If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Woody Beal" wrote in message ... Concur that it does not yield a concrete conclusion, but it does yield a tendency based on several possible single point failures. If lift fan doors don't open, if lift rotor fails to engage properly, if engine fails during transition to STOVL life gets tough at a very critical and low altitude moment. These problems (though not identical) are similar to those experienced in the AV-8B. Actually, conversion is done at an altitude and speed that, if it fails, you're still wing-borne. The airplane fails back to a regular engine. Just pop the TVL forward and continue to fly conventional. THe diciest moment for the lift-fan system is during clutch engagement, but you don't perform that in a high-exposure kind of situation. Doors and all that aren't really a problem, cuz you'll know there's a problem before you expose yourself. Mechanical failures in the STOVL regime are unforgiving because of their low altitude locale. Yup. But a lot of stuff in the engine/lift-fan system is monitored. Health checking on the B model propulsion system is way beyond anything that has been put into service to-date. THe problem here is that health monitoring tech is really only good for known failure modes. It's the "gee we never considered that" kind of problems that can get scary. Infant mortality. WIth the lift-fan system, you'll typically know if you have a mechanical problem before you go jet-borne. Once transitioning to jet-borne, you just gotta watch all the critical temps (turbine inlet, exhaust gas....yadda yadda). Also, much of the unforgiving nature of jet-borne flight has been addressed through the inceptor mapping. Switching from rates to attitude commands makes overcontrol type slip-ups much less likely. The F-35B will be much more forgiving to exhausted pilots. makes the jet more stable. The complexity of the F-35B when compared to the C or the A only gives it an additional option for landing--a complexity with several possible single point failures in a critical flight regime. Keep in mind that the operational environment envisioned for the F-35B is much more varied than what has been done with the Harrier. So, exposure to hazards (thinking mainly weather) will be much greater. Pete (worked on the X-35B for a couple of years designing the yaw-axis control laws). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Replace fabric with glass | Ernest Christley | Home Built | 38 | April 17th 04 11:37 AM |
Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14? | Guy Alcala | Military Aviation | 265 | March 7th 04 09:28 AM |
Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14? | Guy Alcala | Naval Aviation | 2 | February 22nd 04 06:22 AM |
RAN to get new LSD class vessel to replace 5 logistic vessels ... | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 10 | November 3rd 03 11:49 PM |
Air Force to replace enlisted historians with civilians | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 1 | October 22nd 03 09:41 AM |