F35-C Takeoff Problems - More Woes

Looks like the last set of trials have thrown up a problem with the way the F35 C variant "bounces" on takeoff when taking a cat shot. It's been classified as a must fix according to the Joint Programs Office so they're obviously worried about limitations it'll place on operations but from the sounds of it a temporary work around would be to have an increased minimum take-off weight and take the penalties that comes with.

aviationweek.com...

Behind a registration requirement, So I am going off of instinct here but it could be something as simple as adjusting strut pressure on the landing gear.

a reply to: Donkey09

The only time they're seeing it is during light load flights. The loads they're talking about are generally only seen during qualification flights. It sounds like they just need to stiffen the strut.

a reply to: Donkey09

Tax payer, get out your check book.


35--be on the look out for Trump. He finally demand some fiscal discipline.

a reply to: seasonal

When you're building the most advanced aircraft ever built, it will cost you. It's also worth every penny.

a reply to: Donkey09

The switch to catapulting F35s began because VTOL landings aboard carriers were dangerous. Whats the problem here?

Back to the hangar queenie.

a reply to: Zaphod58

But not ALL the pennies.

a reply to: intrptr

The switch to catapults was made because a plane can't take off at its maximum takeoff weight without one.

a reply to: seasonal

And it's hardly taking ALL the pennies.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Donkey09

The switch to catapulting F35s began because VTOL landings aboard carriers were dangerous. Whats the problem here?

Back to the hangar queenie.

The F-35B used by the marines is the VTOL capable version. This article is about the F-35C which is the Navy catapult capable version.

a reply to: Zaphod58

What would constitute a problem as far as cost overruns and delays for you?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Donkey09

The only time they're seeing it is during light load flights. The loads they're talking about are generally only seen during qualification flights. It sounds like they just need to stiffen the strut.

That confirms what I was thinking. If they dont have all the strut configurations set for all loads yet this could easily be the problem and just a bit of testing away from a fix.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

The switch to catapults was made because a plane can't take off at its maximum takeoff weight without one.

"Jump jets" can't 'jump' wth a full load?

Hmmm, maybe they can take on fuel in flight.

Or put in ramps like the Russians...

a reply to: intrptr

No they can't. They have to go heavy on either fuel or weapons. Even with a ski jump they can't. They can go heavier but they still can't takeoff at MTOW.

Is this the 'bounce' they are reporting? At :50 into here...A hornet for for comparison, at :22...

originally posted by: intrptr

Is this the 'bounce' they are reporting? At :50 into here...

Looks like a candidate for what they are talking about. It seems to bounce a bit more compared to other aircraft at the start of the launch. The nose gear strut is compressing a ton at the start of the launch. So still looks to be pointing to a strut pressure issue. Either a incorrect pressure setting (most likely) or problems with strut internals (less likely as they would see many other issues other then on launch)

a reply to: Pyle

Based on when it's happening, it almost has to be a pressure issue. When they're heavy, the strut doesn't compress as much, like the extra weight is dampening it out.

This is where the helmet comes into play. The problem is the weight of the helmet, and the jitter in the display from it.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: intrptr

Is this the 'bounce' they are reporting? At :50 into here...

Looks like a candidate for what they are talking about. It seems to bounce a bit more compared to other aircraft at the start of the launch. The nose gear strut is compressing a ton at the start of the launch. So still looks to be pointing to a strut pressure issue. Either a incorrect pressure setting (most likely) or problems with strut internals (less likely as they would see many other issues other then on launch)

The bounce 'oscillation' continues for a bit down the deck, I could see where the pilots might be worried the front gear could lift off the deck?

a reply to: intrptr

Nose gear shouldn't come of the deck just based on the way the catapults are designed even with the heavy bouncing but chance for damage caused by the bouncing if not addressed is real. Strut configurations are no joke.

a reply to: Pyle

The issue is that it's causing pain and disorientation to the pilot after they get off the deck. The bouncing is causing minor spinal compression, and it takes a few seconds for the display to catch up and stabilize.