Forum: Program and politics

I think best to concentrate on fixing the F-35C rather than something else what is likely to be much more expensive for eleven plus two possible Brit carriers. I would add the French carrier but 'unknown sourced reports' suggest that the F-35C will not operate from CdeG except perhaps for practice (not max. load sorties). I have been looking for these reports without success.

F-16.net Sponsor

Yes, I am serious. A channel about a foot wide starting at the beginning of the deck running a couple feet past the last pendent where it would tapper up and meet the regular deck. As far as the aircraft tires are concerned it would be different then running over one of the pendents.

So you think an F-35C can hit a channel only one foot wide, in the dark, coming in at 145+ kts (that's 166+ mph)? Shocked

Okay, I'll give you 30" (15 inches off center ethier way) but only because your an A-4 skyhawk pilot and need the extra room. Crazy Pilot

Cost too much.. Like Spaz said, let them just fix the F-35C.

Last edited by spazsinbad on Jan 09, 2012 - 01:16 PM; edited 3 times in total

JPALS AUTOLAND might do it! But seriously if 'out of the box' ideas now would help land USN aircraft these would have been investigated over the years and found wanting if not enabled. I guess the expense of modifying eleven plus carrier decks outweighs fixing the F-35C hook/arrest issues for all conditions? Don't forget all the runways in the world wot will require this mystical channel that will only drain rain water and be a real hassle for everyone. Why even the short/long field arrestor wire on rubber grommets is a hassle for some aircraft (hence BAK-14 modified can hide the wire underground to popup as required).

I would rather hit the 'rubber deck' as did the venerable old Brit RN test pilot (still kicking AFAIK after all that 'rubber deck' abuse and the most deck landings of any mudder trucker! Very Happy

So just to go to the rubber room here he is:

"Celebrated Royal Navy veteran Test Pilot, Captain Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown MBE, OBE, CBE, DSC, AFC RN celebrated his 90th birthday last month. To mark the event Captain Brown was visited by a Royal Navy Lynx from 702 Squadron. Eric, the Navy’s most decorated pilot and the first man to land a jet aircraft on a ship at sea, said of his 31 years service with the Fleet Air Arm “It was exciting, challenging and of course you met people who were really geniuses in their time.” Eric served as a fighter pilot in the Battle of Britain and later as one of the world’s greatest test pilots. He holds many world records including the most types of aircraft flown, a staggering 487 and the most carrier deck landings at 2407, and was also the first British pilot to fly a helicopter. In November 2008 he flew to America to see the new F-35 Joint Combat Aircraft. He sat in the cockpit and flew the simulator."

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/pdf/newsletter_2.pdf

3rd Dec 1945: 1st Jet Landing on a Carrier (Lt Cdr Brown RN, Sea Vampire, HMS OCEAN)
_________________

http://www.robertheffley.com/docs/CV_en ... 685823.pdf

Flexdeck
“In the early 1950s significant changes were occurring in carrier aviation. In addition to the development of the steam catapult, the UK Royal Navy had also saved carrier aviation with the introduction of the angled deck and mirror landed system. During this period the idea was conceived of saving considerable weight, thereby significantly improving up and away performance, by removing the landing gear, its associated systems, and structural weight. A joint U.S. Navy and Air Force, and UK Royal Navy program was initiated to investigate the concepts of zero-length launch and flex deck landings. The zero-length launch program was undertaken by the Air Force and met with little success. All three services had flex deck programs. The Air Force program was shortlived, and injured both test pilots.

The Royal Navy program was conducted using a rubber deck which was higher in the middle than at each end in order to reduce landing loads. The de Havilland Vampire, which had made the first jet carrier landings and takeoffs on December 3, 1945, was used. It was a straight-wing aircraft with a loaded weight of 12,660lb and used a long straight-in approach at 90kt. Pitch down and rapid deceleration occurred at arresting wire engagement, followed by mild impact and about a dozen bounces. The aircraft stopped in about 100ft.”
___________

More on Eric here: http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/wi ... brown.aspx
&
http://www.vectorsite.net/avvamp_1.html

“*One of the odd footnotes of the Vampire's service with the Royal Navy in which the type performed "wheels up" arrested landings on carriers. The idea was that eliminating the heavy landing gear would improve fighter performance; the fighter would "belly in" on a "flex-ible deck" or "mattress" composed of heavy layers of rubber on top of a matrix of fire hoses. A Vampire F.1 was modified to test this idea, performing an initial wheels-up landing test on 29 December 1947, setting down on a mattress set up on an airfield, with Eric Brown doing the honors. It didn't go well, with the landing proving so rough that the aircraft had to be written off. Brown was unhurt. The Royal Navy was undiscouraged. Two "Sea Vampire F.21" machines were built in 1948, both being similar to the Sea Vampire F.20 but with a reinforced belly and other tweaky changes; landing gear was retained. Landings were performed on a mattress set up on the carrier HMS WARRIOR in 1948 and 1949. Things went much better and it seemed the flexible deck system could be made to work, but though the Royal Navy tinkered with the notion into the early 1950s, overall it was just too much of a nuisance to be adopted.” [I'm old enough to have flown the RAN & RAAF versions of the dual trainer Vampire but NOT doing the capers described above!] Very Happy

____________

BIO PDF here: http://www.epnaao.com/BIOS_files/HONORA ... ic%20M.pdf (0.27Mb)

@elp ........ the F-35C is only an outlier because who ever made that fancy chart neglected the A-4 Skyhawk and T-45 Goshawk. If you include those two the F-35C is no longer an outlier. As for Adm. Velnet I like him for this F-35 project because he is a carrier pilot, test pilot, aeronautical engineer and has a exellent track record as head of the Aim-9X Sidewinder program. As for the yoke design, I am not sure what the driver is for such a beefy design was. It might have just been just the Fokker Eindecker boys and girls padding their design with an extra large safety factor because they didn't have the historical design data that McDonald Douglas and Grumman have but didn't feel like sharing. There is where Adm. Velnet will be most effective because he can compel companies to share their engineering data they wouldn't normally share unless out fear of loosing a certain future X-47C contract.

@spazsinbad..... Test Pilot, Captain Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown flew 487 different aircraft??? I didn't think there were that many! I wonder if he had favorite?

As for the channel idea, I would at least like to test it out on land and see if works. It don't think it could hurt to try it.

alloycowboy wrote:

@elp ........ the F-35C is only an outlier because who ever made that fancy chart neglected the A-4 Skyhawk and T-45 Goshawk. I.

? Both T-45 Goshawk and TA-4J Skyhawk are listed on that chart from what I can tell. T-45 with more than twice the MLG to TH distance vs JSf.

Vice Admiral David J. Venlet - Program Executive Officer - F-35 Lightning II Program

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=288

"Vice Admiral Venlet is the program executive officer for the F-35 Lightning II Program. He previously served as commander Naval Air Systems Command, headquartered in Patuxent River, Md. Other flag tours include program executive officer, Tactical Air Programs and commander Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, with responsibility for Navy weapons and systems RDT&E and fleet support capabilities at China Lake and Point Mugu, Calif. He served as NAVAIR assistant commander for Test and Evaluation, and for Shore Installation Management.

Fleet tours include VF-41 as an F-14 Tomcat radar intercept officer embarked in USS Nimitz. He wears the distinguished Flying Cross for action in VF-41. After redesignation as a naval aviator he flew with VF-143 as an F-14 pilot embarked in USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and with VF-101 at NAS Oceana as a Tomcat instructor pilot and A-4 adversary pilot.

Tours in Naval Air Systems Command include Strike test pilot at Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River, the F/A-18 program in various capacities including class desk officer and deputy program manager. He was executive assistant to the commander, Naval Air Systems Command and served as program manager for Air-to-Air Missiles involving AIM-9X development.

Venlet is from Pottstown, Penn., and graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy. He is a graduate of the Naval Postgraduate School and US Naval Test Pilot School and is a member of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots. He has a BS in Systems Engineering and MS in Aerospace Engineering."
_________

TA-4J is surprisingly closest to F-35C (look to right of chart):
http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/a ... report.pdf (18Mb)

The UK should immediately start working on a navalized Typhoon or simply buy the French Rafale . The third best alternative would be the Super Hornet.
Otherwise, these two new QE class carriers which cost UK taxpayers a fortune , won't have any aircraft on their deck at the time they are launced .

elp wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:

Sorry, I cannot hear sound to hear video on this computer but anyway.... No one is denying there is an issue with the hook - that will be fixed however. If it cannot be fixed then that is another matter. No one is saying that there is not a fix for the hook problem. Why jump the gun? Perhaps your article headline will be relevant then?

I am curious why someone would go to all the trouble to make a chart that shows tail hook configurations from many previous aircraft and then use words like "outlier".

It all looks so simple; and things have been fixed before. What baffles the mind is how is "The Caped Crusader" (Adm Venlet) is going to get out of this one? He has to take ownership of this resolution (not so much the cause although... he was in NAVAIR previously. One would have thought the program would consult with those people)...but anyway I think this one is more scary than any of the other problems including the IPP and helmet/cockpit interface issues. But what works against a fix is the basic aircraft design and the need for commonality but worse, the paper-thin weight margins.

An interesting question for structural engineers? Did they use a yoke configuration because they had to lower stress on an already minimal strength airframe or some other issues?

If they pull a rabbit out of their hat I will be amazed and thank them.

My thoughts is that they are against the wall on this one.

It's a tailhook. It isn't rocket science for god's sake. Rolling Eyes

They'll get it fixed. By summer we'll be wondering why it was ever an issue. (Though we all know you and Bill will be trotting it out for the next 20 years.)