Quick guide to the F-35 JSF versions.

In article ,
(Harry Andreas) wrote:

"just a matter of logistics and cost"? I guess whether the larger gun fits
or not doesn't count.

The major size difference between the 25mm and 20mm guns is that the
25mm is about a foot longer and about 40 pounds heavier (when compared
to the "heavy barrel" version of the M61).

The bigger issue is the greatly increased recoil from the heavy gun -
5,000 pounds or so versus 3200 pounds from the 20mm. So you'd have to
reinforce the airframe somewhat to use the bigger gun in most planes.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

Oddly enough, none of the crashes in the F-22 program have been caused
by design problems with the tilt-rotor system.

Fascinating, tell us more.

There's been one crash from an engine fire, one from a gyro problem, one
from vortex ring state, and one from hydraulics. None directly tied to
tiltrotor tech.

The vortex ring state crash was really interesting, because it happened
when they took it in a descent that was *way* faster than any normal
cargo helo would even attempt. They've also found out since then that
the V-22 can get *out* of VRS by tilting the rotors forward, which
normal helos can't do.

On the other hand, when the Blackhawk was in development and early
deployment, the pilots called the the "Black Rock." Tail issues.

The Huey, when it first came out, had the depressing tendency to lose
its rotor when you took it into negative Gs the wrong way.

The Chinook liked catching on fire...

Overall, the V-22 is doing pretty darned good.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

Oddly enough, none of the crashes in the F-22 program have been caused
by design problems with the tilt-rotor system.

Fascinating, tell us more.

There's been one crash from an engine fire, one from a gyro problem, one
from vortex ring state, and one from hydraulics. None directly tied to
tiltrotor tech.

I was thinking there was only the one YF-22 crash.

Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

You're not alone. Very few aviators (military or civilian) have shown
much interest in obtaining the FAA's new "Powered Lift" rating since
the V-22 seems to crash with distressing regularity.

For extremely loose definitions of "regular." Less often than the big
helicopters we're currently using, during their development, and none at
all in what, three years? Four crashes of an experimental aircraft type
in over a decade of development is actually pretty darned impressive.

Extremely loose definition of "development," too.

Then you're going to have to start screaming

Ay? Whose "screaming?"

about that horrible "F-14 deathtrap," which had about the same number
of crashes per flight hour in development, and was, by no means, anything
like the first swing-wing plane.

Why you keep trotting out the F-14 is beyond me. Squadrons of
fighters and fighter bombers with variable geometry wings have
been around for decades (since the 60's) long before the F-14
was even on the drawing boards. In fact, unlike tilt-rotor aircraft,
some swing-wing aircraft such as the F-111, Su-22 and Su-24 have
been operational for so long now that they've even become obsolete!
And there's also the B-1, Mig-27 and Tornado swing wings which,
unlike the Osprey tilt-rotor, have also been operational for decades.
Don't misunderstand, I wouldn't be building and flying flexwing trikes
if I were a luddite, but I haven't met too many pilots whom are all
that impressed by either the Osprey or the Harrier especially
when compared to their more conventional fixed and rotary wing
counterparts.

In article ,
Mike Marron wrote:

Why you keep trotting out the F-14 is beyond me.

Because, during its development, it crashed *more* often than the
"dangerous" Osprey has, per hour of flight.

And *way* more often than the "troubled" F-22.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

R. David Steele wrote:
How much payload do you lose in the STOVL version?

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf35.html
The F-35A and F-35C can carry two 900 kilogram (2,000 pound) JDAMS
internally, while the STOVL F-35B is limited to internal carriage of
two 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) JDAMs.
...
Only the USAF F-35A has a built-in gun, with an "Advanced 27
Millimeter Cannon", an improved version of the Mauser BK-27
revolver-type cannon, in the left wingroot. The other variants do
not have a built-in gun, but can accommodate a cannon pack plugged
into
one of the weapons bays.

Out of date information, again.

The 27mm has been replaced by a 25mm Gatling. And the gun pack goes
on a conformal stealthy belly pod, not in the weapon bay.

The 25mm makes sense. What we need to do is covert other 20mm
Gatling guns, such as those on the F/A-18 or the MK 15 20mm
Phalanx CIWS Close-In Weapons Systems, over to the 25mm. It is
just a matter of long term logistics and costs. I believe that
some ships are using the 25mm Bushmaster as surface defense
weapons (against small attack boats).

I think you're really overestimating the potential savings here. There are
already massive stockpiles fo 20mm ammo and it doesn't cost much to buy
more. But it woudl eb exceedingly exopensive to swap gun mounts, if it's
possible at all. Many aircraft installations would find it very hard to
exchange the M-61 for a GAU-12.

The Navy decided against this sort of refit for the Phalanx several years
ago. The Block 1B has improved (longer) barrels and enhanced 20mm
ammunition, but it keeps the same caliber so that existing ammo stocks can
be used. The Navy's real preference is to move up to Rolling Airframe
Missile for anti-missile defense and use the 30mm Mk 46 turret (from the
Marine AAAV) for small-boat defense


It is the same as converting the 5-Inch 54 Cal. MK 45 Guns over
to the 155mm (~6 inch) shell. That would save money plus mean
that ships could offload shells to the Marines.

There is no intention to convert existing 127mm mounts or ships to 155mm.
It's just not a practical possibility. Future ships will have 155mm in the
form of the Advanced Gun System, which is much larger than the Mk 45.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Chad Irby wrote:
On the other hand, when the Blackhawk was in development and early
deployment, the pilots called the the "Black Rock." Tail issues.

Not certain what you are talking about. There was one crash and one
heavy landing during Black Hawk development. The crash was a result of
the airspeed input into the horizontal tail scheduling not being hooked
up after maintenance. On take off, the horizontal tail stayed in the
high incidence position, causing the aircraft to pitch over and crash,
killing the crew. The heavy landing resulted from an excessive rate of
descent, due to pilot error. The result was a shaken up crew and a
broken tail wheel.

The Huey, when it first came out, had the depressing tendency to lose
its rotor when you took it into negative Gs the wrong way.

This hasn't changed - the Huey has a teetering rotor, which looses its
head moment at low and negative G conditions. Once the head moment is
gone, control of the rotor is lost and it starts thrashing and
eventually mast bumps. If the mast bump is severe enough, the mast
breaks and rotor departs.

"David Lednicer" wrote in message
...
Chad Irby wrote:
On the other hand, when the Blackhawk was in development and early
deployment, the pilots called the the "Black Rock." Tail issues.

Not certain what you are talking about.

That is a common thread in Irby's posts.

There was one crash and one
heavy landing during Black Hawk development. The crash was a result of
the airspeed input into the horizontal tail scheduling not being hooked
up after maintenance. On take off, the horizontal tail stayed in the
high incidence position, causing the aircraft to pitch over and crash,
killing the crew. The heavy landing resulted from an excessive rate of
descent, due to pilot error. The result was a shaken up crew and a
broken tail wheel.

The Blackhawk has served America well.

In article ,
David Lednicer wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:
On the other hand, when the Blackhawk was in development and early
deployment, the pilots called the the "Black Rock." Tail issues.

Not certain what you are talking about. There was one crash and one
heavy landing during Black Hawk development. The crash was a result of
the airspeed input into the horizontal tail scheduling not being hooked
up after maintenance. On take off, the horizontal tail stayed in the
high incidence position, causing the aircraft to pitch over and crash,
killing the crew. The heavy landing resulted from an excessive rate of
descent, due to pilot error. The result was a shaken up crew and a
broken tail wheel.

There were later problems with the Blackhawk with RF interferencecausing
unwanted stabilator inputs, which caused more crashes after deployment.
They fixed it pretty soon, but it *was* a real problem with early
versions. Of course, after a couple of decades of deployment, they're
great copters.

The point is that we've seldom built *any* new combat aircraft that
didn't have one or more major issues along the way, and damned few major
new systems that didn't have one or more crashes or *severe* safety
problems.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

That is a common thread in Irby's posts.

It's definitely a badge of honor that "Tarver Engineering" thinks I'm so
eeeevil.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.