Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical

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

neptune

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1415
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post07 Jun 2011, 20:55

Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical

By Philip Ewing Tuesday, June 7th, 2011 2:49 pm

A Marine Corps photo set this week shows a squadron of veteran AV-8B Harriers at work in Afghanistan supporting troops on the ground, and it brought to mind one of the capabilities the Marines’ F-35B Lightning II will have that the Harrier doesn’t. Everybody knows that the B can “transform,” like a Decepticon, for short takeoffs and vertical landings on Navy amphibious ships at sea. But unlike a Harrier, the B also can land like a conventional airplane, said Lockheed Martin vice president Steve O’Bryan at the company’s big media day last month.

So what, you might say. Well, the Harrier doesn’t land conventionally: Every time it comes back, even to a ground base, it needs to do a vertical landing or a rolling vertical landing, O’Bryan said, burning fuel and working its jet nozzles more or less the same way. But if a Lightning II pilot wants to, she’ll be able to land down a runway like a normal fighter jet, without engaging the lift fan or all those other ports and hatches and bells and whistles.

If many — or most — of the flights that a fighter makes over its life are not under operational circumstances, because pilots are training or ferrying their jets, that could mean that a typical B won’t need its vertical landing capability most of the time.


“I don’t want to speak for the Marine Corps, but as we do analysis for the STOVL variant, [we think] most of the landings will be conventional landings — you can come back and land on a normal 8,000-foot airstrip without stressing all those components,” O’Bryan said. “Of course it’s up to the operational units, but why would I stress those if I don’t have to? … That is an option that’s not available on the current generation of STOVL airplanes.” :)

Source: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/06/07/lockh ... -vertical/
Offline

stereospace

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 660
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 17:35
  • Location: Columbia, Maryland, USA

Unread post07 Jun 2011, 21:48

Interesting. I hadn't realized the Harrier could not make a standard landing.
Offline

battleshipagincourt

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2011, 00:30

Unread post07 Jun 2011, 21:54

stereospace wrote:Interesting. I hadn't realized the Harrier could not make a standard landing.


I had the same reaction. The V-22 can't land or take off conventionally because its turboprops are too large, but what prevents the harrier from doing this?
Offline

aaam

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 22:52

Unread post07 Jun 2011, 22:02

The Harrier can make a fully conventional landing, it's just they usually don't bother. Partly because the vertical landing doesn't really put that much excess load on the a/c, and arguably uses less fuel. Also, the Harrier is trickier to land than the F-35B will be, so just like with Navy CTOLs, practice, practice practice.

The V-22 can takeoff and land horizontally when the need arises. In fact, on an overseas self deployment they would use a rolling takeoff because o the extra fuel being carried. The nacelles are simply rotated to an intermediate position.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11579
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Jun 2011, 23:02

The Harrier is trickier to land even in the rolling vertical landing on land (never shipboard except once in Falklands War due emergency) because the main wheels are directly under fuselage with only flimsy small outrigger wheels that won't stand the strain of crosswinds (or uneven - wing down landings) too much. And the Harrier was not designed to do conventional landings - unlike the F-35B. The reporter in the story above has been asleep and just woken ala RipVanWinkle I reckon to discover the AMAZING abilities of the F-35B. :D

Also as has been pointed out in the 'very long thread' Harrier pilots do vertical landings because they are more or less the same onboard and it is good practice. In the same way Navy pilots use the land IFLOLS to land but that is not quite the same because land Navy pilots do need to do concentrated FCLP before going back aboard. Whereas Harrier pilots need to do less or none in the case of the old RN Harrier pilots (because they did not consider land vertical landings any different to shipboard ones unlike USMC though - a long story).

In Afghanistan Harrier pilots will do rolling vertical landings on long conventional runways with ordinance but it is easy to get it wrong as we saw in a spectacular crash a few years ago with the pilot ejecting from burning bomb laden Harrier as it rolled down runway on fire having broken the wheels misjudging the flare component.
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11579
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Jun 2011, 23:28

A Skyhawk Pilots Guide to Sea Harrier by LCDR Dave Ramsay RAN 1983
“...The undercarriage arrangement of centreline mainwheels and wingtip outriggers is necessitated by the engine and nozzle positions....
...Our normal criteria is to land from a hover when the fuel low level warning flashes (at 500 lb) and to aim to be downwind with a minimum of 1,000 lbs so all pilots are used to flying with low fuel levels – and you don’t bolter in this aircraft....
...The way it works is this:- you drive on around the circuit and point at your landing pad at 165Kts, gear and flap down and 40° nozzles selected. Power will be about 65% and the hoons amongst us will drive on in like this until the very last possible moment, then use full braking stop to decelerate. I myself sedately take the hover stop at about 0.8Nm. So now all the thrust points down and the slick aerodynamic qualities of the Harrier manifest themselves as a marked deceleration. This in turn means wing lift is decreasing (attitude is held constant at 8 units AOA) so you increase power to keep the ground at bay. It is a fact of life that as you decellerate through 90Kts the lack of wing lift and the trim change induced control inputs require an engine power and therefore JPT that is pretty well just what you will have in a nice steady hover....”
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

aaam

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 22:52

Unread post07 Jun 2011, 23:51

spazsinbad wrote:A Skyhawk Pilots Guide to Sea Harrier by LCDR Dave Ramsay RAN 1983
“...The undercarriage arrangement of centreline mainwheels and wingtip outriggers is necessitated by the engine and nozzle positions....
...Our normal criteria is to land from a hover when the fuel low level warning flashes (at 500 lb) and to aim to be downwind with a minimum of 1,000 lbs so all pilots are used to flying with low fuel levels – and you don’t bolter in this aircraft....
...The way it works is this:- you drive on around the circuit and point at your landing pad at 165Kts, gear and flap down and 40° nozzles selected. Power will be about 65% and the hoons amongst us will drive on in like this until the very last possible moment, then use full braking stop to decelerate. I myself sedately take the hover stop at about 0.8Nm. So now all the thrust points down and the slick aerodynamic qualities of the Harrier manifest themselves as a marked deceleration. This in turn means wing lift is decreasing (attitude is held constant at 8 units AOA) so you increase power to keep the ground at bay. It is a fact of life that as you decellerate through 90Kts the lack of wing lift and the trim change induced control inputs require an engine power and therefore JPT that is pretty well just what you will have in a nice steady hover....”



...and the Sea Harrier was trickier to land than the AV-8B-GR7/9, so it's really not that enormous a thing. In fact, the world's only privately owned Sea Harrier had the forward stick in the up position, so the pilot made a VL and gingerly reduced power until the nose touched. Minimal damage. F-35B will be easier than that.

Something in this narrative shows up another advantage of VL: did you notice that the low fuel warning doesn't come on until 500 lbs?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11579
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Jun 2011, 23:58

aaam, was not that first SHAR warbird landing with a stbd outrigger not down? Easy enough to look up anyway. That chap has extensive USMC Test Pilot experience in both the A-4 and Harrier. He did the testing of the ski jump for USMC (story in the 'very long thread'). I'll look for that thread page link...

Yes Harrier pilots I have talked to are very comfortable with low fuel (as long as they are near a suitable landing spot). :devil:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... lls#155562

"...The May-June 1990 edition of "Naval Aviation News" has a two page article written by Major Art Nalls (now flying an ex-RN Harrier as a civilian warbird) about his advocating the 'ramp'. Testing started Dec. 1988 on 'Principe De Asturias' with a Marine detachment from NATC."

http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backiss ... 0/mj90.pdf

Text reference here: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... lls#176316
at:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hawkerassoci ... flyon.html

Info about Art Nalls here: http://www.nallsaviation.com/biography.html

Hover Emergency Landing: http://www.nallsaviation.com/videos/2.html

I did not realise until now that the emergency landing was done on the hover pad at PAX River.
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

aaam

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 22:52

Unread post08 Jun 2011, 02:19

spazsinbad wrote:aaam, was not that first SHAR warbird landing with a stbd outrigger not down? Easy enough to look up anyway. That chap has extensive USMC Test Pilot experience in both the A-4 and Harrier. He did the testing of the ski jump for USMC (story in the 'very long thread'). I'll look for that thread page link...

