# F-35 40 Knot Approach and Landing



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 12, 2010)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eNpp1IfULk_

I was told the winds were a little high that day or it might have done a hover landing


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Mar 12, 2010)

Cool video. 
Even after reading your description I thought they went to slow motion filming for the landing. 


Wheels


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 12, 2010)

Way cool.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 13, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I was told the winds were a little high that day or it might have done a hover landing



Not too sure about that FBJ. The technique demonstrated here is called the RVL, for 'Rolling Vertical Landing' and was developed by Qinetiq in the UK specifically for operating the F-35 from RN ships. It was developed and demonstrated using the VAAC Harrier.

Because it demonstrated several other advantages such as avoiding ingestion of the exhaust gases back into the intake, plus its greater useable wing-lift at low speeds means that either increased payloads can be returned and landed on the ship or the stress on the propulsion system can be reduced, was also adopted by the USMC as the standard procedure for F-35B vertical landings, so I think this was probably a demo of the standard technique rather than being weather induced.

Nice to see the F-35 doing the manouvre though, all the same.


----------



## Wayne Little (Mar 13, 2010)

That is Cool!


----------



## evangilder (Mar 13, 2010)

Wow! That was really cool!


----------



## Butters (Mar 13, 2010)

The SRVL ( Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landing) technique is being adopted as SOP by both the RN and USMC because the F-35B is too overweight to allow a safe vertical landing while carrying a one ton bomb load. Not to mention avoiding the concentration of 18,000lbs thrust of supersonic, 15-1700 degree gas blasting directly onto the deck. 

Anyway, it's sure to provide loads of entertainment for air and deck crews alike
Nothing like 16-18 tons careening across a wet pitching, rolling steel deck at 30mph with no arresting cables or ability to bolter. Lets's hope that they didn't ditch those hefty anti-skid brakes along with the fire extinguishers and hydraulic system safety features when they were trying to lean down that pricey little porker...

JL


----------



## Waynos (Mar 13, 2010)

One thing about the operational RVL's I didn't mention is that they will be fully automated


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2010)

Butters said:


> The SRVL ( Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landing) technique is being adopted as SOP by both the RN and USMC because the F-35B is too overweight to allow a safe vertical landing while carrying a one ton bomb load. Not to mention avoiding the concentration of 18,000lbs thrust of supersonic, 15-1700 degree gas blasting directly onto the deck.


Hmmmm....is that a contract requirement? I bet you the deck of a modern carrier could handle that and then some, but I'd like to see your calculations to show that the hot exhaust from the aircraft will blow directly on the deck??? But you know this by experience, right?




Butters said:


> Anyway, it's sure to provide loads of entertainment for air and deck crews alike
> Nothing like 16-18 tons careening across a wet pitching, rolling steel deck at 30mph with no arresting cables or ability to bolter. Lets's hope that they didn't ditch those hefty anti-skid brakes along with the fire extinguishers and hydraulic system safety features when they were trying to lean down that pricey little porker...
> 
> JL



No worse than having several tons of iron picking up a wire at 160 knots on a pitching deck in the middle of the ocean and then going full power upon landing, right? It seems you have a lot experience on carriers to know how dangerous this is right??? But its funny how Harriers currently do that now. Here's a clip for your education, and yes the weather is quite pleasant.
Yahoo! Video Detail for AV-8B Harrier

I know Bosun's Mate that would give anything to have an aircraft on a deck at 30 mph, and oh yea, it also seems you know a lot about moden brake systems on fighters to know that the anti skid system probably wont be functioning at 30 mph, but then again that goes with all your knowlege of the US Navy and carrier operations as well!!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Not too sure about that FBJ. The technique demonstrated here is called the RVL, for 'Rolling Vertical Landing' and was developed by Qinetiq in the UK specifically for operating the F-35 from RN ships. It was developed and demonstrated using the VAAC Harrier



That info came from a Lockheed contact. That day they wanted to do more testing including a vertical landing, I was told it was very windy to do this for flight test purposes.


----------



## red admiral (Mar 13, 2010)

> One thing about the operational RVL's I didn't mention is that they will be fully automated



The picture you posted with the two seat Harrier in the background is the test aircraft specifically for this. First automated vertical landing was a few years ago (2002 I think) when the Harrier picked up Illustrious' location on the data link, automatically flew there and conducted a successful landing on deck. Should make vertical landings on JSF a lot safer.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2010)

red admiral said:


> Vertical load bringback is one of the KPPs for STOVL that it's failing on, exactly why SRVL was developed. Isn't it obvious that the exhaust will blow onto the deck when the aircraft is landing? The gas is quite a lot lower temperature than that stated, and is further cooled from the cold lift fan thrust. I wouldn't expect it to be too much of a problem for carrier decks - dirt strips like Harrier is another issue.


