The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum

Go Back   The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum > BOATING FORUMS > Dockside Chat
Search

Notices

Random Quote: It's a boat, it's supposed to leak money.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-16-2012, 02:56 PM
  #1    
Admirals Club
THT sponsor
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 3,923
Default Woops..... F35C can't land on a carrier

The F-35C.... the navy's new joint strike fighter has one major shortcomming. It can't land on a carrier. The tailhook is incorrectly located and can't catch the arresting cable. Are you freakin kidding me?!?!?

How do you screw something up on this scale. One fighter to meet the requirements of the navy, airforce and marines was a really bad idea considering the marines version is of really poor design and full of compromises as well. Just pull the plug on the grossly over budget B and C models which can't fulfill their intended roles and just build the A model. Locheed should be ashamed. They were once the best in the business of aircraft design and production. Even better than Boeing! It's a shame.

http://aviationintel.com/2012/01/10/...-on-a-carrier/
ThreeLittleFish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 03:02 PM
  #2    
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Manchester, MO/Naples FL.
Posts: 3,849
Default

McDonald Douglas should have got the contract. But they did not and now they are Boeing.
Mr. Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 01-16-2012, 03:03 PM
  #3    
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 243
Default

so why can't it land vertically?
__________________
1998 Ebbtide 4.3 merc

Tow Pig - 2002 Ford ranger on 33's
Ace52 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 03:12 PM
  #4    
Admirals Club
THT sponsor
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 3,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace52 View Post
so why can't it land vertically?
The B model is the VSTOL version. The C model has no vertical capability. It uses a conventional tailhook to land on carriers.
ThreeLittleFish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 03:27 PM
  #5    
Admirals Club
THT sponsor
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 3,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Paul View Post
McDonald Douglas should have got the contract. But they did not and now they are Boeing.
The MD-11 was also a huge failure as it never met it's design goals. It was the wrong time to enter the market with a 3 engine aircraft since twins would soon be feasible with the increase in engine power. Only 200 MD-11's were ever built. The plane hasa flawed horizontal stabilizer design for it's CG. The stabilizer was reduced in size from the DC-10 to save fuel by reducing drag. Unfortunately this redesign has been suspect in 4 MD-11 landing accidents. The latest in 2009 when a Fed Ex freighter became airborne again after touching down it violently pitched up then came down again collapsing it's gear and rolling over and burning. The DC-10 and MD-11 were poorly designed.
ThreeLittleFish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 03:28 PM
  #6    
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Over Yonder
Posts: 775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeLittleFish View Post
The C model has no vertical capability. It uses a conventional tailhook to land on carriers.
Unh-uh. No it duddn't!
nevermind... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 03:53 PM
  #7    
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Seacoast NH
Posts: 2,962
Default

I am sure the military can take it back...30 day's or store credit.
Boat Hound is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 05:06 PM
  #8    
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Manchester, MO/Naples FL.
Posts: 3,849
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeLittleFish View Post
The MD-11 was also a huge failure as it never met it's design goals. It was the wrong time to enter the market with a 3 engine aircraft since twins would soon be feasible with the increase in engine power. Only 200 MD-11's were ever built. The plane hasa flawed horizontal stabilizer design for it's CG. The stabilizer was reduced in size from the DC-10 to save fuel by reducing drag. Unfortunately this redesign has been suspect in 4 MD-11 landing accidents. The latest in 2009 when a Fed Ex freighter became airborne again after touching down it violently pitched up then came down again collapsing it's gear and rolling over and burning. The DC-10 and MD-11 were poorly designed.

I was talking fighters. Both planes you sited the first one DC-10 was a Douglas design. The MD-10 was a varient of a DC-10. DC as you know stands for Douglas not MD. MD fighter's were a bench mark and you know this to be true. Also MD did not get the fighter contract and that doomed them. There are many more reasons MD went down ie the son's could not replace the old man. But for the purpose of talking fighters I still believe MD could have made a plane in which the tailhook would be in the proper place.

Last edited by Mr. Paul; 01-16-2012 at 05:08 PM. Reason: replace DC 9 with DC 10
Mr. Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 05:38 PM
  #9    
Admirals Club
THT sponsor
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 3,923
Default

Quote:
I was talking fighters. Both planes you sited the first one DC-10 was a Douglas design. The MD-10 was a varient of a DC-10. DC as you know stands for Douglas not MD. MD fighter's were a bench mark and you know this to be true. Also MD did not get the fighter contract and that doomed them. There are many more reasons MD went down ie the son's could not replace the old man. But for the purpose of talking fighters I still believe MD could have made a plane in which the tailhook would be in the proper place.
I understand what you were talking about. My response was not a rebuttal but a contribution to the discussion about the downfall of MD.

The MD-10 was not really considered a variant of the DC-10 . It's just a DC-10 with an MD-11 cockpit. The rest of the plane is the some except for the cargo conversion.

MD not getting fighter contracts was a contributing factor not the only factor.The F-15, the F-4, the C-17, and the F/A 18 Hornet/Super Hornet are all undisputably great planes.

I flew the DC-8 I have first hand knowledge of how great that plane was. The MD-11 was not. Had the MD-11 been successful MD might have had a chance at survival. The MD-95 was also a failure which was another nail in the coffin.

Are you saying Locheed can't build planes? (SR-71, U-2, C-130, F-117. F-16, F-22, L-10-11 etc...)

Last edited by ThreeLittleFish; 01-16-2012 at 05:52 PM.
ThreeLittleFish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 05:55 PM
  #10    
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Manchester, MO/Naples FL.
Posts: 3,849
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeLittleFish View Post
I understand what you were talking about. My response was not a rebuttal but a contribution to the discussion about the downfall of MD.

The MD-10 was not really considered a variant of the DC-10 . It's just a DC-10 with an MD-11 cockpit. The rest of the plane is the some except for the cargo conversion.

MD not getting fighter contracts was a contributing factor not the only factor.The F-15, the F-4, the C-17, and the F/A 18 Hornet/Super Hornet are all undisputably great planes.

I flew the DC-8 I have first hand knowledge of how great that plane was. The MD-11 was not. Had the MD-11 been successful MD might have had a chance at survival. The MD-95 was also a failure which was another nail in the coffin.

Are you saying Locheed can't build planes? (SR-71, U-2, C-130, F-117. F-16, F-22, L-10-11 etc...)

No I am ST. Louis centric.
Mr. Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 05:55 PM
  #11    
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mt Pleasant SC
Posts: 705
Default

Yup, I'm sure they can't fix it and it will never land on an aircraft carrier. No aircraft ever developed had a flaw, they were all perfect straight off the drawing board.
__________________
Positive anything is better than negative thinking.
dreamin-on is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 05:58 PM
  #12    
Admirals Club
THT sponsor
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 3,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamin-on View Post
Yup, I'm sure they can't fix it and it will never land on an aircraft carrier. No aircraft ever developed had a flaw, they were all perfect straight off the drawing board.
They can't fix it... they can't mount it any farther back than it already is.
ThreeLittleFish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 07:20 PM
  #13    
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Norfolk, Va
Posts: 8,610
Default

I guess those F-18s are going to have to last a while longer then... Or maybe they can reactivate the F-14s and modernize them.
CaptKennyW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 07:57 PM
  #14    
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Not in Texas
Posts: 10,223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace52 View Post
so why can't it land vertically?
It can ... but then it will never fly again. It'll be scape metal.
Eyeball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 08:20 PM
  #15    
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mt Pleasant SC
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeLittleFish View Post
They can't fix it... they can't mount it any farther back than it already is.
Says who? That isn't even a real picture of an F-35 in the article. All they did was run the airplane down a runway and they found out it didn't work. Seems like normal R&D. Who wrote the article? What is his credibility?

Amazing, every little hiccup causes rumors, which of course everyone believes. We can't believe everything written on the internet folks.
__________________
Positive anything is better than negative thinking.
dreamin-on is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 08:40 PM
  #16    
Admirals Club
THT sponsor
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 3,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamin-on View Post
Says who? That isn't even a real picture of an F-35 in the article. All they did was run the airplane down a runway and they found out it didn't work. Seems like normal R&D. Who wrote the article? What is his credibility?

Amazing, every little hiccup causes rumors, which of course everyone believes. We can't believe everything written on the internet folks.
The F-35C failed arrested landings at the Lakehurst, NJ test facility back in July.

Better?

CNN....

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16...ding-new-jets/

Businessweek....

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...port-says.html

AIN Online....

http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation...allenging-year
ThreeLittleFish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 09:15 PM
  #17    
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mt Pleasant SC
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeLittleFish View Post
The F-35C failed arrested landings at the Lakehurst, NJ test facility back in July.

Better?

CNN....

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16...ding-new-jets/

Businessweek....

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...port-says.html

AIN Online....

http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation...allenging-year
I already acknowledged that it failed tests in my last post. Point is that it can be fixed despite the naysayers.
__________________
Positive anything is better than negative thinking.
dreamin-on is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 09:23 PM
  #18    
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Outer Cape Cod, MA
Posts: 1,853
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeLittleFish View Post

Are you saying Locheed can't build planes? (SR-71, U-2, C-130, F-117. F-16, F-22, L-10-11 etc...)
Those are all ancient planes.....don't think you want to use that argument.

Multi mission aircraft result in too many compromises to all.....the mistake is the USG contracting for this and then not seeing it coming. Lockheed bears plenty of fault, to be sure, but plenty of dumbness to go around.

The next question is: what's involved in the tailhook design fix? Feasible or not?

Has anyone considered a carrier-side solution to the problem?

Last edited by capecuddy; 01-16-2012 at 09:37 PM.
capecuddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 10:41 PM
  #19    
Admirals Club
THT sponsor
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 3,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by capecuddy View Post
Those are all ancient planes.....don't think you want to use that argument.

Multi mission aircraft result in too many compromises to all.....the mistake is the USG contracting for this and then not seeing it coming. Lockheed bears plenty of fault, to be sure, but plenty of dumbness to go around.

The next question is: what's involved in the tailhook design fix? Feasible or not?

Has anyone considered a carrier-side solution to the problem?
F-22 is not ancient.

Here is the most detailed explanation I could find for the tail hook issue. it seesm there is no feasible fix given the lack of structure in the aft end of the aircraft due to design parameters adopted for the VSTOL B model which was the primary design. An additional issue is that the SU-35 which is a 3rd generation fighter is predicted to beat this plane in air to air engagement not to mention the TU-50 or the new Chinese 4th generation fighter. Cancel the program and make a fighter fit to defend our country not a fighter that is a cost cutting measure and a multi-mission compromise. Give the Air Force, Navy and Marines mission appropriate aircraft.

Quote:
Yet, a November 2011 U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) quick-look report relating to engineering challenges arising from what is being called “concurrency issues” revealed that all eight run-in/rolling tests undertaken at NAS Lakehurst in August 2011 to see if the F-35C CV JSF could catch a wire with the tail hook have failed.

The report also mentions that the tail hook on the F-35C CV JSF is attached improperly to the aircraft. The distance from the hook to the main landing gear is so short that it is unlikely the aircraft will catch the landing wires on a ship's deck. This graphic from the review explains part of the problem. It illustrates the distance between the main landing gear and the tail hook of previous warplanes qualified to operate from aircraft carriers and compares these distances with that found on the F-35C CV JSF. In this regard, the report refers to the F-35C CV JSF as “an outlier”.

An industry expert who is a graduate Flight Test Engineer (FTE) of the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School (USNTPS), Peter Goon, stated that, "Given the limited amount of suitable structure at the back end of the JSF variants, due primarily to the commonality that was being sought between the three variant designs and the fact that the STOVL F-35B JSF is the baseline design, there was always going to be high risk associated with meeting the carrier suitability requirements."

He also points to well known and well understood military specifications that address tail hook design requirements, such as MIL-A-81717C and MIL-D-8708C.

(update: the first one should read MIL-A-18717C not MIL-A-81717C as first reported)

When asked how such things could have been missed, Peter suggested they likely weren’t, at least by the engineers, but their concerns would have just as likely been ignored.

He said this should come as no surprise, given the level of stove-piping that had been applied to the F-35 program's engineer community and the dominance of “form over substance” and “a total indifference to what is real” being hallmarks of the program – “Affordability is the cornerstone of the JSF Program” being but one example.

It is highly probable that this design fault could be the last straw for the F-35C. The program will attempt some more rolling tests with a different hook design, but this does not address the problem of the poor location of the tail hook on the airframe.

Last edited by ThreeLittleFish; 01-16-2012 at 11:08 PM.
ThreeLittleFish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2012, 05:39 AM
  #20    
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,081
Default

They should have purchased it at Costco. They have a great return policy.
Dwain is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 



©2009 TheHullTruth.com

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0