F-35 and Airshows

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

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1144
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post09 Sep 2018, 15:41

gta4 wrote:.. Su-35 drops altitude immediately .. F-35 can pitch up and go vertical.


In fairness, as discovered by F-22 exercises, anytime an aircraft goes post stall maneuver, the airframe pivots around the CG instead of the center of lift. This always is accompanied by a tell tell "tail droop," and opens a window for counter response. (F-15's catching 22's) This is why the F-22's are now more judicious in their use of TV.
However, you do well note that even so, the F-22 and F-35 can accelerate vertically out of the post stall instead of falling from the sky.

FWIW,
BP
Offline
User avatar

saberrider

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2016, 10:38

Unread post16 Sep 2018, 16:09

Gums wrote:Salute!

What Steve said ( mostly).



First, the leading edge flaps ( LEF) were not slats like the F-100 and F-4 had. They were like folding a percentage of the wing's leading edge down, and you can see that implementation on the Hornet, Sluf and many commercial airliners.

The LEF deflection was variable and had a significant mach input variable besides the AoA. I' m fairly sure we also had a bit of flaperon deflection included in the equation once at higher AoA.

Gums sends...

also had a bit of flaperon deflection included in the equation once at higher AoA. This is first time when I read about flaperons deployed at high AoA with out pilot inputs on Alt Flaps? How much deployment angle and max .speed are allowed to drop?
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 726
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post23 Sep 2018, 10:03

I still remember in the 2015 F16D vs F35 report the pilot criticized F35 for its low pitch rate.

So What happened in the past 3 years?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21560
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post23 Sep 2018, 10:46

Are you referring to the 'infamous' single test report? Aircraft are TESTED to be IMPROVED - no? How about that eh. You may recall that the test pilot said something to the effect that improvements were needed - were these implemented?

Are you able to read all the favourable pilot reports/articles about maneuverability of the F-35 variants? There must be at least 100 in this forum. DID you watch the PARIS Airshow video? I suspect you will never be convinced about anything.

F-35 pilots of the caliber of Morten Hanche RNoAF are believable however it is likely you and others do not agree. :roll:

'zero-one' original article 21 Sep 2016 viewtopic.php?f=58&t=52350&p=353053&hilit=Hanche+Kampflybloggen#p353053
Test Pilot Report, F-35 [VERY LONG ARTICLE BEST READ AT SOURCE + 6 page PDF of article attached]
22 Sep 2016 Major Morten Hanche, RNoAF

"...I fully expect the F-35’s most hardened critics to discount this article, regardless of what I write. However, some may choose to believe my story, based on the fact that I know the airplane and its capabilities as a pilot. I don’t make my claims based on bits and pieces of information, derived from potentially unreliable sources. They are based on experience actually flying and training with the jet for nearly a year.

My goal is to shed some light on airplane development and testing; why we test, what we discover in testing and what a test report may result in. I write this based on my own experience, both through education at the US Naval Test Pilot School, but more importantly through working with the F-16 and the F-35, both operationally and in test settings...

How we test a fighter jet
Testing of combat aircraft typically sees a distinction between Developmental Test (DT) and Operational Test (OT). In short we can say that DT seeks to answer whether the machine works according to the design specifications, whether the machine is safe to operate and what its safe operating limits end up being. OT on the other hand seeks to find out whether the machine can solve a particular task, like: Is the XYZ able to provide effective Close Air Support, in the presence of threat A, B and C?

The test program for a machine like the F-35 is an enormous undertaking. The contours of the F-35’s test program are described top-level in the Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP), totalling 1400 pages. Each sub-test in the TEMP results in a detailed test plan for that event. Especially in DT, a test flight is literally planned down to the minute, in order to accomplish as many test points as quickly and safely as possible. Flight testing is an expensive undertaking.

A test program should discover most important errors and flaws. However, time and resources available make it unrealistic to uncover every single issue. Risk is mitigated by testing the most critical components, like the engine in a single-engine fighter, to stricter tolerances. The amount of testing is a statistically driven decision. We know that there are things we don’t know, even at the completion of testing. We also know that there are likely few gross or dangerous errors which haven’t been found.

Each error we find during testing is documented and characterized. The language and format used is to the point. The test engineer and test pilot type up their findings and typically describe the situation “in a vacuum” – without regard for how costly or difficult it might be to address the issue. Each issue is then related to the mission – how will this quality or problem affect the given task?

Such a test report might read something like: “The SuperToaster 3000 was evaluated for uniform heat distribution and time to crispy toast, at the National Toast Center of Excellence, with room temperatures varying between 65 and 75 deg F. The toasting temperature was selected by turning a dial on the front of the toaster. Even with full crispiness selected, the toaster’s maximum temperature was low, and toasting of even the thinnest slices of white bread took more than 10 minutes. During early morning breakfasts, the time consuming toasting process will result in cranky parents, the kids being dropped off late for school and correspondingly negative effects on their grades and later career opportunities.”

This mission relation was probably a little over-the-top – a little like how some media articles relate its titbits of information to an imagined F-35 mission. In isolation, a system may not work as advertised, but could there be a workaround? (In the toaster-case, maybe cereal for breakfast?)

Anyway, after the issue is documented, the errors are then catalogued, debated and prioritized. Test engineers, test pilots, design engineers and customer representatives are often involved in the dialogue that follows when something undesirable is discovered. Together, these will have to agree on a path forward. Completely understanding the issue is crucial. Alternatives could be a re-design, accepting the flaw, mitigating the flaw procedurally or compensating by documenting the issue better. The team will have to compromise when prioritizing. Even when developing a new fighter jet, there are limits to what can be fixed, based on cost, time available, test resources available and also the complexity of the problem. Altogether, development and testing is an iterative process, where adjustments may have to take place during DT, OT or after the system is put into operational service....

...When asked about my first flight in the F-35, I compared it to flying a Hornet (F/A-18), but with a turbo charged engine. I now can quote a USMC F/A-18 Weapons School Graduate after his first flight in the F-35: “It was like flying a Hornet with four engines!” (His point being that the F-35 can afford to operate at high Angle-of-Attack and low airspeed, but that it will regain the airspeed quickly when needed). Another unintended, but illustrating example on performance came a few weeks back, when a student pilot failed to recognize that he had climbed through our temporary altitude restriction at 40,000′. The F-35 will happily climb past that altitude...."

Source: http://centralblue.williamsfoundation.o ... che-rnoaf/
Attachments
F-35A test-pilot-report-HANCHE 22 Sep 2016 pp6.pdf
(1.09 MiB) Downloaded 89 times
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1743
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post23 Sep 2018, 16:12

What happened?

I have never read of any changes specifically undertaken as a result of that CLAW tests. The aerospace "press" being apparently too lame, shallow, or just plain lazy to follow up on points of contention.

However, I do believe that test report that was "leaked" noted areas where the CLAW was too conservative -- where "they" (LM? the F-35 design?) had plenty of margin -- and recommended relaxing that margin somewhat. I took that to mean that the pitch rate could be improved.

Someone else commented here abouts somewheres to the effect: "well, duh, of course the F-35 is going to be at an energy disadvantage flying between 25° and 35° alpha -- don't fight an F-16 there!." So one benefit of this testing is that it would have made the F-35 pilot community very clearly aware of the flight control & performance characteristics of the F-35 in this angle of attack and energy region, so they know exactly how it performs there. Others here have commented that perhaps this is an area where the F-35 pilot will seek to avoid, only passing through it transitorily. That may be the case, or perhaps the LM CLAW engineers were able to work their magic and greatly increase performance here. However, we also have a multitude of quotes from pilots in the past couple of years about "learning to fly the aircraft differently" than the aircraft from which they came, how to take advantage of its strengths (e.g. pedal turns), learning when to "cash in their energy" to go for a kill etc.

I suspect it is a combination of both -- the CLAW engineers worked some additional magic, pilots learned to NOT stay in that alpha region -- either stay below it and maintain energy, OR when the timing is right to cash in your energy chips, go to 35° to 55°, as necessary, to get the shot, then relax the pitch and plug in that "four motor" blower.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Offline

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 542
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post23 Sep 2018, 23:00

There have been numerous first hand accounts of the CLAW since that test being tuned for optimum performance as a result of that test and just as importantly pilot feedback during all the development testing. The now quite spectacular airshow performance of the 3F production model shows where that all led to. The F-35 looks more like a muscular stalking panther than a clubbed baby seal in the ACM realm contrary to what all the naysayers predicted. For a plane primarily designed as a STRIKE fighter that can also do STOVL LMT have still managed to produce one hell of a dogfighter. Also it's no disgrace to lose a dogfight to an F-16, most aircraft do as that was its main design point.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post24 Sep 2018, 02:16

This is just more 3rd and 4th gen thinking. And it wasn’t even relevant to the 4th gens given the lack of ACM gun-fight killing since 1973. And how many times does it have to be said the F-35 fighting involves, "I look over at you, and you die". We've even seen pics of how early and extreme HOBS AIM-9X turns are. High-alpha pointing is not needed in that fighting. Unless you plan to catch a rare case of bubonic-plague (have a gun fight) that is. Which, in a high-end fight, flying an F-35A, will only result from a series of very poor choices, which will see you "... flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog sh*t out of Hong Kong ...". Unfortunately "Mav - The Resurgence", is again likely to emphasize being the gun-hero, but even within the original movie the gun was defeated by 'brakes', and the kills were completed with missiles*.

So they kinda got that 'right', regardless. :mrgreen:

*AIM-7s and AIM-154s need not apply.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2162
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post24 Sep 2018, 05:23

Salute!

Good thots Element. Especially about the Great White Hope missiles.

The Pk of all NATO missiles went way up after the USAF and USN experience in 'nam. Some was better training and a lot was missile improvements. The AIM-9L was a true game changer. Just ask the Brits that used it in the Falklands. I got to hear a debrief in person and the missile was very good there, with rave reviews by the Harrier pilots besides the one debriefing us.

The Slammer and the 'winders we now have in the U.S, are way better than what we had in the 80's. The other missiles NATO has are also way better.

The gun is fun, it is all-aspect, it does not require a complicated fire control system, it has launch and leave projectiles and you can tell if the projectiles were effective instantly! But it is a last ditch weapon. You don't need 1,000 rounds because you won't be saddling up for 30 seconds in a turning fight or engaging close-in unless surprised, and certainly not intentionally. I would like a few more rounds, but there's a trade-off with weight and volume.

Gums opines....
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1699
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post24 Sep 2018, 08:12

The reason why the dogfight or WVR in general gets so much attention is because its really the only place where they have a shot.

In RedFlag 17-1 all 7 of the F-35s killed were from WVR. Call it ROEs or respawned dead airplanes or whatever, fact is thats the only place they have a shot and you can bet that the brightest minds in Russia, China, N.Korea, Iran and all over are pouring hours into how they can get to that one spot where they can at least do some damage.

And in the history of warfare, far inferior opponents have always had surprises for their superior foes and lessons are always learned. Look at all the innovations the US Army had from fighting cave men in Afganistan

So to me, 5th gen mentality shouldn't be. "Stop talking dogfights because we don't expect to get there ".
5th gen was intended to be superior in all facets of air combat, air dominance achieved regardless of circumstance.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4750
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post24 Sep 2018, 13:49

zero-one wrote:So to me, 5th gen mentality shouldn't be. "Stop talking dogfights because we don't expect to get there ".
5th gen was intended to be superior in all facets of air combat, air dominance achieved regardless of circumstance.


Who is doing that? Both the F-22 and F-35 maneuver just fine.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1699
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post24 Sep 2018, 17:15

sferrin wrote:
Who is doing that? Both the F-22 and F-35 maneuver just fine.


Thats how they were intended to be.
Unfortunately, some, not many, but some people get ticked off when discussions about F-22/35 getting to the merge arise.
They shut down the discussion by labeling it "old think" or "3rd/4th gen mentality".

yes I heard Col. Chip Burke's statement when he said that if you're still thinking about dogfights then you're missing the big picture of 5th gen.

Thats true, 5th gen platforms are so much more than getting the upper hand in the merge. That is simply a small part of the picture but it is still part of the picture.

Both Maj. Dolby Hanche and Tailgate have similar statements when it comes to the topic. If needed, they can, they will and they'll win.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post24 Sep 2018, 18:59

zero-one wrote:Both Maj. Dolby Hanche and Tailgate have similar statements when it comes to the topic. If needed, they can, they will and they'll win.


1973
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 542
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post24 Sep 2018, 19:34

The Canada CIAS2018 full display with a close-up of the excellent yaw control at low speed and high AoA at 5mins 10secs.

Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21560
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post24 Sep 2018, 22:09

:applause: Best maneuvers at about 1min05sec and 5min10sec. First one would have been gut wrenching but fun indeed. :crazypilot:
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7478
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post24 Sep 2018, 22:39

Impressive!
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lbk000 and 5 guests