WT Forums

JSF FIRST FLIGHT SLIPS TO ’06; MORE SCHEDULE CHANGES UNDER REVIEW
The F-35 joint program office has again delayed the first flight of the conventional takeoff and landing variant, moving the date from late 2005 to spring 2006, and is mulling several other changes to the development schedule for the multibillion-dollar fighter program, according to its director Maj. Gen. Jack Hudson.

SH is the only modern proggy to come in anywhere near "on time"

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Thats because it is not "modern" and the wing drop problem was also a suprise. Don't fool yourself, the SH is not a model program. Only reason its being fixed as its being procured is beacuse the Navy has no other option. They need the jets to flesh out its CVW requirements now. Really only the emergence of the F-14 as a premier carrier strike aircrat made the situation less dire, in fact you will find that Navy Hornet squadrons are much more need of new aircraft than the last of the F-14 squadrons, despite the fact that the F-14D's have more flight hours than most C Hornets, even the F-14B's are adapting to airframe life extension programs better than the Hornets. Grumman built them to last.


Figure that into your low cost Hornet theory...







Edited by - chadrewsky on Feb 29 2004 1:12 PM

you kinda have to read this from the bottom up:

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Bill,

Very true but there were a few extreme instances that concerned the flight
team.

It was very much an over reaction of detractors on the Hill who used the
press to amplify the situation.

Even with the meddling by politics, it worked out for the better, IMHO, as
it helped identify a problem that has been seen on many aircraft and
actually came up with a usable modification and fix

Jake

PS It's funny what the Hill wants to read into Test Pilots reports and how
it effects the $ in their districts! (And the political atmosphere at the
time.) A prime example that comes to mind was the JPATs program. Lockheed's
T-Bird II (MB339) pretty much had the #1 slot with all of the test program
directors and pilots. Low and behold, DoD changed the specs of the program
several months (It may have even been as short as 1 month) before the
contract was to be awarded.

"Bill Watkins" <salted1@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Vsxt9.17125$ku2.703660@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Friends of mine that participated in DT at Pax told me that this was, in
> reality, nothing different or more noticable than the heavy buffett felt in
> the Tomcat at high AOA. This was an issue that the test pilots identified,
> but did not become a high profile problem until some members of Congress,
> seeking to cut the program, got wind of it and started talking to the press.
>
> "Jake Donovan" <jakedonovan_nospam@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:xQTs9.162684$IL6.8020228@news2.east.cox.net...
> > Peaches,
> >
> > In March 1996, during flight tests at Patuxent River, an F/A-18E/F
> > experienced wing drop-an unacceptable, uncommanded abrupt lateral roll-off
> > that randomly occurred and involved rapid bank angle changes of up to 60
> > deg. Not a safety of flight issue, the roll-offs occur during high-speed,
> > high-g maneuvers and prevent the pilot from performing close-in tracking
> > maneuvers on potential adversaries. The problem was viewed as extremely
> > serious and posed a threat to operational tests and the overall development
> > schedule. During the first year of flight tests, the wing-drop was only seen
> > at high altitudes because load restrictions prevented the aircraft from
> > reaching the relevant range of angle of attack at low altitudes. As the
> > loads test program opened the flight envelope to 7.5g at all altitudes, the
> > full extent of the wing-drop problem became evident. Objectionable wing-drop
> > events occurred through-out the flight envelope at Mach numbers between 0.5
> > and 0.9.
> > The wing drop problem was discovered in early 1996, the Boeing/Navy team
> > performed wind tunnel tests (at NASA Langley) and computational fluid
> > dynamic (CFD) studies in an effort to identify the cause. (Some airflow
> > disruptions were found to be partly caused by the much larger rounded
> > intakes.) The joint Navy team concluded that the wing drop was caused by a
> > sudden, abrupt loss of lift on one of the outer wing panels during
> > maneuvering.
> >
> > A change in the configuration of the leading-edge flaps was evaluated in
> > flight tests in early 1997, with very good results. The leading-edge flap
> > modification significantly reduced the problem. The aircraft still exhibited
> > smaller wing drops at some test conditions.
> >
> > More intensive wind test studies were done at Langley and Langley provided
> > design guidelines for the porosity and thickness of the mesh at the wing
> > fold area. This solution, refined by the NASA, Navy, and Boeing team,
> > resolved the wing-drop problem and permitted continued production of the
> > aircraft. (Along with stall fences, vortex generators and the intakes were
> > modified along with the leading edge of the wing) Both Boeing and the Navy
> > Test Team were satisfied.
> >
> > Although the Super Bugs Flight Test and Evaul programs were one of the
> > smoothest of modern jet aircraft (in terms of issues), that Wing Drop
> > problem, which has not been documented since 1998, keeps coming up in the
> > press and by detractors of the program.
> >
> > JD
> >
> > PS I personally am looking forward to seeing 7 X-35's show up at PAX in
> > 2005. (3 CVs and 4 STOVL) for acceptance testing. Maybe we wont have an all
> > BUG Navy after all.
> >
> > "Pechs1" <pechs1@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20021021092107.22604.00002804@mb-fk.aol.com...
> >
> > > jake->Wing Drop on FA 18 E/F's were documented at Strike (PAX RIVER) during
> > > >several evaluation flights. The problem was a high priority during testing
> > > >and final acceptance but the problem was fixed long ago
> > >
> > > What wa the fix??
> > > P C Chisholm
> > > CDR, USN(ret)
> > > Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Thats a good read, in fact isn't funny how detractors can morph a minor issue, into a larger issue to polarize their arguments...Or on the same token reverse that school of thought and say, its gonna be ok, the OV-22 comes to mind...As does the Columbia disaster.

I don't claim to have a grasp on the aeronautical dynamics of the Hornets wing drop issues, much less the improvements the Marconi DFCS have made to the F-14 in the low speed flight regime. I do however know, unless you are an engineer, or somone in the know of a procurement program these arguments are all null & void. But, the F-18E/F is a deriveative and improvement on the R&D program that created the F-18A, switching gears and improving the design on deficiencies exploited durring fleet service is a luxury most aircraft do not ever get. Sure aircraft get upgrades, even the F-14 did....But, the baseline F-14A soldiered on for 30 years, with very minor improvements for the duration of its career when compared to other aircraft service lifespans. (For example how many F-16A's and F-15A's served in the first gulf war?) Only in the twilight of its career did it recieve the improvemets that the first 25 years of its fleet duty demanded. In all honesty I envy the Hornet community, they where given a second chance to make the bird right, so it all should flow smooth (but has it really?) but comparing it to a new technology, new build aircraft like the F-35 is comparing apples and oranges, the kinks where allowed to be worked out on the F-18, with its initial design in the 18A-D....The F-35 has no such service lineage to draw lessons learned from.



Edited by - chadrewsky on Feb 29 2004 4:36 PM

Well the point of my first post was that nothing comes in on time anymore. The currant aquisition system is a sad joke on taxpayers. Everything these days IS much more complicated, but we have many new tools ( CFD/CAD/CAM etc) to do all that complicated work with. Multiyear procurement helps once the proggy is underway and allows the contractors to act like an actuall buissness. But we need a better/faster way to devise needs and then have industry quicky respond with an idea that will actually work. Lowest bidder rarely seems to be a good idea anymore.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

lol...More like we need to trim some of the fat off of the Military/Industrial complex bueacracy, and keep politicians out of the decesion making loop once a program has been committed to. Dumping programs after billions of dollars has been poured into their development makes no sense to me, regardless of the shiftng geo-political sands our forces should be the best trained, and best euiped with the most advanced weapons, systems, and people. Which in most regards, we are...Why dumb down our capabilities because the threats are not percieved to be there...This is going off on another tangent, but ancient Rome lost military superiority over a concept such as not using stirups on their mounted calvary, such things can happen again.



Edited by - chadrewsky on Feb 29 2004 5:17 PM

[quote]

> >
> > Although the Super Bugs Flight Test and Evaul programs were one of the
> > smoothest of modern jet aircraft (in terms of issues), that Wing Drop
> > problem, which has not been documented since 1998, keeps coming up in the
> > press and by detractors of the program.
------------

They lost two super bugs last year off the California coast. Crews died and some scuttlebutt that possibly a wing droped.

Guess we will find out soon enough if they fixed it.

Jack