F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 25 Dec 2013, 20:07

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:

hookswing · by **hookswing** » 26 Dec 2013, 00:53

Prior to this fly-in, 3 successfull roll-ins were performed!

Happy Christmas

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 26 Dec 2013, 01:44

Thanks BigSwingingHook!

hookswing · by **hookswing** » 26 Dec 2013, 02:34

HeHeHe

, 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.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 26 Dec 2013, 03:04

Agree, the yoke should be good for preventing that schwing. Here is a SLOmo from last time fly-in with interim hook design.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 19 Jan 2014, 21:58

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:

alloycowboy · by **alloycowboy** » 27 Jan 2014, 03:23

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

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 27 Jan 2014, 04:05

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:

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

neurotech · by **neurotech** » 27 Jan 2014, 04:49

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.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 27 Jan 2014, 04:58

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:

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:

lookieloo · by **lookieloo** » 27 Jan 2014, 06:20

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?

alloycowboy · by **alloycowboy** » 28 Jan 2014, 03:09

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.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 28 Jan 2014, 03:58

'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?

alloycowboy · by **alloycowboy** » 28 Jan 2014, 04:23

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/

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 28 Jan 2014, 04:37

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).