Forum: F-35 milestones

The EMALS prototype would fall into the critical path for F-35C testing. I'm sure the F-35 program managers would like to avoid more dependencies if possible.

F-16.net Sponsor

jetnerd wrote:

I still don't see the harm in putting CF-3 on the EMALs prototype while it's there at Lakehurst. A program spokeswoman had responded bascially that it wasn't the time to do it (understandable). But even if there's no need to address any issues that may happen to be found with EMALS (i.e. the EM environment and all of the '35's sensors, complex systems) at least it givess a longer time to think/plan about it.

you don't test two experimental systems in overlap, plain and simple, no matter how good their test records are.

Not much to gain but too much to lose if something went awry.

jetnerd wrote:

.. in putting CF-3 on the EMALs prototype while it's there at Lakehurst. ....

Who knows?, CF-3 was fit checked onto the CAT before it was later launched. That fit check could be done on the EMAL as well, without planning (committing) to a launch. Electrical interference in all spectrums could be detected at that time. It would give a "heads up" to both programs. Idea

Quote:

Who knows?, CF-3 was fit checked onto the CAT before it was later launched. That fit check could be done on the EMAL as well, without planning (committing) to a launch. Electrical interference in all spectrums could be detected at that time. It would give a "heads up" to both programs.

Exactly what I was thinking in my original comment. The increased lead time / "heads-up" on possible EM issues could potentially save on future efforts when they might have to be addressed.

F-35 program looks like it's in for yet more rough waters in Congress despite testing success, due to current budget problems, so I can understand the delicacy of the situation with respect to any possible negative results. I also understand at least some of the reasons for sticking to schedule. But this idea seems like a very inexpensive effort that could yield potentially useful advance knowledge. Neptune, like you said a simple fit check could tell a lot. And if everything happens to go okay, a "no issues found with preliminary EMALS fit checks" would be a useful feather in their caps at this time.

F-35C completes jet blast deflector testing Aug 22, 2011

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... mp;id=4736

"NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – The F-35C is another step closer to initial ship trials on an aircraft carrier at sea.

The F-35 integrated test force completed jet blast deflector (JBD) testing at the NAVAIR facility in Lakehurst, N.J. Aug. 13 with a round of two-aircraft testing. F-35C test aircraft CF-1 along with an F/A-18E tested a combined JBD cooling panel configuration to assess the integration of F-35s in aircraft carrier launch operations.

“We completed all of our JBD test points efficiently,” said Andrew Maack, government chief test engineer. “It was a great collaborative effort by all parties.”

The government and industry team completed tests that measured temperatures, pressures, sound levels, velocities, and other environmental data. The combined JBD model will enable carrier deck crews to operate all air wing aircraft, now including the F-35C, as operational tempo requires.

“We came out of testing with no surprises,” said Maack. “The fact that we’ve collected all the data required to validate our requirements is a testament to the talent on the team and all of their pre-testing preparation and simulations.”

Future carrier suitability testing is scheduled throughout this year, including ongoing catapult testing and the start of arrestment testing in preparation for initial ship trials in 2013.

The F-35C carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is distinct from the F-35A and F-35B variants with its larger wing surfaces and reinforced landing gear for catapult launch, slower landing approach speeds, and deck impacts associated with the demanding carrier take-off and landing environment."

http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/ ... 59_001.jpg

Production F-35s to stay parked for IPP fix

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... p-fix.html

DATE:23/08/11

Production F-35s to stay parked for IPP fix

By Stephen Trimble

Lockheed Martin F-35s resumed flight testing over the weekend, but two production aircraft remained grounded while US Air Force safety investigators continue scrutinising their power and thermal management system.

Flight tests included at least three catapult launches of an F-35C carrier-based variant from a runway at a naval base in Lakehurst, New Jersey, according to the joint programme office.

The navy has also completed jet-blast deflector testing, moving the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variant one step closer to shipboard trials.

The catapult launches were among the first flight operations for the F-35 test fleet since a grounding order was lifted on 18 August, after a 16-day hiatus.

The joint programme office suspended flight operations on 2 August and the Air Force safety oversight board launched an investigation after conventional take-off and landing flight test aircraft AF-4 experienced an "explosive event" during a routine ground test.