Thanks!

BTW - made contact with a Lockheed buddy and asked him about Butters post - his response was "the plane is putting out over 42,000 pounds!"

I'd say do the math....


----------



## Waynos (Mar 13, 2010)

red admiral said:


> Vertical load bringback is one of the KPPs for STOVL that it's failing on, exactly why SRVL was developed. Isn't it obvious that the exhaust will blow onto the deck when the aircraft is landing? The gas is quite a lot lower temperature than that stated, and is further cooled from the cold lift fan thrust. I wouldn't expect it to be too much of a problem for carrier decks - dirt strips like Harrier is another issue..........................................................................
> 
> **The picture you posted with the two seat Harrier in the background is the test aircraft specifically for this. First automated vertical landing was a few years ago (2002 I think) when the Harrier picked up Illustrious' location on the data link, automatically flew there and conducted a successful landing on deck. Should make vertical landings on JSF a lot safer.



Which seems a little contradictory.

QinetiQ have been developing RVL techniques and systems since years before the first F-35 was built (as you refer to) yet you seem to be saying, at the same time, that it is being developed asd a sop to the F-35's weight issues (which I myself have debated with FBJ at length in the past). QinetiQ are truly brilliant, but they're not clairvoyant.

In reality the RVL technique, as applied to deck landings, was a part of the RN and RAF's JCA requirement from the beginning.

** yes, thats why I posted it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2010)

Bottom line folks - this aircraft will be a safer and more stable aircraft to bring aboard a carrier. As discussed, its going to carry a lot more efficient weapons that will negate a lot of the weight concerns.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Mar 13, 2010)

Very cool FBJ!! Thank you for sharing.


----------



## Butters (Mar 13, 2010)

Well, FBJ, I figger i've got as much experience making vertical jet-powered carrier landings as you have, and thanks to my stints as a commercial fisherman in the '80s, I'm guessing that I know a lot more about how rough it gets in North Atlantic winter gales...

As far as calculations about jet exhaust -first, unless they plan on parachuting in the last 50-60 ft, yeah, there would be direct jet exhaust on to the deck during a vertical landing. Which will be not only closer to the deck than a Harrier's but much hotter, faster,and more concentrated, too. As for my temperature figures being incorrect, I guess someone ought'a tell that to the US Navy, cuz here's what they think:

"The F-35B, or short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL), version of the JSF is capable of both
vertical take-off (VTO) and VL, although take-off will typically be via STO. For landing, VL (or
VTOL) pads will be used. This pads will be exposed to 1700ºF and high velocity (Mach #1)
exhaust. This exhaust will melt the top surface of asphalt pavements, and is likely to spall the
surface of standard airfield concrete pavements on the first VL."

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/NAVFAC/INTCRIT/fy10_01.pdf

The carrier ops bit is a red herring because the SRVL technique is about landing aboard small carriers without nice stuff like tailhooks and arrester cables. And I very much doubt that a deck chief would enjoy an 18 ton UNRESTRAINED tricycle travelling at 30 mph on his little flight deck.

As for the '42,000 lbs vertical thrust', and math, well, I don't remember the exact figures anymore but I do recall that the rollpost controls must be able to instantly extract 6-7000 lbs thrust for safety. Which has to come from somewhere. You do the math.

The real bottom line is that the F-35B possesses marginal performance when it comes to making vertical landings with any kind of a load. And that's what the desperation measure called SRVL is really all about.

JL


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 13, 2010)

I'm surpried it hasn't got arrestor capability


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2010)

Butters said:


> Well, FBJ, I figger i've got as much experience making vertical jet-powered carrier landings as you have, and thanks to my stints as a commercial fisherman in the '80s, I'm guessing that I know a lot more about how rough it gets in North Atlantic winter gales...


And I'm sure your boats were the same size as a carrier???


Butters said:


> As far as calculations about jet exhaust -first, unless they plan on parachuting in the last 50-60 ft, yeah, there would be direct jet exhaust on to the deck during a vertical landing. Which will be not only closer to the deck than a Harrier's but much hotter, faster,and more concentrated, too. As for my temperature figures being incorrect, I guess someone ought'a tell that to the US Navy, cuz here's what they think:
> 
> "The F-35B, or short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL), version of the JSF is capable of both
> vertical take-off (VTO) and VL,* although take-off will typically be via STO.* For landing, VL (or
> ...



This is addressing ground ops as they are talking about "Runways, Taxiways, and Parking Aprons"

You answered your own issue!


Butters said:


> The carrier ops bit is a red herring because the SRVL technique is about landing aboard small carriers without nice stuff like tailhooks and arrester cables. And I very much doubt that a deck chief would enjoy an 18 ton UNRESTRAINED tricycle travelling at 30 mph on his little flight deck.


Wanna bet? Compared to your boat that deck is still huge, even on the smallest carriers...

But then again, I doubt you'll see ops under gale force conditions, and the same holds true for carrier ops at the present times, so your argument is void.


Butters said:


> As for the '42,000 lbs vertical thrust', and math, well, I don't remember the exact figures anymore but I do recall that the rollpost controls must be able to instantly extract 6-7000 lbs thrust for safety. Which has to come from somewhere. You do the math.


Between the liftfan and thrust coming from the engine, it will have ample enough thrust to achieve this and then some. I 'll let the Pax River test continue and this will become evident...


Butters said:


> The real bottom line is that the F-35B possesses marginal performance when it comes to making vertical landings with any kind of a load. And that's what the desperation measure called SRVL is really all about.
> 
> JL



And so far you have nothing to justify that claim. Until this aircraft is condemned and cancelled, you have very little to justify your positions except your opinions...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 13, 2010)

Nice, great post!


----------



## Waynos (Mar 14, 2010)

A 'desperation measure' that was in the original JCA requirement and that QinietiQ has been developing for a decade, or did you just choose to ignore that in your fight with FBJ?


----------



## red admiral (Mar 14, 2010)

deleted


----------



## Butters (Mar 14, 2010)

Waynos said:


> A 'desperation measure' that was in the original JCA requirement and that QinietiQ has been developing for a decade, or did you just choose to ignore that in your fight with FBJ?



Take a hard look at FBJ's 'argument' and you'll see why I can no more be bothered to continue my 'fight' with him than I can be bothered to fight with the Noah's Ark true believers. As for your assertion that that the SRVL was an original requirement for the JSF, I suggest you re-check your sources. Because the original requirement was for the ability to do a RVL, ie; the land-based manouver that Harriers have been using for years.

Here's a link that you can start with: Ares: A Defense Technology Blog: F-35B Challenges

If you check out the UK Naval Engineers site, you'll also see that while the VAAC Harrier made SRVL landings aboard the conventional carrier DeGaulle, it only made simulated SRVLs 'aboard' the Illustrious. This is because they believed it was unsafe to attempt do so on the Illustrious' approx 600 ft flight deck. This with an a/c that is much lighter than the F-35B...

The RSVL just HAS to work, because the much safer true vertical landings cannot be safely made with a CAP-loaded F-35B. Those heavy AAMRAMs and Meteors are a little too expensive to be jettisoned, and contrary to the claims of some, the F-35B DOES lacks the thrust margin vital to safe VL operations. And despite the fact that P&W is almost $3 billion dollars over budget ($7 bil or so, so far...) on a redesign of an existing engine, they now say that they will need both a new fan design and a new CORE for 'future upgrades'. Seems like a lotta money to spend when you already have 'ample'thrust to play with 

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2010)

Butters said:


> Take a hard look at FBJ's 'argument' and you'll see why I can no more be bothered to continue my 'fight' with him than I can be bothered to fight with the Noah's Ark true believers.


Ha - and in the mean time the F-35 rolls down the assembly line to become the most advanced combat plane ever built. As stated until the program is cancelled for 'show cause' all you have are your opinions...

BTW - I like your link, too bad its 3 years old!


----------



## Butters (Mar 14, 2010)

What's 'rolling' down the assembly lines and straight into the hangers are expensive things that look like advanced combat planes, but can't fight. In fact, they don't even fly. Kind'a like the A and C SDD jets...

BTW, I guess that I'm not gonna be seeing 100 F-35Cs on carrier decks within 5 yrs after all since they've pushed the IOC date to 2016. Which means more new SuperBugs unless they want to use those carrier decks as tennis courts. And as for my dated link, well the newest I could find is from '09, but it's the same old story. Simulated SRVLs seem to be more practical than the real thing when it comes to smaller flight decks, I guess...

QinetiQ solution for F-35B ‘rolling landings’ (QinetiQ)

The program probably won't be put completely out of its misery , but like the other Power Point dream machines of those living in Cloud Cukoo Land (that long lost place where money flowed like water and people were scared of the commies...) the numbers will be slashed and the unit price will continue to soar. Remember the 132 B-2s and the 750 F-22s? And that 41 cents of every dollar in the US budget is borrowed from folks like the Chinese?

JL

EDIT: Here's a link which clarifies when and why the RN decided to develop SRVL as SOP:

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-12.htm


----------



## Waynos (Mar 15, 2010)

I have been extremely critical of the F-35B myself and I have stated on occasions that not only should the RN buy the F-35C but so too should the RAF as its greater wing area and internal fuel would allow for a decent Tornado replacement, even if we do require a two seater to be engineered, so it is odd that I seem to be in danger of becoming entrenched on the other side of this debate for a change.

I never mentioned the JSF requirement, so I do not know what was or what was not in it regarding VL's, also the article, which was fascinating btw, does not specify a 'when' SRVL's were adopted, as yopu claim, but the the 'why' is very clear. But then it always was. Likewise you seem to be making something out of the fact that Illustrious was considered too small for an actual SRVL and only simulated appraches were made.

Yes, and?

Thiese simulations proved that the Bedford Array work as advertised every time, which was the aim, and the the fact that F-35B could not operate from these 'Through Deck Cruisers' as they were once called, has always been very obvious, which is why the new carriers are so much bigger (if we get them, which is another debate). Indeed they are closer in size to the French carrier in which an SRVL was successfully demonstrated. Also the VAAC Harrier has performed fully automated landings on Illustrious (proper VL's of course) which was done many years ago and is a cornerstone of the F-35B's SRVL systems armoury. So far so good then?

Only you seem to be saying "the F-35 cannot do an SRVL onto a ship it was never intended to operate from - it is, therefore, crap" which does not seem to make a lot of sense.


----------



## Glider (Mar 15, 2010)

I am a alittle late into this debate but have a few questions/comments on the following post.


Butters said:


> What's 'rolling' down the assembly lines and straight into the hangers are expensive things that look like advanced combat planes, but can't fight. In fact, they don't even fly. Kind'a like the A and C SDD jets..


I admit that I cannot see where this comment is coming from. The F35 is being tested and by all accounts is going pretty well. Some delays at the start but you would be hard pushed to find a complex aircraft that didn't have these problems.



> BTW, I guess that I'm not gonna be seeing 100 F-35Cs on carrier decks within 5 yrs after all since they've pushed the IOC date to 2016. Which means more new SuperBugs unless they want to use those carrier decks as tennis courts. And as for my dated link, well the newest I could find is from '09, but it's the same old story. Simulated SRVLs seem to be more practical than the real thing when it comes to smaller flight decks, I guess...


Doing an SRVL on an Illustrious may be small but the proposed RN carriers are a lot bigger than the Illustrious so I don't see the problem.
A lot of fuss is being made about the aircraft landing at 30 knots and hitting the deck in an unrestrained manner. Can I ask how you come to this figure. The ship will not be stationary, it will be going at about 25 knots into a wind which will of course vary, so the touchdown speed will be a lot less probably about 10 knots tops. With your experience on fishing boats you will be able to comment on average wind speeds in the Atlantic better than I.
If we cannot design brakes that would stop an aircraft going these sorts of speeds, we should go back to Sopwith Camels.

A number of comments have been made about the damage that would be done to the flight deck from the heat and blast. I don't see this as a problem. The jet from a Harrier is a lot closer to the deck than the F35 so I don't see that argument. As for the extra power the numbers seem to be unclear but the Harrier with its 23,000lb thrust is no gentle breaze and the blast is I believe more concentrated on the Harrier being effectively in two places with some small jets fore and aft and in the wing tips for control purposes.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 15, 2010)

Just a couple of small points (though in this discussion we seem to be on the same side). The 'blast' from the F-35 is closer to the deck than from a Harrier, Butters is correct here. The Harrier nozzles being fixed to the side of the aircraft while the rear nozzle of the F-35 rotates down and below the fuselage line whilst the engine itself is close to twice as powerful as the Pegasus 11-21. 

