F-35C design changes from -A

[quicksilver]

Ponder for a moment the ejection envelope...(under the skyhook apparatus).

[spazsinbad]

Ah Da SkyHooks (famous Oz band in the 1970s) but also plenty of HOKiness on this forum searching on dem SKYHOOK:

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=52576&p=357975&hilit=skyhook#p357975
& download/file.php?id=23940

[mixelflick]

Ah Da SkyHooks (famous Oz band in the 1970s) but also plenty of HOKiness on this forum searching on dem SKYHOOK:

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=52576&p=357975&hilit=skyhook#p357975
& download/file.php?id=23940

Other than the Goblin fighter trapeze in the B-36, this might well exceed it in danger. At least with the Goblin if it missed the hook, it had enough altitude to recover.

Not so here!

[SpudmanWP]

It's no more dangerous than a STOVL landing at sea today, in terms of fuel & altitude for recovery... well, maybe just fuel

[quicksilver]

Ejection envelope in any kind of sea state apart from ‘calm’ would be interesting to see — even with a stabilized crane system. It would also be interesting to understand the degree of precision required in both the crane and the cockpit for ‘capture’ of the aircraft by the crane.

[SpudmanWP]

The F-35's ejection envelope is 0/0 with auto-eject in STOVL mode.

mk16_f-35[1].pdf

(471.84 KiB) Downloaded 667 times

[quicksilver]

Dude, you have an obstruction near or above the seat’s pathway out of the jet (the crane). You also have a very restrictive wind envelope given the turbulent flows that are going to come off of the ship, which will further complicate safe ejection probabilities.

[quicksilver]

The F-35's ejection envelope is 0/0 with auto-eject in STOVL mode.

mk16_f-35[1].pdf

I would also point out (wrt f-35) you have the AAI/doors in the fuselage structure where this device would nominally capture the jet. Reminder at the link —

https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/ ... r2=piv-web