Frijoles wrote:

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Frijoles wrote:

snip

Poor choice of words on my part. I agree that it still can be tense, but
the
nagging worry that "I might not be able to get back on board at all"
doesn't
seem to be there, from the pilot accounts I've read. If they can see the
ship,
pilot attitude seems to be that they will land on (possibly with some
damage,
but it beats taking a swim in the dark).

That may be a matter of opinion. If you can get to the hover abeam the
ship, you're golden. Getting to that hover is the trick -- i.e.managing the
transition from wing-borne to engine-borne flight over water at night in IMC
or in VMC with no peripheral cues is a handful for even the most experienced
players.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

snip accounts of two night landings

Note, the SHAR pilots didn't have NVGs at the time, and by all accounts
I've
read the first gen. Harriers were much more of a handfull in the hover and
transition than the second generation Harrier IIs.

IMO, the handling differences between the two jets are sometimes
mischaracterized. Both aircraft are very honest. Workloads in the hover
are very similar, except the first Harriers have neutral static stability in
yaw below about 60kts -- a not-so-insignificant difference for transition
flight. The first Harriers also have a much "lighter" control feel.

I've seen it described as being more of a sportscar feel vs. a sedan, i.e. more
responsive, and some experienced pilots preferred it.

Due
to the stronger stability augmentation on the H II, it is slightly more
forgiving of inattention to sideslip generation in transition flight, and
protects the less experienced pilot as he (or she) ventures near the edges
of the envelope.

This would be the area where yaw-induced intake momentum drag rears its ugly
head, especially in the first generation a/c?

However, due to the different wing and its associated
high-lift devices, at higher winds over the deck and while using the
aft-most spots on the ship, you have to pay more attention to roll
excursions.

I suspect FBW will take care of that sort of thing in the F-35B. Of course,
development to get the software to that point can be prolonged, as the MV-22 has
been demonstrating. They seem to have gotten the uncommanded roll in the hover
half over the deck and half not, and on the deck behind a helo, tamed at last.

Any idea how the throttle logic is being implemented? AvLeak had an article a
couple of years ago on the different approaches being pursued by Boeing and
LockMart. IIRR one of them was planning for the throttle to control RoD
directly in the hover, as opposed to controlling thrust directly. So, with the
throttle in a hover position (with the computer providing whatever thrust is
needed to achieve that), pulling the throttle back x amount would command say 3
fps RoD, y amount 5 fps, pushing it forward from neutral z amount would command
2 fps ascent, etc.

ISTR the other company was planning to use it to control hover height, but my
memory of the article is very hazy.

Guy