The Harrier vertical thrust does merge into a single column with cold air from the front nozzles mixing with the hot air from the rear pair (like a mixer tap) while in the F-35 the hot and cold streams are distinctly separate (like separate hot and cold taps, lol) so it would be the rear nozzle that causes any such problems rather than the front fan


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2010)

Butters said:


> What's 'rolling' down the assembly lines and straight into the hangers are expensive things that look like advanced combat planes, but can't fight. In fact, they don't even fly. Kind'a like the A and C SDD jets...


The clip I posted was from Friday, the A model has been flying continually at EDW, wanna try again????



Butters said:


> BTW, I guess that I'm not gonna be seeing 100 F-35Cs on carrier decks within 5 yrs after all since they've pushed the IOC date to 2016. Which means more new SuperBugs unless they want to use those carrier decks as tennis courts. And as for my dated link, well the newest I could find is from '09, but it's the same old story. Simulated SRVLs seem to be more practical than the real thing when it comes to smaller flight decks, I guess...
> 
> QinetiQ solution for F-35B ‘rolling landings’ (QinetiQ)



And again, based on speculation and half truths


Butters said:


> The program probably won't be put completely out of its misery , but like the other Power Point dream machines of those living in Cloud Cukoo Land (that long lost place where money flowed like water and people were scared of the commies...) the numbers will be slashed and the unit price will continue to soar. Remember the 132 B-2s and the 750 F-22s? And that 41 cents of every dollar in the US budget is borrowed from folks like the Chinese?


More delirious ramblings - the B-2 was slashed because it wasn't needed, the cold war ended and that was that, same goes for the number of F-22s. Its funny how you're such an expert when you gather all your information from reading dated internet articles!! Again your perception of how the US spends its military dollars is out of whack, in the mean time the F-35 continues to roll - its funny how when you're stymied in your argument you bring up the US borrowing money and the Chinese!

Better just contact your PM and make sure Canada secures it commitment, I'd bet you'd bitch about the lack of Canadian suppliers when production goes full force!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2010)

Glider said:


> I admit that I cannot see where this comment is coming from. The F35 is being tested and by all accounts is going pretty well. Some delays at the start but you would be hard pushed to find a complex aircraft that didn't have these problems.



Right now that's the only problem the program is faced with and from what I'm told one of the drivers behind the delayed schedule is the supplier base is not performing well in meeting schedule.

As stated, during one of the many DoD audits of the program, no engineering or manufacturing related quality problems were found.


----------



## ppopsie (Mar 15, 2010)

A nice stable approach. Modern a/c are attractive too.


----------



## Butters (Mar 15, 2010)

Waynos,

I have never argued that the F-35B cannot perform SRVLs, but rather that the SRVL is inherently more dangerous than a true vertical landing (Which is why Harriers make fuel-consuming and 'bring-back 'limiting VLs ...), and that the need for the F-35B to use an inherently more dangerous landing technique is a reflection of the inherent flaws of the a/c itself. It is quite simply underpowered, not to mention that due to the properties of its jet exhaust (Which FBJ seems to imply is different when at sea than on land...)preclude the possibility of it being landed vertically on existing decks as an SOP.

To gain any advantage from wing lift, a CAP-loaded F-35 must be travelling at a minimum of 60mph, and because carrier captains cannot order up wind on demand, you cannot rely on having a touchdown speed of less tha 30 mph. Higher if you're landing aboard an AAS. Which are after all, the ships the Marines plan on putting their F-35s aboard...

The problem with bringing the aircraft to a stop with brakes alone is not running off the other end of the deck. The problem is with veering off a straight path. A 16-18 ton airplane on three high-pressure tires is not the same as car, or even a semi. There's a lotta mass and inertia to deal with, esp on a deck that may be rolling, pitching, yawing, and wet. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that things can get dicey very quickly. Esp when the a/c cannot bolter if things go awry. BTW, doesn't it strike you as somewhat strange that even with a skilled test pilo, a minimal load in a lighter a/c, and the luxury of choosing the weather conditions, they didn't attempt a single SRVL landing on the Illustrious?

If you need an 800+ ft flight deck to safely carry out SRVLs, you might as well install catapults and arrestor cables so you can operate a/c that are not handicapped by the range, load, and aerodynamic limits that STOVL capability necessarily imposes. 

Oh well, it's looking like moot point for the RN anyway, since it seems that they can afford either the carriers or the JSFs, but not both...

Glider: The blast from the hot nozzles of a Harrier is not only much slower, cooler(reportedly approx 1200 F versus 15-1700F), and significantly less, it's also less concentrated (2 nozzles on either side) and I suspect higher above the deck than the F-35B's aft nozzle. But if you wanna ignore what the USN says, and believe Lockmart, that's up to you.

JL


----------



## Waynos (Mar 15, 2010)

Yes, I do see where you are coming frm with all that, but is it really such a problem?

Sea Harriers, or as we now have instead, 'Harriers at sea', have always used a standard VL because there was never any other option for recovery. It was also always a manual process.

The first automated landing by a STOVL aircraft at sea was only achieved in 2002, SRVLS must be automated I believe. Maybe the RN could have tried to develop it sooner, but would it have offered enough advantages to make it worthwhile?

I believe that the SRVL was always going to be required on the F-35, even without needing to generate wing lift to increase the 'bring back' load, exactly because of the concentrated jet blast you describe. It is not concievable to me to think that anyone ever thought this aircraft would do a standard VL onto a ship?

I also wonder how ill advised might have seemed catapults and arrestor wires when first proposed and this appears a much 'gentler' recovery opton than either of those?

Plus, I do agree that we might as well have a standard CV model anyway. It has superior range, payload and combat capability so I don't actually see where selection of this type over the STOVL model was 'marginal'?**



** oops, silly me. a higher proportion of the STOVL version is UK sourced of course.

I also have a feeling that we will manage to afford both, but it will mean the RAF having to replace Tornado with it too, another reason I would choose the F-35C as standard.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2010)

Butters said:


> Waynos,
> 
> I have never argued that the F-35B cannot perform SRVLs, but rather that the SRVL is inherently more dangerous than a true vertical landing (Which is why Harriers make fuel-consuming and 'bring-back 'limiting VLs ...), and that the need for the F-35B to use an inherently more dangerous landing technique is a reflection of the inherent flaws of the a/c itself. *It is quite simply underpowered*, not to mention that due to the properties of its jet exhaust (Which FBJ seems to imply is different when at sea than on land...)preclude the possibility of it being landed vertically on existing decks as an SOP.


Prove that please


Butters said:


> To gain any advantage from wing lift, a CAP-loaded F-35 must be travelling at a minimum of 60mph, and because carrier captains cannot order up wind on demand, you cannot rely on having a touchdown speed of less tha 30 mph. Higher if you're landing aboard an AAS. Which are after all, the ships the Marines plan on putting their F-35s aboard...


Did you forget about the natural headwind the aircraft will always be landing into based on the moving ship??????


Butters said:


> The problem with bringing the aircraft to a stop with brakes alone is not running off the other end of the deck. The problem is with veering off a straight path. A 16-18 ton airplane on three high-pressure tires is not the same as car, or even a semi. There's a lotta mass and inertia to deal with, esp on a deck that may be rolling, pitching, yawing, and wet. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that things can get dicey very quickly. Esp when the a/c cannot bolter if things go awry. BTW, doesn't it strike you as somewhat strange that even with a skilled test pilo, a minimal load in a lighter a/c, and the luxury of choosing the weather conditions, they didn't attempt a single SRVL landing on the Illustrious?


Even older fighters moving at 30 knots can be quickly stopped, examine the brake system on the F-35 and you tell me why it won't work over a distance of say 100 feet, more than ample room needed for the F-35 to come aboard an AAS???


Butters said:


> If you need an 800+ ft flight deck to safely carry out SRVLs, you might as well install catapults and arrestor cables so you can operate a/c that are not handicapped by the range, load, and aerodynamic limits that STOVL capability necessarily imposes.


Data? 



Butters said:


> Oh well, it's looking like moot point for the RN anyway, since it seems that they can afford either the carriers or the JSFs, but not both...


Perhaps, but again that argument lends nothing to any of your points


Butters said:


> Glider: The blast from the hot nozzles of a Harrier is not only much slower, cooler(reportedly approx 1200 F versus 15-1700F), and significantly less, it's also less concentrated (2 nozzles on either side) and* I suspect *higher above the deck than the F-35B's aft nozzle. But if you wanna ignore what the USN says, and believe Lockmart, that's up to you.
> 
> JL




*"You Suspect."* Like everyting else you're coming up with?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Yes, I do see where you are coming frm with all that, but is it really such a problem?
> 
> Sea Harriers, or as we now have instead, 'Harriers at sea', have always used a standard VL because there was never any other option for recovery. It was also always a manual process.
> 
> ...


Agree on all points, even about the F-35C


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2010)

Butters said:


> If you need an 800+ ft flight deck to safely carry out SRVLs, you might as well install catapults and arrestor cables so you can operate a/c that are not handicapped by the range, load, and aerodynamic limits that STOVL capability necessarily imposes.



This was from the original post ref. your in 2007 post of the JSF...

_"Using SRVL F-35B aircraft would approach the carrier from astern at about 60 knots indicated air speed, 35 knots relative assuming 25 knots wind over deck (the maximum speed of a CVF will be 25 knots, so 25kts WOD is achievable even in dead calm) on a steep 5-6 degree glide path. * Touch down would be about 150 feet from the stern with a stopping distance of 300 to 400 feet depending on conditions (wet flight deck, pitching ships etc). That would leave around 300 feet of flight deck for margin or even "bolters".*

The SRVL technique has a significant impact on ship designs and aviation operations, Commander Tony Ray told a conference in February 2008 "We expect to trade some STOVL flexibility for increased bring-back and fuel. We have to .. check for for relevant CV criteria that apply to slower SRVL operations. For example flightpath control will be a far more important flight criteria for SRVL than it has been for STOVL. It is a CV trait creeping in"._

The test last Friday showed the aircraft could approach at 60 knots (It actually did 45) so I guess this 800' stopping distance is based on your vast knowlege of the F-35 brake system that you feel is inferior?!?


----------



## Glider (Mar 15, 2010)

Butters said:


> Glider: The blast from the hot nozzles of a Harrier is not only much slower, cooler(reportedly approx 1200 F versus 15-1700F), and significantly less, it's also less concentrated (2 nozzles on either side) and I suspect higher above the deck than the F-35B's aft nozzle. But if you wanna ignore what the USN says, and believe Lockmart, that's up to you.
> 
> JL



1200F vs 15-1700F shouldn't make any difference to a flight deck. Also the temperature is spread out along the deck and not concentrated on one spot so the impact is minimal.
The hight of the jet I will go along with.

However you haven't replied to the question of the headwind. If you need a max of 60 kts (by the way where did this figure come from, as lift is generated at any spead although the faster the better) the ship is going 25 kts so in a flat calm you are looking at 35kts. Your the one claiming experience in fishing boats at sea how many days is the wind less than say 10kts.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 15, 2010)

Let's see, the F-22 maneuverability is a simple indicator of a $335M aerobatic stunt and the F-35 is an underpowered deck crasher.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 16, 2010)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 16, 2010)

Matt308 said:


>


----------



## beaupower32 (Mar 17, 2010)

Matt308 said:


>


----------



## Waynos (Mar 18, 2010)

Update, we now have seen proper VL demonstrated, this is a core requirement of the USMC and RAF.

VIDEO: F-35 test aircraft achieves first vertical landing


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2010)

My god - the earth melted below it!!!!


----------



## Glider (Mar 18, 2010)

Very steady


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 18, 2010)

"Well that makes FIVE milestones accomplished in the name of King Arthur"

"THREE sir!!"

"Right."


----------



## Waynos (Mar 22, 2010)

Some time ago, on a different thread, I posed the question of how the F-35 performs STO's. Well it appears that this is how. It looks a little unridy, but it appears to work.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q-UiARAjL0_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2010)

Unridy? In what way?


----------



## Waynos (Mar 22, 2010)

Typo on my part, I meant to say untidy. What with all those doors open, especially the huge one just behind the cockpit that serves the man lift fan. Before seeing the video I could not envisage a forward take off with that door open, the idea seemed unfeasible. A bit like driving a car at 60mph with the bonnet open


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Typo on my part, I meant to say untidy. What with all those doors open, especially the huge one just behind the cockpit that serves the man lift fan. Before seeing the video I could not envisage a forward take off with that door open, the idea seemed unfeasible. A bit like driving a car at 60mph with the bonnet open



Well as you said, it works....

I think we're going to see more clips this week.


----------



## Glider (Mar 22, 2010)

If I remember correctly the Yak 38 had a similar door for its lift engines but this didn't cause any problems on take off and landing.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 22, 2010)

that would be because the Yak 38 was strictly VTOL, therefore the door was not generating any drag at unstick. During transition the door was lowered as forward speed increased. On the F-35 it is fully open throughout take off.

You could also refer to the Mikoyan and Sukhoi STOL demonstrators of the 1960's though which had the same arrangement, but a look at any of these three shows the doors open at a much shallower angle that that shown on the F-35.

I just had visions of it being ripped off as the plane accelerated


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2010)

Waynos said:


> that would be because the Yak 38 was strictly VTOL, therefore the door was not generating any drag at unstick. During transition the door was lowered as forward speed increased. On the F-35 it is fully open throughout take off.
> 
> You could also refer to the Mikoyan and Sukhoi STOL demonstrators of the 1960's though which had the same arrangement, but a look at any of these three shows the doors open at a much shallower angle that that shown on the F-35.
> 
> I just had visions of it being ripped off as the plane accelerated



I think you saw that door stay open because of the testing. Its "SOP" on high performance jets to immediately clean te aircraft up as soon as a positive rate of climb is attained and on that aircraft I think that would happen pretty quickly.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 22, 2010)

Don't get me wrong, I agree. I was just saying how the video contradicted my own preconception.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 22, 2010)

I have to say, structurally that door must be exceptionally strong. It appears that it may be generating some fairly significant lift. I suspect the flight control algorithms take this into account and may utilize this lift contribution to help counteract the loss of lift from the forward fan during transition.

I'm with Waynos, she reminds me of a ladybug with all her body shells deployed to get her wings out for flight.


----------



## Glider (Mar 22, 2010)

Waynos said:


> that would be because the Yak 38 was strictly VTOL, therefore the door was not generating any drag at unstick. During transition the door was lowered as forward speed increased. On the F-35 it is fully open throughout take off.
> 
> You could also refer to the Mikoyan and Sukhoi STOL demonstrators of the 1960's though which had the same arrangement, but a look at any of these three shows the doors open at a much shallower angle that that shown on the F-35.
> 
> I just had visions of it being ripped off as the plane accelerated



The Yak was capable of a rolling takoff in a similar manner as the Harrier it wasn't limited to VTOL only operations. The door stayed open without any problems so I don't see why the F35 shoulld have any problems.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 22, 2010)

I'm not saying it will, I just said it looked untidy.


----------



## red admiral (Mar 22, 2010)

deleted


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2010)

red admiral said:


> Nice video, you can see the runway fittings being destroyed on liftoff.



Runway fittings? What are you talking about?


----------



## Waynos (Mar 22, 2010)

Yeah, but my earlier doubts (now dispelled) were borne of the fact that it is a large wide solid door, quite unlike the other mentioned examples, wide open into the slipstream (and angled forwards) whilst the plane is _accelerating_. It just kinda looked unnatural.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2010)

red admiral said:


> Nice video, you can see the runway fittings being destroyed on liftoff.



I went back and replayed the clip at home, I'm limited in viewing video at work...

That's a concrete runway at Patuxent River NAS, there are no "fittings" on the runway. The "FOD" that was blown back from the F-35's take off was either a painted runway center line which is similar to the markings painted on common roads and those markings get blown off all the time, embedded rubber in the middle of the runway or some other FOD that found its way on the runway. The third item I would be really surprised about because military airfields (at least here in the states) have ground ops people who check the runways in vehicles before the airfield officially opens.

Let me make something clear. All this talk about this aircraft blowing chunks of the runway up is nonsense. I didn't say anything the other day but that report that mentioned that the aircraft would need special pads for VTOL ops may be true - HOWEVER, there are people in the USAF called "CIVIL ENGINEERING" or CE who will deal with this problem, as the same with the navy, more than likely "SEABEES." I think you might have heard of them...

If this aircraft was a hazard to any runway, it would not be flying.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 22, 2010)

There must be a glitch in the Matrix. Didn't I post that same comment for Butters to the sound of crickets.

"Nice video, you can see the runway fittings being destroyed on liftoff."

So now she's an underpowered, deck crashing, runway 'fittings' destroyer. Lord have mercy.


----------



## red admiral (Mar 23, 2010)

deleted


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2010)

red admiral said:


> Have a word with your friends at LM and they'll know what I'm on about.


I have, as well as people from PAX River. My contact from Lockheed believes it was just FOD that stuck on runway.


----------



## Steven Que (Mar 23, 2010)

Hey~so cool!!!
very very good landing.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 23, 2010)

Are you referring to Deck Tie-downs?


----------