Yes Harrier pilots I have talked to are very comfortable with low fuel (as long as they are near a suitable landing spot). :devil:
<snip>

I did not realise until now that the emergency landing was done on the hover pad at PAX River.


He had a hydraulic problem indication and elected to divert to PAX. They decided to have him land on the newly built JSF pad. He came in and hovered, and after they inspected the situation (all gear appeared to be down), cleared him to set it down, which he gingerly did. The nose gear collapsed when it got weight on, followed by the stbd outrigger. Not sure if the later occurred due to the same problem of if it's just because they're not designed to support that much weight.


Harriers can operate with lower fuel reserves because they don't have to worry about bolters, waveoffs (land or sea) or foulled deck/runway.
Last edited by aaam on 08 Jun 2011, 04:14, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11579
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Jun 2011, 03:14

aaam, thanks for the Harrier emergency update.

IF a Harrier has to land quickly when there is a fouled spot it can easily 'air taxi' - hover moving slowly - to a new clear spot. Seldom, if ever, do they have to overshoot a vertical landing to do another QUICK circuit to land again; although that may be the case in rare instances - albeit unlikely. The USMC seem to want to do things more like their NavAv fixed wing chaps (I guess due the overweening influence of USN NavAv on USMC with different LSO styles and whatnot) rather than like the formerly RN/RAF pragmatic way of using the Harrier for vertical landings onboard. Whatever. Soon to become irrelevant when the F-35B is flying with the USMC (and others perhaps).
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

aaam

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 22:52

Unread post08 Jun 2011, 03:25

spazsinbad wrote:aaam, thanks for the Harrier emergency update.

IF a Harrier has to land quickly when there is a fouled spot it can easily 'air taxi' - hover moving slowly - to a new clear spot. Seldom, if ever, do they have to overshoot a vertical landing to do another QUICK circuit to land again; although that may be the case in rare instances - albeit unlikely. The USMC seem to want to do things more like their NavAv fixed wing chaps (I guess due the overweening influence of USN NavAv on USMC with different LSO styles and whatnot) rather than like the formerly RN/RAF pragmatic way of using the Harrier for vertical landings onboard. Whatever. Soon to become irrelevant when the F-35B is flying with the USMC (and others perhaps).


Remember, NATOPS is written by the Navy. They keep trying to operate it like a regular Navy CTOL that doesn't happen to need a hook.

USN got very frustrated during the test aboard the FDRwhen the AV-8s could operate independent of the wind, independent of the way the ship was heading, and didn't need to be tied to the conventional launch/recovery cycles.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11579
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Jun 2011, 04:04

aaam, agree. Have you read the long 'whinge' about those issues in 'the very long thread'? Otherwise read about 'em here:

V/STOL SHIPBOARD RECOVERY: “IT’S NOT JUST ANOTHER CARRIER LANDING”
by Major Andrew G. Shorter USMC 2002

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA407726
Last edited by spazsinbad on 08 Jun 2011, 04:33, edited 1 time in total.
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

aaam

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 22:52

Unread post08 Jun 2011, 04:22

spazsinbad wrote:aaam, agree. Have you read the long 'whine' about those issues in 'the very long thread'? Otherwise read about 'em here:

V/STOL SHIPBOARD RECOVERY: “IT’S NOT JUST ANOTHER CARRIER LANDING”
by Major Andrew G. Shorter USMC 2002

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA407726


What is 'teh very long thread'?

I wonder if Nalls has any more money. I know where he can get a late model, low mileage, exquisitely maintained, recently updated, one-owner GR9. It's even been garaged since last December. Heck! He could probably pick up two ("Call in the next 20 minutes and we'll Double your order!").
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11579
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Jun 2011, 04:35

aaam, 'the very long thread' is this one, probably best to start at the end and work backwards but whatever:

Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-450.html
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

aaam

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 22:52

Unread post08 Jun 2011, 19:07

spazsinbad wrote:aaam, 'the very long thread' is this one, probably best to start at the end and work backwards but whatever:

Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-450.html


Ah, that one. I participated for a while but kind of drirfted away, maybe I should have another look. I opined 'If the navy wants to use those kind of ships regularly for normal carrier duties, then build some of their own, but don't overtask the Marines' ones'.
Next

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests