If you go back into antiquity, the distance from mains to hook point on the F7U-3 (Vought Cutlass) is in the zone of the F-35C. I doubt if you will find any from Douglas,Grumman, or McDonnell anywhere near it. How was the Cutlass in the bolter department? Anyone?....Anyone? Is this thing on?
Pretty big call to suggest the position of the F-35C hook was simply overlooked. Huge implications if it's correct.
It would be interesting to hear the assumptions and justifications by the designing engineers. In which areas were their assumptions incorrect? Were they predictable? Will it be a simple fix?
Anon #1 - the F7U MLG to Hook distance would be well over twice that found on the CV F-35C JSF as configured, today.
Anon #2 - Given the limited amount of suitable structure at the back end of the JSF variants, due to the commonality being sought and the fact that the STOVL F-35B JSF is the baseline design, there was always high risk associated with meeting the carrier suitability requirements for the CV.
The current design is such an outlier and this was obvious when first sited in the flesh back in 2008.
How this design got through CDR should make for a bit of a humourous read.
Simple doesn't meet the Milspec.
If you wish to know more, take a look at the requirements for tailhook design in MIL-A-81717C.
4 comments:
If you go back into antiquity, the distance from mains to hook point on the F7U-3 (Vought Cutlass) is in the zone of the F-35C. I doubt if you will find any from Douglas,Grumman, or McDonnell anywhere near it. How was the Cutlass in the bolter department? Anyone?....Anyone? Is this thing on?
Too bad. So sad. Like the A-4 there was an extended nose wheel to aid in angle of attack not only for take off...but trap.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/F7UCutlass.jpg
Should be interesting if you think they can put an extended nose wheel on the F-35C
Pretty big call to suggest the position of the F-35C hook was simply overlooked. Huge implications if it's correct.
It would be interesting to hear the assumptions and justifications by the designing engineers. In which areas were their assumptions incorrect? Were they predictable? Will it be a simple fix?
Anon #1 - the F7U MLG to Hook distance would be well over twice that found on the CV F-35C JSF as configured, today.
Anon #2 - Given the limited amount of suitable structure at the back end of the JSF variants, due to the commonality being sought and the fact that the STOVL F-35B JSF is the baseline design, there was always high risk associated with meeting the carrier suitability requirements for the CV.
The current design is such an outlier and this was obvious when first sited in the flesh back in 2008.
How this design got through CDR should make for a bit of a humourous read.
Simple doesn't meet the Milspec.
If you wish to know more, take a look at the requirements for tailhook design in MIL-A-81717C.
Post a Comment