A control valve malfunction caused the Honeywell integrated power package (IPP) to fail after starting up the F-35's engine. The IPP is used to start the engine, and then powers the system that cools the F-35's power supply.

Flight operations are limited to the 12 aircraft flight test fleet, which are heavily instrumented and can be monitored in real-time.

As many as eight completed production aircraft, including the AF-8 and AF-9 models delivered to Eglin air force base, Florida, remain grounded while the safety investigation continues.

The production aircraft are expected to return to flight after a series of hardware and software fixes are installed, expected in September and October.

Quote:

The navy has also completed jet-blast deflector testing, moving the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variant one step closer to shipboard trials.

The JBD testing on the C has to be complete before the B can do to sea?

Lightndattic wrote:

Quote:

The navy has also completed jet-blast deflector testing, moving the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variant one step closer to shipboard trials.

The JBD testing on the C has to be complete before the B can do to sea?

The JBD at Lakehurst is heavily instrumented and the datalogging from those tests yield data that is applicable to the test and cooling systems on the WASP. It will help verify the endpoint parameters for measurements, making them more accurate and therefore more useful. The interaction of the lift fan with the jet exhaust and the roll posts exhaust will generate a significantly different (and probably lower temperature) temperature pattern from those measured on the JBD. Wink

Surely that is a typo in the Trimble story? "The navy has also completed jet-blast deflector testing, moving the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variant one step closer to shipboard trials." Substitue C for incorrect 'B' in the 'Tremble' story. Sea? My bad - another typo. Rolling Eyes

I guess writing about two models in one story with unrelated threads (IPP & JBD testing caused confusion - or was it IBP & JPD testing? I dunno).

I don't see how any JBD testing of the 'C' is applicable to the USS Wasp. The 'B' has been tested extensively not only at Pax River but earlier in the 'hover pit' which itself is heavily instrumented. A lot is known about any heat/blast effects of the 'B'.

Search FlickR for 'F-35C Catapult for more pics: http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=1006222 ... mp;q=F-35C Catapult

F-35C Burner Catapult: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/6079792225/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6190/607 ... b24c_b.jpg

Camera technology is amazing

Lockheed Wraps Up F-35 Structural Testing Sep 20, 2011 By Amy Butler [for brain dead my 'comment' is in bold] Very Happy

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... mp;prev=10

"...Separately, the F-35 test team and the U.S. Navy conducted a series of jet-blast deflector trials. These were designed to assess the effect of flight operations, including catapult launches, on the ship’s jet blast deflectors, which shield the ship and other aircraft from hot exhaust. Burbage says no changes are required for the jet blast deflectors to introduce the F-35C into the carrier fleet. The F-35C will begin testing on an aircraft carrier next spring, Burbage says...."

F-35C Jet Blast Deflector Testing [VIDEO]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbyebvc3 ... r_embedded

"Uploaded by LockheedMartinVideos on Jul 13, 2011
F-35C Lightning II carrier variant aircraft CF-2 performing Jet Blast Deflector (JBD) tests at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey. The JBD, located behind the catapults aboard aircraft carriers, deflects high energy exhaust from the engine to prevent damage and injury to other aircraft and personnel located in close proximity. JBD testing is one portion of the tests required to ensure the F-35C is compatible aboard the aircraft carrier."

At the end the stealth steps can be seen....

Info posted NOT for the video (already seen elsehwere) but for the factual information as shown:

F-35 Flight Test Video Posted 13 July 2011 Video posted 27 July 2011

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_ ... item_id=60

First Cat Launch For F-35
Navy test pilot Lt. Christopher Tabert took to the sky on 27 July 2011 in an F-35C test aircraft launched by a steam catapult for the first time at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey. Aircraft carrier catapult launches accelerate the F-35 to takeoff speed with full fuel and ordnance over a short, 300-foot power stroke, transmitting more than 250,000 pounds of pull force through the F-35’s nose gear launch system and structure. The test aircraft, CF-3, arrived from the primary F-35C test and evaluation site, NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, the day before this first launch. This was Flight 8 for CF-3."

Forum: F-35 milestones

F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing