [Webcast & Beyond?] mean?) SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO....

VX-23 Magic Carpet — Carrier Landing Brief (40 Mins) One day they'll make better slides....

http://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2015/videos & http://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2015/videos/98951655
&
Lockheed Martin Update http://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2015/videos/98909598

LOTS of good info about shore based F-35C testing and of course the CVN test last year in this video - 23 Minutes.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2015, 11:14
by spazsinbad
I think we can see this reporter scribbling away in the 'Magic Carpet' brief Tailhook 2015 video (I'll try to make a youtube video soon if it does not appear there otherwise - it is a good 'un). Anyhoo SCRIBBLER SAYS (and very well I might add...):
New carrier landing software will smooth out the ride
12 Sep 2015 Meghann Myers

"SPARKS, Nev. — They say the world's most stressful job is landing on an aircraft carrier at night in bad weather.

That may be true, but the task is going to get significantly easier when MAGIC CARPET starts making its way to the fleet next year.

The goal is to get the latest version of the Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies software to the fleet to start testing in 2016, F/A-18 Hornet program manager Capt. David Kindley told Navy Times on Friday at the annual Tailhook Reunion near Reno, Nevada.

From there, they're looking ahead to a 2018 total availability to the fleet's Hornet and E-18G Growler Squadrons, in addition to the F-35C Lightning II jets that will come standard with MAGIC CARPET, which will automate more of the approach so pilots need to make fewer adjustments.

Landing an aircraft on a carrier now is a delicate dance of shifting left, right, up and down while adjusting the plane's throttle to make up for the tiny losses in speed and altitude for every movement of the nose.

When you do it right, you keep a little ball on the heads-up display just above the flight deck to glide down and catch your tailhook on the wires.

It takes an immense amount of focus and skill, but Naval Air Systems Command's MAGIC CARPET software aims to make it much easier.

"It's this admin task, where they should be focusing on the projection of power that should be our primary mission," Lt. William Dann said at a NAVAIR presentation Friday.

The difference with MAGIC CARPET is that a pilot can change direction without losing speed or altitude. The software simply self-adjusts to maintain a flight path.

"What this does is makes the longitudinal stick into a flight path rate controller, so when you pull aft on the stick a certain amount, it commands a rate of change of flight path, and when you release the stick, you get zero flight path rate," he said.

When F-35Cs are delivered to the fleet in 2018, they will come with MAGIC CARPET. The challenge now, Kindley said, is to start loading the software into older airframes.

It's a two-part process, he said, which involves updating an aircraft's flight and mission computers. Flight computers can be updated at any time, but mission computer updates are on a set schedule.

At the request of Naval Air Forces boss Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker, Kindley said, he's looking into how soon they can start pushing the latest version of the software to Hornet mission computers, which looks like next summer right now.

That will give squadrons the chance to test out how the software works before a 2018 roll-out goal, he added.

The goal of MAGIC CARPET isn't simply to make carrier landings easier, Rear Adm. Mike Manazir, the Navy's director of air warfare, told Navy Times.

Pilots spend a significant amount of their training just working on safe carrier landings, and then a significant amount of their time in the fleet requalifying for landings.

MAGIC CARPET will cut down drastically on the amount of time they spend training to land and pass that savings on to more time training for missions, Manazir said.

"We're looking forward to not having to practice as much, while reducing costs of training and repairs," he said.

Every time a pilot has a hard landing, it takes time to investigate the damage and then significant time and money to repair it. MAGIC CARPET will reduce all of that.

And for the Super Hornets, nicknamed "Rhinos," which have decades left of scheduled service, fewer hard landings and repairs is a huge plus.

"We're concerned about the life of the airframe," Kindley said.

Though pilots in the fleet will be landing aircraft with MAGIC CARPET in the next few years, Dann said that for now, they'll continue to train the old way, on T-45 Goshawk jets that don't use the system.

The question of changing that comes up often, he added.

"Do we not train guys to be the classic manual ball flyers that we always have? And we're not suggesting that at any point right now," he said. "But we do believe that in the future we will get to a point when this is the only way to fly the Rhino and the Growler, and so we don't necessarily need to train to anything else."

Source: http://www.13newsnow.com/story/news/201 ... /72149060/

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2015, 19:08
by spazsinbad
Edited MAGIC CARPET Brief TAILhook 2015 (first few minutes explaining old tech carrier landings cut).

Super Hornet Magic Carpet 2015 Tailhook LSO 'Magic Legs' Brief 19 mins 45 seconds


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2015, 21:29
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:Edited MAGIC CARPET...]


...you are welcome! from the F-35 developers to the SBUG community! :poke: :D

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2015, 09:31
by spazsinbad
VADM Dunaway Remarks Magic Carpet Benefits TailHOOK 2015


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2015, 16:03
by spazsinbad
VX-23 STRIKE TEST NEWS 2015 is now available at ISSUU (what a pain) so I'll attach bits 'n pieces willy nilly throughout.... :mrgreen: PDF attached is only three pages of 40 but has the carpet stain & PALS & Shake Yur Booty.
2015 STRIKE TEST NEWS
2015 VX-23 LT Brent “ROTC” Robinson

"Magic Carpet
Project Magic Carpet is an innovative set of flight control laws combined with enhanced Head-Up Display (HUD) symbology for the F/A-18 E/F/G designed to significantly simplify the carrier landing task. The improvement to the flight control laws is twofold. First, we introduce Integrated Direct Lift Control (IDLC), and second we let the flight control computers compute and then maintain the desired ‘ideal’ glideslope. IDLC uses combined trailing edge flap and aileron movements to affect lift directly with an improved auto-throttle function. This allows the pilot extremely precise glidepath control using a single controller (the stick) to affect lift, vice the traditional method of artfully balancing AoA, manual throttle manipulations, and stick inputs. Furthermore, because most of the glideslope deviations will now come from lift, the engines remain in a much tighter RPM band; thus, waiting for engine spool-up/down is no longer a factor. To make this whole ‘landing on a moving boat’ task even easier, the system can now maintain itself on the ideal glideslope with little to no inputs from the pilot. The glideslope reference angle and ship speed is selected by the pilot prior to the approach turn (or during, in cases of the SHB!). Then, with a subsequent depression of a single button, the aircraft will rotate, capture, and maintain the glideslope…hands off!

The enhanced HUD includes a new Ship Relative Velocity Vector (SRVV) and a Glideslope Reference line while removing the normal velocity vector and E-bracket. Together, these two tools allow the pilot to precisely view not only the magnitude of deviations, but also the magnitude of commanded corrections, completely removing the guesswork currently involved in flying the ball. Additionally, the SRVV acts as a novel lineup aid by allowing the pilot to simply place the symbol on the landing area centerline in order to maintain sufficient lineup to avoid a call from the Air Boss…essentially just ‘put the thing on the thing!”

After successful shore based testing, we took two jets to the mighty USS G.H.W. Bush to truly put MAGIC CARPET through her paces. After 181 approaches of intentional (and some un-intentional) ‘underline’ high, low, and overshooting starts, the data were eye-watering. With a significant decrease in pilot workload ratings, an increase in handling qualities ratings, and a reduction of over 50% in average touchdown dispersion the team believes they are on the cusp of revolutionizing the most stressful and dangerous part of daily operations of pointy-nose aircraft aboard carriers! Over the next two years, we will be further refining MAGIC CARPET to make the system more robust and useable in any F/A-18E/F/G configuration including asymmetric loadouts, half flaps, and single engine. MAGIC CARPET is expected to hit the fleet at the same time as the H12 SCS release."

Source: http://issuu.com/nawcad_pao/docs/striketest2015_single (3.6Mb)

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2015, 16:10
by SnakeHandler
They're making it almost too easy on them "Naval Aviators." If this works as advertised they might actually spend more time on tactics rather than worrying about getting back on deck. But if the system fails they'll probably have to just eject since they won't know how to land anymore...

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2015, 16:18
by spazsinbad
:devil: You funny :mrgreen:

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2015, 16:51
by spazsinbad
“Magic Carpet” software may mean fewer touch-and-gos on Whidbey Island
15 Sep 2015 Joe Kunzler

“Software due for integration by the Navy in 2018 aims to reduce the number of touch-and-go training operations necessary for EA-18G Growler pilots. The training is conducted primarily on Whidbey Island at Ault Field in Oak Harbor and Outlying Field Coupeville.

The “Magic Carpet” software, as planned for the Boeing EA-18G of the Navy’s Electronic Attack Wing, will put the aircraft into a mode for a constant, safe rate of descent toward an aircraft carrier and help the pilot line up for landing.

“What I anticipate is that you will have a reduction in your Field Carrier Landing Practice requirements, your currency requirements at the carrier so you can focus rather on your real missions rather than this admin task,” according to test-pilot Lt. William Dann during an online question-and-answer session during the 2015 Tailhook convention Sept. 10-13. “It is making everything safer.”

However, Dann said his test pilots are unable to say specifically to what extend “Magic Carpet” will replace the need for FCLPs....

...The noise levels of the Navy’s latest electronic attack aircraft, the EA-18G Growler, has been an ongoing point of contention for residents living near the Navy’s airfields on Whidbey Island. Some residents claim the noise associated with the FCLPs decreases quality of life and has harmful health effects.

An Environmental Impact Statement on the Growlers and their basing at Whidbey Island Naval Air Station was initiated in late 2013. Vice Admiral Shoemaker, commander of U.S. Naval Air Forces, said he’s “hopeful as we work through that process we’ll get the necessary relief we need and be able to conduct our operations at Coupeville.”

“We have current limits as to what we can do every year in terms of the number of landings,” Shoemaker said. “The EIS will look to expand that. I won’t tell you the numbers there but it will be more realistic and reflective of what we need to do from a bouncing and FCLP perspective for the growing force up at Whidbey Island.””

Source: http://whidbeydailynews.com/2015/09/mag ... ey-island/

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2015, 20:50
by spazsinbad
Some Magic Carpet Info Goodness accumulated to date in 33 page PDF attached.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2015, 21:07
by spazsinbad
A Hornet pilot inadvertently explains why 'MAGIC CARPET' is important (you will hear a muffled "I need a drink" near end).

Are these USMC Hornet pilots we see? Not that it matters because there are plenty of videos of USN pilots saying similar.

Also I note in this instance the wonkiness of the roll to the left on arrest as noted in one video of recent F-35C testing....

Hornet Pilot Night Pitching Deck USS Nimitz Pacific Experience


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2015, 23:00
by spazsinbad
From same doco as above showing the deck moving during daytime however I doubt it was exactly like this during night but it was night youse know - WTF do I know? What is important is to watch the deck during the approaches; NOT the cutaways probably showing the CVN deck movement when it is maneuvering for flight ops. Pacific Swells - gotta love 'em.


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2015, 19:13
by spazsinbad
MAGIC CARPET is so easy that GREENert could do it from his sub experience level.
Manned flight simulator continues to advance modeling and simulation after 30 years
28 Oct 2015 NAWCAD Public Affairs

"...M&S [modeling and simulation] is a key component for programs to save cost and schedule.

“Simulators play a major role in supporting safety-of-flight analysis prior to flight test and optimizing cost of flight test,” said Michael Piland, F-35 flight test simulation team lead. “When you can [simulate] instead of fly, you’ve saved a dollar. Simulation is a tool that the testers are using to be able to check out the aircraft’s capabilities before they turn it over to the fleet.”

Today, MFS continues to provide flexible simulation capability to test military aircraft, avionics and system software. The facility provides simulation capabilities to support aircraft system ground and flight test activities. The simulators are used for flying qualities and performance evaluations, avionics integration testing, mission scenario rehearsal, accident investigations, prototype evaluations, installed systems testing, and prototype simulator design.

MFS is poised to play a major role in T&E and LVC for at least another 30 years."

Source: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=6099

AIReel: Manned Flight Simulator 30th Anniversary
Published on Oct 28, 2015 NAVAIRSYSCOM

"This year marks the 30th anniversary of NAVAIR’s Manned Flight Simulator (MFS) facility at Patuxent River, Md., a center of excellence for aircraft simulation. Watch the video to learn about MFS' contributions to our warfighters and how it's poised to play a major role in Naval Aviation for another 30 years."

JPG Caption: "Former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert [SUBmarine Guy] completes a successful carrier trap using the "Magic Carpet" system at the Manned Flight Simulator." http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/ ... 6-0172.jpg


[

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2015, 04:31
by spazsinbad
You'll see bits of the Carpet of Magic testing on computer screens in this video - this is a dyed in the wool Hornet pilot from the getgo.

NAVAIR True Headings: Vice Adm. Dunaway F/A-18 35th Anniversary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_dAxLiFKTk

He wirebrushed the F-35C hook folks! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0molUKZnUqI OR
OR (same video just starts at the comment)
https://youtu.be/0molUKZnUqI?t=200 [Time of wirebrush comment]
True Headings: Farewell message from Vice Adm. David Dunaway ["YES - IF for Win/Win"]
Published on Nov 4, 2015 NAVAIRSYSCOM

"NAVAIR Commander Vice Adm. David Dunaway talks about NAVAIR'S accomplishments, the work yet to be done, and what he'll miss most about the command in his farewell message. Dunaway retires Oct. 2 after more than 33 years of Navy service."


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2015, 07:40
by spazsinbad
An Oldie but a Goldie from 2014 Pax River Preparation and DT-1 Tests USS Nimitz from the ITF Year in Review 2014.

DT-1 F-35C Year Review 2014 PAX River & USS Nimitz Tests


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2015, 08:47
by tritonprime
spazsinbad wrote:
“Magic Carpet” software may mean fewer touch-and-gos on Whidbey Island
15 Sep 2015 Joe Kunzler

“Software due for integration by the Navy in 2018 aims to reduce the number of touch-and-go training operations necessary for EA-18G Growler pilots. The training is conducted primarily on Whidbey Island at Ault Field in Oak Harbor and Outlying Field Coupeville.

The “Magic Carpet” software, as planned for the Boeing EA-18G of the Navy’s Electronic Attack Wing, will put the aircraft into a mode for a constant, safe rate of descent toward an aircraft carrier and help the pilot line up for landing.

“What I anticipate is that you will have a reduction in your Field Carrier Landing Practice requirements, your currency requirements at the carrier so you can focus rather on your real missions rather than this admin task,” according to test-pilot Lt. William Dann during an online question-and-answer session during the 2015 Tailhook convention Sept. 10-13. “It is making everything safer.”

However, Dann said his test pilots are unable to say specifically to what extend “Magic Carpet” will replace the need for FCLPs....

...The noise levels of the Navy’s latest electronic attack aircraft, the EA-18G Growler, has been an ongoing point of contention for residents living near the Navy’s airfields on Whidbey Island. Some residents claim the noise associated with the FCLPs decreases quality of life and has harmful health effects.

An Environmental Impact Statement on the Growlers and their basing at Whidbey Island Naval Air Station was initiated in late 2013. Vice Admiral Shoemaker, commander of U.S. Naval Air Forces, said he’s “hopeful as we work through that process we’ll get the necessary relief we need and be able to conduct our operations at Coupeville.”

“We have current limits as to what we can do every year in terms of the number of landings,” Shoemaker said. “The EIS will look to expand that. I won’t tell you the numbers there but it will be more realistic and reflective of what we need to do from a bouncing and FCLP perspective for the growing force up at Whidbey Island.””

Source: http://whidbeydailynews.com/2015/09/mag ... ey-island/


Naval Outlying Field Coupeville

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2016, 15:04
by spazsinbad
BAD Day - video posted above already.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2016, 17:24
by spazsinbad
An oldie but a goldie and proof? that the USN has trouble changing - ten years?! Bloody hell - not long to go for the F-35C.
Naval Aviators Can Be Slow to Embrace Technology
Nov 2015 Sandra I. Erwin

"Flight-control software that makes carrier deck landings easier and safer was not initially well received by the Navy’s fighter pilot community. But after a decade of development and testing, the technology soon will be widely used in the fleet. The system, dubbed “magic carpet,” illustrates why naval aviators need to be more open-minded about using unfamiliar new technologies, said Vice Adm. David A. “Decoy” Dunaway, commander of Naval Air Systems Command.

Sometimes cultural issues can slow down innovation in naval aviation, Dunaway cautioned a crowd of aviators at the annual Tailhook Association reunion in Sparks, Nevada.

“Are we receptive to change?” Dunaway asked. In the case of magic carpet, it took 10 years to get a “cultural acceptance” even though it promises to save hundreds of millions of dollars in operations and other costs over the coming decades. “But we thought in our own head that we had to stick with our old ways and couldn’t imagine a new way of doing business,” he added.

Navy commanders around the fleet are now raving about magic carpet, and are looking at new ways to apply the technology to fighter maneuvers, Dunaway noted. “It’s important we don’t drink our own bath water.”...

...Production-grade software for the fleet is scheduled to start flight tests in 2017."

Source: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... ology.aspx

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2016, 10:26
by spazsinbad
This thread has a lot of stuff about arrested landings ashore for reels - here is an unusual sperspective:

http://www.fox23.com/news/f-15s-stop-at ... /217064400


Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2016, 22:58
by spazsinbad
Wrapup: HASC Passes FY2017 Defense Bill With Reagan-Era Spending Levels
29 Apr 2016 Megan Eckstein

"...• An amendment proposed by Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) inquiring about the Navy’s advanced flight control software called Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Techniques (MAGIC CARPET), and asking for a briefing on how the software that helps pilots land on a carrier would affect workload, training requirements and cost...."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2016/04/29/wrapup ... ing-levels

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2016, 03:01
by spazsinbad
Document: U.S. Naval Aviation Vision 2016-2025
10 Jun 2016 USN/NavAir

"...MAGIC CARPET Carrier Landing
Another technological advancement for pilot proficiency is the Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies— MAGIC CARPET. Designed originally for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and also implemented in the F-35C Lightning II, MAGIC CARPET is an enhanced set of flight control commands paired with Heads-Up-Display (HUD) symbology that simplifies a pilot’s control inputs in conducting aircraft carrier landings. This impacts Naval Aviation readiness by allowing money traditionally spent on Field Carrier Landing Practices (FCLP) to be used for increased mission training. MAGIC CARPET software enables pilots to adjust line-up and glideslope corrections independent of one another while holding angle-of-attack at the approach reference setting, leading to improved touchdown precision and safer recoveries aboard carriers.

With current F/A-18 flight software, adjusting the aircraft’s glideslope, lineup or angle-of-attack directly affects the individual approach parameters. Consequently, pilots must learn how to compensate for these coupled inputs by demonstrating their ability to coordinate the individual corrections while minimizing changes in the other controlled parameters through numerous FCLP approaches. MAGIC CARPET decouples the three parameters, greatly reducing the time it takes for pilots to become proficient in FCLPs, which ultimately translates to improved performance in the carrier qualification phase. As a result of reducing flight hours associated with carrier qualification and performance in the carrier landing environment, NAE leadership can reinvest this cost savings in other training areas. MAGIC CARPET completed its first at-sea testing April 2015 aboard USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77). Tests confirmed that carrier landings can be achieved with a lower pilot workload and with increased accuracy of the targeted hook touchdown point. Test pilots, engineers and landing signal officers from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 will continue to test MAGIC CARPET demonstration software on F/A-18E/F aircraft through early 2016. Productionlevel software for the fleet is scheduled to start flight testing in 2017, with general fleet introduction to follow via the F/A-18 and EA-18G program office. The system is designed and will be fielded in the F/A-18E/F, EA-18G and F-35C platforms...."

Document: https://news.usni.org/wp-content/upload ... Vision.pdf (18 Mbs)

Source: https://news.usni.org/2016/06/10/docume ... -2016-2025

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2016, 01:07
by spazsinbad
Lots of info on this thread about the F-111B and carrier testing - for example: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=275681&hilit=F+111B#p275681 and other posts if forum searched using F-111B but anyway...
F-111B The one that got away [7 page PDF attached]
July-August STEWART WILSON; AERO Australia Magazine

"The General Dynamics F-111 overcame masses of ‘bad press’ in its early days and many technical difficulties to be recognised as arguably the best strike bomber of its era. But there was one version which failed due to the flawed philosophy behind its development: the F-111B carrier-based fleet defence fighter for the US Navy.

THE F-111 QUALIFIES as a remarkable aircraft on all counts. It incorporated a high level of new and advanced technology, overcame its problems and went on to perform superbly as a strike and later electronics warfare platform.

In retrospect it can be seen that the US Navy’s F-111B was never going to work. It was a victim of its political architect’s vision for an aircraft that could be both a large land-based strike bomber and a naval fighter.

That architect was US Secretary of Defense Robert Strange McNamara, whose ‘procedural commonality’ philosophy was intended to create industrial, technical and financial efficiencies. It had the opposite effect....

...The cancellation of the F-111B sounded the death knell for Robert McNamara’s ‘procedural commonality’ theories. The concept has reappeared more recently through the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme, and it has also had its share of cost, technical and schedule dramas...."

Source: AERO Australia Magazine July/August 2016 Issue 51

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2016, 01:35
by sferrin
Wonder how things might have been different if they'd sold it as an A-6 Intruder replacement.

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2016, 04:11
by spazsinbad
To continue the MAGIC CARPET aspect of the thread (direct corollary to 'Delta Flight Path for F-35C') here is explanation:

The article is long so best read it at the source URL - only bits excerpted below....
Navy’s MAGIC CARPET Simplifies Carrier Landings; Interim Fielding This Fall
30 Jun 2016 Megan Eckstein

"ABOARD USS GEORGE WASHINGTON, OFF THE COAST OF VIRGINIA – The Navy has completed testing of its MAGIC CARPET technology that simplifies the process of landing a fighter on an aircraft carrier – with data suggesting that pilots may make single-digit flight path corrections on final approach instead of hundreds and land “significantly” closer to their target on the flight deck, according to those involved in the testing.

The premise of MAGIC CARPET is simple – rather than worry about adjusting roll, yaw and pitch, adding and reducing power, and predicting how the plane’s course will intersect with the moving ship’s, the pilot can more directly and simply control flight path. And because the services’s Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers have digital flight controls, MAGIC CARPET remaps those controls to do just that.

The Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies (MAGIC CARPET), a collaboration by Naval Air Systems Command and the Office of Naval Research, was first tested aboard USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77) last year and completed its final test aboard USS George Washington (CVN-73) this week ahead of an interim software version release this fall....

...How MAGIC CARPET Works
MAGIC CARPET accomplishes three things through a software-only change to the airplane, with no changes whatsoever needed to the carrier receiving the fighters.

Capt. David Kindley, F/A-18 and EA-18G Program Manager in the Program Executive Office for Tactical Aircraft, explained that pilots approaching the carrier focus on three things: watching their lineup, with the goal being to catch the third of four wires in the aircraft arresting gear; angle of attack, needed to ensure the tailhook on the back of the plane catches a wire; and speed. Even if a pilot begins his approach to the ship perfectly, every little adjustment to maintain that path to the ship requires counter-adjustments in other areas – “just dozens of corrections, tiny corrections, that I’m making” for the final 18 seconds, called “flying on the ball.”

The Super Hornets and Growlers were built with digital flight controls, and some automation was built into the system from the start.

“We call it a living wing, you see the wing doing this (adjusting itself) all the time because I told it not to roll, and so any disturbance in the air mass that would make me roll, the airplane will compensate automatically,” Kindley explained, demonstrating the dynamic wing movement with his hands.
“So what we’ve basically done is taken that idea and applied it to landing, because I know most of the time I’m going to fly a 3-degree glideslope.”

When MAGIC CARPET is engaged and put into “delta path mode,” the plane will fly on a 3-degree glideslope downwards regardless of wind and other conditions outside. Even when the plane flies through the burble, or disturbed air behind the aircraft carrier’s island, the plane reacts and continues on its planned glideslope.

Then, MAGIC CARPET allows for more intuitive and much less cumbersome adjustments to that flight path by decoupling roll from yaw from pitch, and instead creating a single input that affects the ultimate goal – the airplane’s flight path. The pilot can make a little correction to the flight path using the stick and then simply let go of the stick to stay on that new path.

“I’ve never seen anything like this before,” Kindley said. If a pilot is coming in high, “you just push the stick forward and then let go, and it stops itself on glideslope. Same thing when I’m below glideslope, you just pull the stick back and then let go. So instead of making multiple corrections with the throttle and stick to affect glideslope, I’ve made one and then let go.”

The same is true for side-to-side corrections – the pilot adjusts and then lets go of the stick to maintain the new direction, with the plane always keeping that same 3-degree glideslope for a smooth landing on the carrier flight deck.

Finally, MAGIC CARPET calculates the movement of the carrier as it sails through the water and precisely understands where the landing area will be by the time the fighter gets to it. Today, pilots have to constantly guess the velocity vector, Kindley said, and find themselves “spotting the deck” – which often times puts them too low and may cause the Landing Signal Officer (LSO) on the flight deck to wave them off.

With this new tool, “we can look at how fast the ship is moving, it’s not a hard math problem – if I know how fast the ship is moving here then I can figure out how fast the runway is moving to the right, and so I can just, I go into delta path mode and we have a different symbol, velocity vector goes away and it actually looks like a little landing area. So no kidding, all you do is you put the landing area on the landing area, and then you let go. It’s really that simple.”

Ultimately, Kindley said, MAGIC CARPET “makes it so the plane is working for you instead of against you” while landing.

Test Pilots’ Perspective
Navy pilots see landing on the aircraft carrier as an administrative task: “It’s like filling out paperwork, you have to do it in order to do what you really want to do,” Lt. Cmdr. Matthew Dominick, a test pilot in the carrier suitability flight test department in the VX-23 Air Test and Evaluation Squadron, told reporters after testing wrapped up.

For as uninteresting a task as pilots consider landing – it allows a brief respite for the pilot and a chance to refuel and rearm the plane before going back out to continue the mission – carrier landings are among the most dangerous things a pilot will do.

Using the “closest alligator to the canoe” as an analogy – of all the dangers, he’s most concerned about fending off the one nearest to him so he can survive a bit longer – Dominick said “when we are not at war, the closest alligator to the canoe, to me, to threatening what we’re going to do and the risk we take, is landing aboard the ship. It’s dangerous, it’s every day regardless of whether we’re at war or not at war. … After all of the stress of that combat mission, where people are yelling and things are going on and bombs are getting dropped, you still have to come back to this really really dangerous thing. So will this change carrier aviation? Yes. We can start focusing more time and training to focus on that other mission because this closer alligator to the canoe has been subdued.”

Dominick, who has 11 years of flight experience in the Navy, said that a pilot’s time flying on the ball is considered “sacrosanct.” No one will talk to the pilot over the radio during that time except for the LSO on the flight deck to keep the pilot safe – but otherwise, everyone knows the pilot needs total silence to focus on the task at hand.

During MAGIC CARPET testing, though – two three-hour periods a day from June 23 to 27 – “now with this system, when we’re flying the ball, we are talking the entire way down about exactly what we’re seeing. … We’re talking to the engineers real time all the way to touchdown.”

Kindley said the average pilot makes 200 to 300 corrections in the final 18 seconds before landing. With MAGIC CARPET, test data showed the first-timers making about 20 corrections while flying on the ball, with that figure dropping below 10 once the pilots got used to the system.

Test pilot Lt. Christopher Montague explained that decrease in rapid-fire movements in basic terms. When the testing first started, the pilots came in to the carrier with a “nominal approach,” following the basic parameters pilots are taught to aim for as they begin their approach. After seeing how MAGIC CARPET responded, the pilots then began off-nominal approaches – coming in too high or low, too fast or slow, overshooting or undershooting the runway – “stressing the system, so you force yourself in there to make some aggressive inputs” before successfully landing.

During one pass that Montague meant to overshoot but accidentally significantly overshot, “I probably would have been told to wave off before I even started my approach. As I was coming through, Paddles (the LSO) probably would have said, wave off wave off, maybe take it up the starboard side of the ship, which would have been very embarrassing for me. So, however, I didn’t, I stuck with it (using MAGIC CARPET) … and I landed with the center ball back on center line with about four or five seconds left to go. So it was pretty eye-opening to me, the power of the system. And that was loaded with about as much asymmetry on the aircraft as we could,” meaning one wing was fully loaded with ordnance or fuel and the other was empty, as a way of stressing the system as much as the testers could.

In that scenario, without MAGIC CARPET “the throttles would have been going anywhere between idle and full power and hopefully not into after burner. But I would have been, we sometimes call it sawing logs, I would have been doing that all over the place,” Montague said. With MAGIC CARPET, “I think it’s probably reasonable to say probably at least 50 percent less control inputs. And that was on way off-nominal,” he said, with more nominal approaches resulting in even fewer control inputs while on the ball.

“I am still uncomfortable with how few inputs I’m making,” Dominick said, noting it can feel a little counter to all the years of training and experience at first, but the system has earned his trust – particularly once he started the intentionally off-nominal passes.

Dominick said it was important to keep in mind that MAGIC CARPET is not an automated landing system – the pilots are still flying the plane, and human error and bad weather conditions will still make carrier landings risky. But, he said, “we just changed the way you control the airplane – we made it respond faster and better.”

The Fleet’s Perspective
Aircraft carriers, despite existing to move aircraft around, do not like launching and recovering planes....

...Path to Fleet Introduction
Kindley said he sees the fleet eventually being as reliant on MAGIC CARPET as it is today on the Heads-Up Display (HUD).

“But in order to do that and still sleep at night, I’ve got to make MAGIC CARPET as reliable as the HUD is,” and he said the program isn’t quite there yet.

The test pilots aboard George Washington flew the software version H-10. This fall, once any last issues that arose during testing are fixed, an H-10+ will be fielded for fleet experimentation only.

An H-12 version of the software will be available in simulators in the spring of 2017 and will be delivered for operational testing in the fall of 2017. And the H-14 software, the one intended for fleet-wide fielding, will go to operational test in the fall of 2018 and deliver in 2019.

The main upgrade H-14 will bring is failure modes – the proven ability to continue to make safe carrier landings even if the throttle control breaks, or the navigation system fails, or the wings have been shot at. Kindley said the fleet will need that level of certainty in the system before even considering reducing training or taking on risk with fewer tankers.

Still, rather than wait for 2019 to start fleet introduction, “my idea was, we’re going to give this to the fleet and they’re going to just start to screw around with it,” he said. Pilots already do “circus passes” to practice landing without the HUD or other tools, so MAGIC CARPET passes could be incorporated into the mix.

“On a day like today when it’s beautiful and everything’s going well, we’re going to get the fleet into delta path and they’re going to see what they can do with it,” he said.

This will also help generate more data on fuel savings, maintenance savings, potential training savings and more, to help the naval aviation community understand how to field the system.

“I’m afraid to go commit to anything right now because I don’t even know what the fleet’s going to do,” Kindley said.
“I know this is really good. and I think it could be crazy good, but I don’t have a sense of the quantity of that. So the interim capability goes this year, the final capability still on plan for 2019,” and then the fleet can think about “what checks we can write” in terms of cost savings.

Even as the program office continues to work on the H-12 and H-14 software upgrades, the H-10 software that was just tested will go to an Operator Assessment Group run by the LSO school, where fleet LSOs will talk to the engineers involved in the program – as well as one fleet LSO who was invited out to participate in the GW test period – to think about how MAGIC CARPET could and should alter fleet operations. The LSO school will then make recommendations to the commander of Naval Air Forces – Air Boss Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker – about future courses of action.

Adopting MAGIC CARPET may not be a hard sell if development and testing continues to go well: Shoemaker is already a fan.

“Initial testing of this technology gives me great confidence that MAGIC CARPET, along with similar efforts with the F-35C and its carrier landing control laws, will reduce utilization of our airframes, minimize the number of hard landings and required maintenance inspections, and increase our aircraft availability rate. I am excited to get this technology to the fleet and look forward to what it will bring to the fight,” he said in a statement after the GW testing concluded. “I am confident this capability will not only simplify the pilot’s workload during landing and increase overall boarding rate, but will also improve the overall efficiency of carrier aviation through streamlined initial and currency training requirements for our pilots and reduced aerial refueling requirements during carrier operations, freeing up our Super Hornets for mission tasking.”

Source: https://news.usni.org/2016/06/30/navys- ... lding-fall

Re: F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2016, 12:41
by spazsinbad
Another Magic Carpet story here but no magic to read it. :-( I need a text vacuum cleaner goldarnit! :doh:
U.S. Navy Hopes To Extend F-18 Life With Magic Carpet
30 Jun 2016 Michael Fabey

"ABOARD THE USS GEORGE WASHINGTON—U.S. Navy Lt. Christopher Montague was way off the mark for a safe and solid nominal aircraft carrier landing as he approached—high and right of the seesawing carrier ..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/us- ... c-carpet-0