Forum: F-35 milestones

@Neptune, funny how all of a sudden their is an abundance of information on the tail hook problem. It's like the information Santa came early. Thanks Spazsinbad!

F-16.net Sponsor

spazsinbad wrote:

sufaviper, thanks for getting us to read all the very important statements in section 1. Which one is it?

It was section I (sounds like eye, I know it can be tough to differentiate between a 1 and an I), which reads as follows:

"I. The team identified no fundamental design risks sufficient to preclude further production."

Which is to say that the current ~30 per year rate is good, or at least that is how I read it.

Sufa Viper

sufaviper, thanks. Yes it is a capital I which I did not differentiate. I'll get my glasses adjusted. Very Happy

alloycowboy wrote:

@Neptune, funny how all of a sudden their is an abundance of information on the tail hook problem. It's like the information Santa came early. Thanks Spazsinbad!

It's better than a bag of switches or a lump of coal! Laughing

In retrospec, why would we expect LM or Boeing to make a "tailhook" that would work? Shocked

MD is certainly sitting back having a big laugh. Laughing

It will be embarrasing if Gruman's hook is problematic on the X-47, Ha! Laughing

Amy Butler story from Aviation Week & Space Technology p.38 Dec 12, 2011 has this item.

The F-35 hook point looks like the front edge is quite a bit higher then a Hornet hook point. The changes needed look pretty small to me though. Small changes to the hook point and a few changes to the damper. Once those issues are delt with everything else should be fine. I dont see the distance from the gear to the hook as being a big deal.

I don't know, I think that the tail-hook could be the end of the F-35. Its about half the current distance from the rear wheels to the hook, according to the report, which implies that its marginal at best and may need to be moved.

If that's the case, it could be nearly impossible to make the tail-hook fit the current airframe and could require a very expensive redesign of the F-35C. This problem exists because of the F-35C's stealth shape, any new tail-hook location has to have its stealth shaping rechecked and certified.

At that point, program cancellation becomes an option if the Navy doesn't like what it is seeing.

I like the comment about LM not knowing whats up with tailhooks. And as far as Boeing, they may own McD, but only the old McD guys know. I have always believed that Grumman = Carrier Aviation, let them fix it.

Just looking at the A4 Skyhawk it also has its tail hook close to its main landing gear. So hopefuly the fix for the F-35 is to just correct the tail hook profile and up the damping.

From the look of the second picture it looks like the main gear isn't on the deck. It also looks like the hook shank is longer then on the F-35.

Naval Aircraft land hook then main wheels then nosewheel (as arrest/landing takes place). Every Naval Aircraft lands at Optimum Angle of Attack to ensure best approach speed below maximum landing weight (so as weight increases not greater than Max.Land.Wt.) the airspeed will increase at the Optimum Angle of Attack which ensures the aircraft lands as described.

The A-4 had phenomenal long tall undercarriage, best to carry an huge amount of stores underwing me dear.... Very Happy

The hook to eye distance is a measure of how the pilot sees the centre ball in the IFLOLS (today) and the 'hook to ramp' clearance will be a minimum height for an aircraft to safely clear the ramp during a carrier approach. Because the hook tip will be below the main wheels at Optimum Angle of Attack, the hook in effect dictates all other aspects of the carrier approach. In effect the pilot lands the hook into the wires. This is a very short summary of what can turn out to be a complicated topic compared to an ordinary land landing with flare/float and gentle touchdown.

spazsinbad.... Some day we are going to have to sit down with a couple beers and your going have to explain to me how you know all this stuff.

Easy, I have over one hundred deck landings (very few at night because the A4G did not have much to do at night but had to be able to launch before dawn and land after dark). This was now 40 years ago. Carrier time on a single carrier in the RAN was at a premium so some people in their careers were able to get more, depending on circumstances. I was a junior pilot at the start of the A4G era so got pushed back in the queue - to the FarQueue in fact. Very Happy

However for the last few years I have been researching 'How to Deck Land' to explain to Ozzies unfamiliar with the process using not only old material but up to date info including for the F-35C and B models. You can see the results in the URLs in my signature below this post. Best place to go is:

http://www.adf-history.com/adf/?cat=7
OR
http://alturl.com/4a4ko

spazsinbad wrote:

Naval Aircraft land hook then main wheels then nosewheel (as arrest/landing takes place). Every Naval Aircraft lands at Optimum Angle of Attack to ensure best approach speed below maximum landing weight (so as weight increases not greater than Max.Land.Wt.) the airspeed will increase at the Optimum Angle of Attack which ensures the aircraft lands as described.

The A-4 had phenomenal long tall undercarriage, best to carry an huge amount of stores underwing me dear.... Very Happy

The hook to eye distance is a measure of how the pilot sees the centre ball in the IFLOLS (today) and the 'hook to ramp' clearance will be a minimum height for an aircraft to safely clear the ramp during a carrier approach. Because the hook tip will be below the main wheels at Optimum Angle of Attack, the hook in effect dictates all other aspects of the carrier approach. In effect the pilot lands the hook into the wires. This is a very short summary of what can turn out to be a complicated topic compared to an ordinary land landing with flare/float and gentle touchdown.

I understand the way a aircraft lands on an aircraft carrier, but I guess I didnt explain my thoughts thorough enough. The point I was trying to make was that with the main gear was off the deck i.e. not running over the cable and compressing it on the flight deck. That was causing part of the problem with the arresting gear trials as the distance between the landing gear and hook wasn't far enough to allow the wire to spring back away from the deck before the hook passed over. The F-35 also looks to have shorter arresting gear and a lower stance then the A-4.

Oh, right the HMAS Melbourne. I forgot the Ozzies had a flat tops too. In fact they were the same kind of Majestic class carriers Canada had. But you guys were smarter and kept your longer. That was before Caanda's dark ages and Pierre Trudeau.

Forum: F-35 milestones

F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing