F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
Whether it is possible to know officially or not for CVN sea state operating limits at least the Brits are certain of being able to operate in 'sea state 6' as per this report (and there are others out there using the same terminology). I have evidence that - with JPALS - there will be NO operating restrictions for CVNs when JPALS is installed. So we can guess that either JPALS and the equivalent will be in use on CVFs also. SS6 report follows then a USN LSO method to bring 'em back when tings are tuff. Here is a quote from JPALS info PDF below:
"Ramp Strike Prevention System: An approach monitor function which includes projection of aircraft state and variable alarm limits for LSO monitoring and/or as part of vehicle flight control system integration."
http://acast.grc.nasa.gov/wp-content/up ... allace.pdf
_____________________
'Sea State Six' info here: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... c&p=221219 stroll down
OR
Sea State Table: http://www.syqwestinc.com/support/Sea%2 ... 0Table.htm
OR
One definition of Sea State Six: "4 to 6 metres wave height - Very rough"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_state & Surface Wind speed from Table can be from 27-33 knots
_____________________
FARNBOROUGH: BAE to ramp up work on JSF production - By Craig Hoyle - 13/07/10 - Flight International
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ction.html
“...Considerable work has already been conducted to prepare for the UK’s future operation of the F-35B. Qinetiq’s VAAC Harrier test aircraft supported the development of its flight control laws, & also tested a shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique. This will enable the STOVL type to return to the carrier’s deck at a greater landing weight, allowing unused stores to be kept on the wing, rather than jettisoned before landing.
Developed for the UK as an alternative to making a vertical landing, the concept also has the backing of the USMC, which plans to adopt the procedure when operating its F-35Bs from the US Navy’s Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. Now installed at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire, Qinetiq’s simulator for the VAAC Harrier - being adapted for additional use by the Empire Test Pilots’ School - perfectly demonstrates the generational advance brought by the F-35B.
Flying an approach to the RN’s new aircraft carrier in sea state six should be a daunting prospect for a novice pilot. But a single button press slows the aircraft to 60kt (110km/h) and automatically configures its flaps and nozzle deflection, making it a matter of merely flying an approach angle of 6-7° towards a series of white lights on the deck. Such design traits go to showcase the F-35B’s attraction for military user and industry alike. Each of the Royal Navy’s ski jump-equipped Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers will be able to carry up to 36 F-35Bs.
UK’s STOVL HERITAGE LIFTS F-35B TEST PROGRAMME..."
_____________________
Pitching Deck
http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesN ... ry2010.pdf
"The 2005 PBS Special documenting the Nimitz and Carrier Air Wing’s 11’ s combat deployment provided an interesting portrayal of life on board a carrier. For LSOs, however, episode seven stands out above the rest. With deck swings in excess of 30 feet, a recovery got very interesting for the paddles and pilots involved. Below is one CAG paddles’ thoughts on the day’s events.
As LSOs, we can manipulate the approaching aircraft to fly in a window that we can most easily manage. By this I mean we should use both voice and ball presentation to put a jet in a position where the pilot will have to make minimal power-off corrections.
Pick the glide slope (3.5-4.0 degrees) for the deck conditions and work hard to not let him get too high. I'm not suggesting that we should wave aircraft low. But consider this: the highest you can show a pilot on the MOVLAS is about half way up the lens. Once a pilot's energy state exceeds that presentation you now have a lot of work to do. Here is where you need to be able to pat your head and rub your belly. You must be able to talk and present the ball to the pilot in such a way that he knows exactly where he is on the glide slope so that he can judge the magnitude of his corrections. You need to be able to make him predictable.
This is what scares me about a pilot who is high with no reference other than Paddles? voice: he isn't very predictable up there. Each pilot should be familiar with your voice inflection. Each pilot should know what to do with the power based on your inflection.
And, as for the MOVLAS presentation, a pilot will know how to react to a red ball regardless of how far it is from what appears to be the middle. I would rather bolter a guy who is staying low with power calls and a red ball on MOVLAS than to use the power calls and a red ball to try to catch him coming off a high, flying through down. Ramp strikes occur (most of the time) when an aircraft goes from high to low. I believe this high and over–powered regime is more dangerous, with the current MOVLAS setup, than if the aircraft were a little low at the start to in the middle.
The reason is simple: we are not capable of providing as useful information to the pilot once he is above the limits of the MOVLAS. Keeping a pilot on glide slope will require you to exaggerate the ball displacement. He must be able to see it. You should plan on making radio calls if you aren't immediately getting what you want from the pilot. The harder you are working to get a pilot in the ballpark the farther out you should be moving the wave-off window regardless of where he is on the glide slope.
Voice calls are important and if you watch the PLAT tape of the 4 OCT recovery you will hear a lot of talking. Bug Roach wrote about how sometimes simply using “standard LSO comm” won't cut it. On the tape you will hear several screaming “Easy with it!” calls. Those were the equivalent to Bug Roach's “take some power off and land it” call. In the case of 4 OCT, with 700 miles to the nearest land, multiple low state aircraft and the weather getting worse, hard landings were a far better option than fuel starvation. Once you get the plane to a position where it has a reasonable chance to land you need to do what it takes to get it over the ramp and into the wires. One thing we learned from this recovery was that I probably should have been wearing the CAG LSO headset while working the MOVLAS. I was stepped on several times by the other CAG Paddles who was wearing it at the third position. All his calls were good but it was distracting for me as the controlling LSO.
That's about all I have. I wouldn't assume that the techniques I have discussed are the only and best way, but they are food for thought. Keep'm off the ramp.
C.G. Paquin CVW-11 LSO"
"Ramp Strike Prevention System: An approach monitor function which includes projection of aircraft state and variable alarm limits for LSO monitoring and/or as part of vehicle flight control system integration."
http://acast.grc.nasa.gov/wp-content/up ... allace.pdf
_____________________
'Sea State Six' info here: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... c&p=221219 stroll down
OR
Sea State Table: http://www.syqwestinc.com/support/Sea%2 ... 0Table.htm
OR
One definition of Sea State Six: "4 to 6 metres wave height - Very rough"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_state & Surface Wind speed from Table can be from 27-33 knots
_____________________
FARNBOROUGH: BAE to ramp up work on JSF production - By Craig Hoyle - 13/07/10 - Flight International
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ction.html
“...Considerable work has already been conducted to prepare for the UK’s future operation of the F-35B. Qinetiq’s VAAC Harrier test aircraft supported the development of its flight control laws, & also tested a shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique. This will enable the STOVL type to return to the carrier’s deck at a greater landing weight, allowing unused stores to be kept on the wing, rather than jettisoned before landing.
Developed for the UK as an alternative to making a vertical landing, the concept also has the backing of the USMC, which plans to adopt the procedure when operating its F-35Bs from the US Navy’s Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. Now installed at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire, Qinetiq’s simulator for the VAAC Harrier - being adapted for additional use by the Empire Test Pilots’ School - perfectly demonstrates the generational advance brought by the F-35B.
Flying an approach to the RN’s new aircraft carrier in sea state six should be a daunting prospect for a novice pilot. But a single button press slows the aircraft to 60kt (110km/h) and automatically configures its flaps and nozzle deflection, making it a matter of merely flying an approach angle of 6-7° towards a series of white lights on the deck. Such design traits go to showcase the F-35B’s attraction for military user and industry alike. Each of the Royal Navy’s ski jump-equipped Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers will be able to carry up to 36 F-35Bs.
UK’s STOVL HERITAGE LIFTS F-35B TEST PROGRAMME..."
_____________________
Pitching Deck
http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesN ... ry2010.pdf
"The 2005 PBS Special documenting the Nimitz and Carrier Air Wing’s 11’ s combat deployment provided an interesting portrayal of life on board a carrier. For LSOs, however, episode seven stands out above the rest. With deck swings in excess of 30 feet, a recovery got very interesting for the paddles and pilots involved. Below is one CAG paddles’ thoughts on the day’s events.
As LSOs, we can manipulate the approaching aircraft to fly in a window that we can most easily manage. By this I mean we should use both voice and ball presentation to put a jet in a position where the pilot will have to make minimal power-off corrections.
Pick the glide slope (3.5-4.0 degrees) for the deck conditions and work hard to not let him get too high. I'm not suggesting that we should wave aircraft low. But consider this: the highest you can show a pilot on the MOVLAS is about half way up the lens. Once a pilot's energy state exceeds that presentation you now have a lot of work to do. Here is where you need to be able to pat your head and rub your belly. You must be able to talk and present the ball to the pilot in such a way that he knows exactly where he is on the glide slope so that he can judge the magnitude of his corrections. You need to be able to make him predictable.
This is what scares me about a pilot who is high with no reference other than Paddles? voice: he isn't very predictable up there. Each pilot should be familiar with your voice inflection. Each pilot should know what to do with the power based on your inflection.
And, as for the MOVLAS presentation, a pilot will know how to react to a red ball regardless of how far it is from what appears to be the middle. I would rather bolter a guy who is staying low with power calls and a red ball on MOVLAS than to use the power calls and a red ball to try to catch him coming off a high, flying through down. Ramp strikes occur (most of the time) when an aircraft goes from high to low. I believe this high and over–powered regime is more dangerous, with the current MOVLAS setup, than if the aircraft were a little low at the start to in the middle.
The reason is simple: we are not capable of providing as useful information to the pilot once he is above the limits of the MOVLAS. Keeping a pilot on glide slope will require you to exaggerate the ball displacement. He must be able to see it. You should plan on making radio calls if you aren't immediately getting what you want from the pilot. The harder you are working to get a pilot in the ballpark the farther out you should be moving the wave-off window regardless of where he is on the glide slope.
Voice calls are important and if you watch the PLAT tape of the 4 OCT recovery you will hear a lot of talking. Bug Roach wrote about how sometimes simply using “standard LSO comm” won't cut it. On the tape you will hear several screaming “Easy with it!” calls. Those were the equivalent to Bug Roach's “take some power off and land it” call. In the case of 4 OCT, with 700 miles to the nearest land, multiple low state aircraft and the weather getting worse, hard landings were a far better option than fuel starvation. Once you get the plane to a position where it has a reasonable chance to land you need to do what it takes to get it over the ramp and into the wires. One thing we learned from this recovery was that I probably should have been wearing the CAG LSO headset while working the MOVLAS. I was stepped on several times by the other CAG Paddles who was wearing it at the third position. All his calls were good but it was distracting for me as the controlling LSO.
That's about all I have. I wouldn't assume that the techniques I have discussed are the only and best way, but they are food for thought. Keep'm off the ramp.
C.G. Paquin CVW-11 LSO"
- Attachments
-
-
-
-
Last edited by spazsinbad on 12 Jan 2013, 05:25, edited 7 times in total.
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
double post - 'bad' post above was posted - but not seen until now. 
Last edited by spazsinbad on 12 Jan 2013, 04:11, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3300
- Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38
If things really go wrong, would they not be able to rig the deck for a barrier arrestment?
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.
Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
IF things go wrong then a VL is easy. No? No need for a barricade. I'll imagine if an SRVL is deemed to be the only option to land, then (if this is an emergency) the deck will be cleared for best result. It seems to me that a lot of testing has been done with the STOVL mode in various combinations of faults, and with computer flying controls, things go well. You will have to dream up an emergency situation then we will have to dream up the answer. OK?
-
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3300
- Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38
spazsinbad wrote:IF things go wrong then a VL is easy. No? No need for a barricade. I'll imagine if an SRVL is deemed to be the only option to land, then (if this is an emergency) the deck will be cleared for best result. It seems to me that a lot of testing has been done with the STOVL mode in various combinations of faults, and with computer flying controls, things go well. You will have to dream up an emergency situation then we will have to dream up the answer. OK?
Well, like the doors for the lift fan failing to open in flight? Or maybe just the clutch?
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.
Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
Tell him he's dreamin' - I don't have an F-35B NATOPS - so not me Chief. 
There must be situations where the aircraft - unable to get into a usable STOVL mode - will either divert ashore if that is possible; or otherwise pilot ejects (usually near the ship). These emergency situations are worked through, as much as possible, with the test aircraft so that SOPs/NATOPS (standard operating procedures) are worked out. Who knows what the outcome of that process will be? I'll assure you though that many minds are concentrated on this aspect, with the knowledge known now, for what might be done then. Bad things do happen in military aircraft when operating at their limits, so that ejection in a safe environment perhaps is the only option. You may recall that the F-35B has an auto eject function which at some point is out of the control of the pilot (except for switching it on/off and dialing in sensitivity but perhaps that last part has been removed).
There are situations for conventional carrier ops aircraft where diverting ashore is the best option; and sometimes at least taking the barricade is NOT an option, where crew ejection is the only option; but perhaps those aircraft are no longer in service (and I'm not going to research that aspect).
There must be situations where the aircraft - unable to get into a usable STOVL mode - will either divert ashore if that is possible; or otherwise pilot ejects (usually near the ship). These emergency situations are worked through, as much as possible, with the test aircraft so that SOPs/NATOPS (standard operating procedures) are worked out. Who knows what the outcome of that process will be? I'll assure you though that many minds are concentrated on this aspect, with the knowledge known now, for what might be done then. Bad things do happen in military aircraft when operating at their limits, so that ejection in a safe environment perhaps is the only option. You may recall that the F-35B has an auto eject function which at some point is out of the control of the pilot (except for switching it on/off and dialing in sensitivity but perhaps that last part has been removed).
There are situations for conventional carrier ops aircraft where diverting ashore is the best option; and sometimes at least taking the barricade is NOT an option, where crew ejection is the only option; but perhaps those aircraft are no longer in service (and I'm not going to research that aspect).
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
Adapting to the F-35C on CVFs was the subject of this article (now we know it is back to the future with the F-35B) but relevant due this quote:
All hands on deck! 'A win/win for the carrier and aircraft teams' by Steve Moore DESIDER Jan 2012
www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/EDEB42C2.../des ... an2012.pdf (3.5Mb)
“The F-35 will bring new technology which in time will make landing on an aircraft carrier just another routine part of the mission. On entry into service the aircraft will be equipped with Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) which will guide the aircraft down to a point where the pilot can take over and land the aircraft manually. Future upgrades intend to allow JPALS to actually land the aircraft without pilot input in very poor weather.”
He added: “A new flight control system, combined with new symbology in the helmet mounted display, looks to drastically reduce pilot workload on a manually flown [F-35C] approach. This technology is being investigated by the US and UK, and if successful will see a major reduction in the training required to keep pilots competent at landing on aircraft carriers from the middle of the next decade...."
These new ways will be in the F-35B SRVL also (indicated in previous posts on this thread).
All hands on deck! 'A win/win for the carrier and aircraft teams' by Steve Moore DESIDER Jan 2012
www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/EDEB42C2.../des ... an2012.pdf (3.5Mb)
“The F-35 will bring new technology which in time will make landing on an aircraft carrier just another routine part of the mission. On entry into service the aircraft will be equipped with Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) which will guide the aircraft down to a point where the pilot can take over and land the aircraft manually. Future upgrades intend to allow JPALS to actually land the aircraft without pilot input in very poor weather.”
He added: “A new flight control system, combined with new symbology in the helmet mounted display, looks to drastically reduce pilot workload on a manually flown [F-35C] approach. This technology is being investigated by the US and UK, and if successful will see a major reduction in the training required to keep pilots competent at landing on aircraft carriers from the middle of the next decade...."
These new ways will be in the F-35B SRVL also (indicated in previous posts on this thread).
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
A good read for future conventional JPALS CVN approaches but relevant for the flexibility/precision aspect for SRVLs to CVFs via same process. Also remember the CVF will have an SRVL optimised approach gizmos, as indicated earlier on this thread....
Paddles Monthly Dec 2012
http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... er2012.pdf
Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS)
"...JPALS slaves to the IFLOLS setting for nominal hook touchdown points for each cross deck pendant allowing the pilot to not only change glide slope, but even target a specific wire...."
Paddles Monthly Dec 2012
http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... er2012.pdf
Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS)
"...JPALS slaves to the IFLOLS setting for nominal hook touchdown points for each cross deck pendant allowing the pilot to not only change glide slope, but even target a specific wire...."
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
From this recent DOTE report Jan 2013 comes an example of 'testing the F-35B' in an unusual condition - in STOVL mode with WHEELS UP:
http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com ... report.pdf (0.5Mb)
http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com ... report.pdf (0.5Mb)
- Attachments
-
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
I could be accused of being a 'thread creep' with this post but it is done to illustrate some hazards of NavAv which may be mitigated by the usefulness of the F-35B/C gizmos that allow 'looking ahead' without the restrictions indicated on this old and bold aviator's story.... [Not forgetting the excellent JPALS precision landing aids - even in a total 'whiteout'.]
Random Naval Aviation Picture of the Day! November 14th, 2012 INSTAPINCH
http://instapinch.com/?p=2569
"Ahhh…..serendipitous! One I haven’t posted before
Nov 21st, 1988. Low level over Sardinia in bad weather ended up with much of the airwing returning to the ship with salt spray on their windscreens. Jim “Rev” Jones and I landed about 3rd or 4th – with a bunch of right rudder in so Rev could see the deck. We skidded a bit on the icy deck as they shut us down, our nose along the foul line just ahead of the island. Dave “Hooter” Hoffman was coming in a few aircraft later and landed right of center line – and this is his wingtip after it slammed into our nose on a bolter. He took off again and they sent all remaining aircraft – including him – to a French base at Hyeres, France. This was taken the next morning. I can’t remember how they fixed the wing – if they had to replace the whole piece or if it was just the wingtip they were able to replace/repair. Perhaps some airframes guys can weigh in on that.
I kept a journal during that 88-89 Med cruise. It was nothing big – just my thoughts and observations of a first cruise LT. This was the entry for that day:
21 Nov 88
Busy, exciting, dangerous day. Weather bad – temps around 35 degrees, wind at 50 knots plus! Launched on a Low Level with Jim with Dave Hoffman and Boog as wingman and couldn’t finish the LL due to weather. Our INS was dicked up (no IMU or capability for SINS data), plus salt spray encrusted the front windscreen (after we launched!). Returned overhead with 51 knot winds down the deck. With little or no visibility out the front, we waved off our own first pass, and had LSOs talk us down after that. Weird in the pattern – fast on downwind and slow in the groove. Anxiety/comfort level high/low. We grabbed a 4 wire, only because the 20 foot up and down movement of the deck was coming up. We slid twice on the deck, nearly impacting a F-14 next to us. Parked on the foul line, Hooter came in for a pass and boltered (scared to death – me!) (watching from the deck). He came in for a second pass (third actually – he had a FDWO first), had a boat full of right rudder in so he could see, LSO helping a bit (small bit), he landed right and his right wingtip (2 1/2 feet) hit our radome, taking all but a foot away (a 6' radome). He boltered, minus the right wingtip, and successfully diverted to Hyeres. Jim and I were 3 feet, or 36" away from a possible fireball! We shut down and egressed soon after as there was a FOD walkdown to collect all the pieces. I was scared sitting there, nothing we could do, and I could see this wingtip at 150 knots coming at us. Handled well by all involved.
LSOs will probably be at fault as well as Hooter. He said he couldn’t see and since he’s only been with us for 3 weeks, something else should have been done. (in retrospect, of course). Didn’t start thinking about how close it was till much later. If he was 3 feet farther right, his wingtip would have hit the airframe part instead of a hollow fiberglass radome, probably causing his plane to pivot into the pack, as well as probably sending our plane along with it. He scraped two other F-14 radomes to our left, and if he had hit those the same way he would have pivoted and hit our plane broadside. I couldn’t sleep so rode the bike for 30 minutes around 1 am. Finally got to sleep and felt much better the next day.
On the 22nd, Jim and I had a 2v2 vs French F-8s from France (Foch had sent her fighters to beach – too much for them to fly in this weather!) Had Foch control, which was as bad as Egyptian and Italian control (“Garibaldi School of AIC”). Had 1 run, we shot them good pre and post merge, but one still got on our tail for guns, guns, guns (ie: didn’t honor our kill calls).
Still operated good concerning previous days events and a overall screwed up hop. Jim and I flew again at night (pinky actually), some 2v2 w/ an A-6 as our wingman! Had a good pass back home, and Jim said I did a hell of a job keeping him honest on the approach (yea!) (after a wave-off and a bolter this afternoon). Napped in PM, watched AU-Florida tape later on, awaiting pierside Marseilles tomorrow. We earned our money these past two days.
Warts and all! Funny re-reading that, 24 years later, with the “experienced observations” of a first-cruise lieutenant , exclamation points and all. We were still shutting down the aircraft when we were hit, so we were obviously still in the aircraft,, strapped in, canopy down. I don’t know, looking back at that, if those “fireball” concerns would have been realized had be been a bit farther to the right, but I can tell you it was rather sporty that afternoon!
And for reminders, here is what OUR nose looked like after that event:"
READ THE COMMENTS AT THE BLOGPOST URL ABOVE! Funny as...
_____________________
MORE SERIOUS (or not?) Comment example:
Flea Smith // Nov 15, 2012 at 6:11 pm
"I remember that wing tip day – I was the guy sent in to do the mishap report. I remember sitting in “Hooter’s” seat and could not see ANYTHING – the salt spray was so thick. Pretty amazing since I think Hooter was a nugget at the time. I scrapped a small vertical rectangle on the front windscreen – and took pictures to show the amount of visibilty that he had. I was amazed he could see the boat at all. The wing tip ‘cap’ was taken off and replaced – no major damage to the wing as I recall. This mishap made lots of discussion about how to find a rain storm to fly thru and clean the salt spray off before it became so hard. We even discussed flying into “dumped fuel” though I don’t think we had anyone try that one. That was a rough cruise weather-wise."
http://instapinch.com/blog/wp-content/u ... d-wing.jpg
&
http://instapinch.com/blog/wp-content/u ... ed-pic.jpg
with this post but it is done to illustrate some hazards of NavAv which may be mitigated by the usefulness of the F-35B/C gizmos that allow 'looking ahead' without the restrictions indicated on this old and bold aviator's story.... [Not forgetting the excellent JPALS precision landing aids - even in a total 'whiteout'.]
Random Naval Aviation Picture of the Day! November 14th, 2012 INSTAPINCH
http://instapinch.com/?p=2569
"Ahhh…..serendipitous! One I haven’t posted before
Nov 21st, 1988. Low level over Sardinia in bad weather ended up with much of the airwing returning to the ship with salt spray on their windscreens. Jim “Rev” Jones and I landed about 3rd or 4th – with a bunch of right rudder in so Rev could see the deck. We skidded a bit on the icy deck as they shut us down, our nose along the foul line just ahead of the island. Dave “Hooter” Hoffman was coming in a few aircraft later and landed right of center line – and this is his wingtip after it slammed into our nose on a bolter. He took off again and they sent all remaining aircraft – including him – to a French base at Hyeres, France. This was taken the next morning. I can’t remember how they fixed the wing – if they had to replace the whole piece or if it was just the wingtip they were able to replace/repair. Perhaps some airframes guys can weigh in on that.
I kept a journal during that 88-89 Med cruise. It was nothing big – just my thoughts and observations of a first cruise LT. This was the entry for that day:
21 Nov 88
Busy, exciting, dangerous day. Weather bad – temps around 35 degrees, wind at 50 knots plus! Launched on a Low Level with Jim with Dave Hoffman and Boog as wingman and couldn’t finish the LL due to weather. Our INS was dicked up (no IMU or capability for SINS data), plus salt spray encrusted the front windscreen (after we launched!). Returned overhead with 51 knot winds down the deck. With little or no visibility out the front, we waved off our own first pass, and had LSOs talk us down after that. Weird in the pattern – fast on downwind and slow in the groove. Anxiety/comfort level high/low. We grabbed a 4 wire, only because the 20 foot up and down movement of the deck was coming up. We slid twice on the deck, nearly impacting a F-14 next to us. Parked on the foul line, Hooter came in for a pass and boltered (scared to death – me!) (watching from the deck). He came in for a second pass (third actually – he had a FDWO first), had a boat full of right rudder in so he could see, LSO helping a bit (small bit), he landed right and his right wingtip (2 1/2 feet) hit our radome, taking all but a foot away (a 6' radome). He boltered, minus the right wingtip, and successfully diverted to Hyeres. Jim and I were 3 feet, or 36" away from a possible fireball! We shut down and egressed soon after as there was a FOD walkdown to collect all the pieces. I was scared sitting there, nothing we could do, and I could see this wingtip at 150 knots coming at us. Handled well by all involved.
LSOs will probably be at fault as well as Hooter. He said he couldn’t see and since he’s only been with us for 3 weeks, something else should have been done. (in retrospect, of course). Didn’t start thinking about how close it was till much later. If he was 3 feet farther right, his wingtip would have hit the airframe part instead of a hollow fiberglass radome, probably causing his plane to pivot into the pack, as well as probably sending our plane along with it. He scraped two other F-14 radomes to our left, and if he had hit those the same way he would have pivoted and hit our plane broadside. I couldn’t sleep so rode the bike for 30 minutes around 1 am. Finally got to sleep and felt much better the next day.
On the 22nd, Jim and I had a 2v2 vs French F-8s from France (Foch had sent her fighters to beach – too much for them to fly in this weather!) Had Foch control, which was as bad as Egyptian and Italian control (“Garibaldi School of AIC”). Had 1 run, we shot them good pre and post merge, but one still got on our tail for guns, guns, guns (ie: didn’t honor our kill calls).
Still operated good concerning previous days events and a overall screwed up hop. Jim and I flew again at night (pinky actually), some 2v2 w/ an A-6 as our wingman! Had a good pass back home, and Jim said I did a hell of a job keeping him honest on the approach (yea!) (after a wave-off and a bolter this afternoon). Napped in PM, watched AU-Florida tape later on, awaiting pierside Marseilles tomorrow. We earned our money these past two days.
Warts and all! Funny re-reading that, 24 years later, with the “experienced observations” of a first-cruise lieutenant , exclamation points and all. We were still shutting down the aircraft when we were hit, so we were obviously still in the aircraft,, strapped in, canopy down. I don’t know, looking back at that, if those “fireball” concerns would have been realized had be been a bit farther to the right, but I can tell you it was rather sporty that afternoon!
And for reminders, here is what OUR nose looked like after that event:"
READ THE COMMENTS AT THE BLOGPOST URL ABOVE! Funny as...
_____________________
MORE SERIOUS (or not?) Comment example:
Flea Smith // Nov 15, 2012 at 6:11 pm
"I remember that wing tip day – I was the guy sent in to do the mishap report. I remember sitting in “Hooter’s” seat and could not see ANYTHING – the salt spray was so thick. Pretty amazing since I think Hooter was a nugget at the time. I scrapped a small vertical rectangle on the front windscreen – and took pictures to show the amount of visibilty that he had. I was amazed he could see the boat at all. The wing tip ‘cap’ was taken off and replaced – no major damage to the wing as I recall. This mishap made lots of discussion about how to find a rain storm to fly thru and clean the salt spray off before it became so hard. We even discussed flying into “dumped fuel” though I don’t think we had anyone try that one. That was a rough cruise weather-wise."
http://instapinch.com/blog/wp-content/u ... d-wing.jpg
&
http://instapinch.com/blog/wp-content/u ... ed-pic.jpg
- Attachments
-
-
Last edited by spazsinbad on 14 Jan 2013, 08:45, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
Is this an SRVL touchdown? Nope - this is a STO - but likely similar to what an SRVL T/D might look like: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/l ... 386662.jpg
USS WASP STO Oct 2011
USS WASP STO Oct 2011
- Attachments
-
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
Latest available SAR has this page showing the VLBB requirements: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/ar ... 9-2012.pdf (0.7Mb)
- Attachments
-
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
'count_to_ten' enquired about damage to F-35B (and of course it all depends on 'what damage' etc). Here is a short video about some testing of same with 'surface failures' or whatever else. Video mentioned already on the 'hi AoA test thread' but repeated here for relevance also:
Test Pilot Tuesday Episode 20 - Pete Wilson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... zDh6-rybXE
"Published on Oct 2, 2012
BAE Systems F-35 test pilot Pete Wilson answers the question, "Does the technology in the F-35 erode or enhance pilot skills?"
Test Pilot Tuesday Episode 20 - Pete Wilson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... zDh6-rybXE
"Published on Oct 2, 2012
BAE Systems F-35 test pilot Pete Wilson answers the question, "Does the technology in the F-35 erode or enhance pilot skills?"
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
Some more info from recent DOTE 18 page report for the 'count_to_ten' scenario...
http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com ... report.pdf
STOVL Propulsion System Test Series (page 14 of 18 - numbered 40)
• The program completed most of the STOVL propulsion system test series. The Program Office temporarily suspended this test series due to budget constraints without notifying DOT&E. The remaining lift fan-to-clutch drive shaft and lift fan clutch static and dynamic tests have been postponed until FY13.
-- The LFT&E STOVL propulsion system tests confirmed that back-ups to hydraulic systems that configure the STOVL propulsion system for its various operating modes worked as intended.
-- The completed test events targeted the lift fan rotating and stator components while the fan was static. The program assumed that the lift fan would most likely be hit while in forward flight and that hits during STOVL flight were less likely. In most test events, the system was then run up to simulate a STOVL landing sequence.
-- The results indicated that test damage introduced no measurable degradation in STOVL propulsion performance, including cascading damage effects, and would be undetectable by the system and the pilot. However, due to concerns for catastrophic lift fan or drive train damage that would risk loss of the test article for subsequent tests, this test series did not include dynamic tests to the inboard portion of the lift fan blade, where the cross section is smaller and centrifugal forces are higher, making failure more likely.
-- The engine manufacturer is providing damage tolerance estimates for these threat-target conditions, which still need to be evaluated."
http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com ... report.pdf
STOVL Propulsion System Test Series (page 14 of 18 - numbered 40)
• The program completed most of the STOVL propulsion system test series. The Program Office temporarily suspended this test series due to budget constraints without notifying DOT&E. The remaining lift fan-to-clutch drive shaft and lift fan clutch static and dynamic tests have been postponed until FY13.
-- The LFT&E STOVL propulsion system tests confirmed that back-ups to hydraulic systems that configure the STOVL propulsion system for its various operating modes worked as intended.
-- The completed test events targeted the lift fan rotating and stator components while the fan was static. The program assumed that the lift fan would most likely be hit while in forward flight and that hits during STOVL flight were less likely. In most test events, the system was then run up to simulate a STOVL landing sequence.
-- The results indicated that test damage introduced no measurable degradation in STOVL propulsion performance, including cascading damage effects, and would be undetectable by the system and the pilot. However, due to concerns for catastrophic lift fan or drive train damage that would risk loss of the test article for subsequent tests, this test series did not include dynamic tests to the inboard portion of the lift fan blade, where the cross section is smaller and centrifugal forces are higher, making failure more likely.
-- The engine manufacturer is providing damage tolerance estimates for these threat-target conditions, which still need to be evaluated."
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
An F-35B RVL at unknown airspeed early on in the program video snippet + a dusty RVL addon.
- Attachments
-
RVLf35BLoQ.wmv [ 797.06 KiB | Viewed 82549 times ]
-
F-35BdustyRVL.wmv [ 454.24 KiB | Viewed 82533 times ]
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests