F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Production milestones, roll-outs, test flights, service introduction and other milestones.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

gtg947h

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 199
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2008, 16:52

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 11:34

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.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1840
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 13:17

Good find - thanks for posting that
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23560
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 20:43

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
Attachments
F-111raafCableSnatchinAMBERLEY.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2128
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 23:50

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.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23560
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post28 Jul 2014, 23:49

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23560
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Aug 2014, 22:28

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

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post05 Aug 2014, 23:40

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:
Offline
User avatar

archeman

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post06 Aug 2014, 01:00

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 .
Daddy why do we have to hide? Because we use VI son, and they use windows.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23560
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Aug 2014, 01:29

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.

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

archeman

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post06 Aug 2014, 01:43

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...
Daddy why do we have to hide? Because we use VI son, and they use windows.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23560
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Aug 2014, 01:55

IS that proof somehow? MY deep end is bigga than you deep end and it is upside down. :doh:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post06 Aug 2014, 03:02

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! :)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23560
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Aug 2014, 03:31

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

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post06 Aug 2014, 06:18

spazsinbad wrote:Speculation ... So what?


Spaz, calm down!

We will both see when the three wire is caught this fall!

:cheers:

done
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23560
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Aug 2014, 10:06

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

Return to F-35 milestones

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests