F-35 Down in Albuquerque
What was the trailing plume ? Engine intake plugs not removed ?
I thought you did it , no you thought I did it events ?
What kind of plume could you expect with wrong fuel or algae bloom in the fuel ?
I thought you did it , no you thought I did it events ?
What kind of plume could you expect with wrong fuel or algae bloom in the fuel ?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
I believe the F-35B can do a conventional take-off with a standard runway available, so not sure why this mode was used anyway - unless the pilot doesn’t get to do many and was using the take-off to tick a box for currency on type.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 0
Received 66 Likes
on
53 Posts
BELOW: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/image...28237_9967.JPG
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 31st May 2024 at 15:35. Reason: plusUps
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 0
Received 66 Likes
on
53 Posts
F-35 Begins Year With Test Objectives Unmet [STOVL IAS Change]
Jan 4, 2011 By Graham Warwick [URL no longer workee]
"...McFarlan says... The lift-fan door was programmed to open to 65 deg. below 120 kt., and to 35 deg. above that airspeed. But with the large door fully open, loads on the auxiliary-inlet doors behind it are reduced, so the schedule has been changed to keep the lift-fan door open 65 deg. up to 165 kt. during a short takeoff, he says...."
Video show Mike Skaff demonstrating the F-35B on a flat deck take off and landing in the F-35 Travel Simulator. At 2 minutes 45 seconds we see him transition with the HOOK/STOVL button.
F-35 flight simulator [Skaff STOVL HOOK button 2m 45s]
Jan 4, 2011 By Graham Warwick [URL no longer workee]
"...McFarlan says... The lift-fan door was programmed to open to 65 deg. below 120 kt., and to 35 deg. above that airspeed. But with the large door fully open, loads on the auxiliary-inlet doors behind it are reduced, so the schedule has been changed to keep the lift-fan door open 65 deg. up to 165 kt. during a short takeoff, he says...."
Video show Mike Skaff demonstrating the F-35B on a flat deck take off and landing in the F-35 Travel Simulator. At 2 minutes 45 seconds we see him transition with the HOOK/STOVL button.
F-35 flight simulator [Skaff STOVL HOOK button 2m 45s]
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 31st May 2024 at 15:23. Reason: add txt
Comment from a retired RC-135W Crew Chief who lives locally for what it's worth.
"Supposedly he was cleared for an unrestricted climb to 20k, but denied it because he promised a short field takeoff for some guys on the ramp."
https://x.com/Heywood01/status/1796376177734455366
"Supposedly he was cleared for an unrestricted climb to 20k, but denied it because he promised a short field takeoff for some guys on the ramp."
https://x.com/Heywood01/status/1796376177734455366
The following users liked this post:
Comment from a retired RC-135W Crew Chief who lives locally for what it's worth.
"Supposedly he was cleared for an unrestricted climb to 20k, but denied it because he promised a short field takeoff for some guys on the ramp."
https://x.com/Heywood01/status/1796376177734455366
"Supposedly he was cleared for an unrestricted climb to 20k, but denied it because he promised a short field takeoff for some guys on the ramp."
https://x.com/Heywood01/status/1796376177734455366
Mog
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 0
Received 66 Likes
on
53 Posts
_________
VX-23 Strike Test News 2014 [02 Sep]
"...STO testing included crosswind expansion out to 20 knots, completed primarily at Edwards Air Force Base [2,300 feet] and NAWS China Lake [2,300 feet] during a wet runway and crosswind detachment...."
_________
VX-23 2015 STRIKE TEST NEWS Maj M. Andrew “Tac” Tacquard
F-35[B] Short Takeoff & Vertical Landing (STOVL) Mode http://issuu.com/nawcad_pao/docs/striketest2015_single
“...Flying qualities during asymmetric testing were nearly identical to symmetric testing from the pilot’s perspective. The team performed Rolling Vertical Landings (RVL), Creeping Vertical Landings (CVL), Vertical Landings (VL), Slow Landings (SL), and Short Take Offs (STO) tests with nominal winds at Patuxent River. They continued landing and takeoff testing during a detachment to Edwards AFB, Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, California, and at NAWS China Lake. Testers focused on expanding the crosswind envelope with crosswinds of up to 25 knots. We also performed the 1st high altitude CVL & VL during the detachment...."
The following users liked this post:
Like the XZ439 and ORAC posts above suggest, one has to wonder how accurate the performance predictions might be for the airfield conditions at takeoff time, and how much exposure the pilot might have had to aircraft handling during STOs with marginal aircraft performance.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
5 Posts
ORAC
Good point. I recall the Sea Harriers joining us for a Trial at an airfield in Northern Nevada with an Elevation of 7000ft. When the aircraft arrived they seemed a bit "squirly" from the break and around final.
Once they shutdown I spoke to the lead pilot. He admitted that they had not appreciated the effect of flying circuits at 8500ft. He had over sped the gear and flap and nearly departed on final whilst trying to fly a "punchy " pattern.
He later admitted that the Seajet ODM performance figures for takeoff and landing were only for sea level!!
I had to stage through Albuquerque (Elevation 5500ft) in a Heavy Tornado F3. At 14.00 in the afternoon we were offered a Take off Runway with a 7kt tailwind. We declined the offer and waited for the into wind runway. Once ATC saw our take off and climb performance they understood our decision.
Just have to wonder if the figures/software are only calibrated for STOL take-offs at sea level……
Once they shutdown I spoke to the lead pilot. He admitted that they had not appreciated the effect of flying circuits at 8500ft. He had over sped the gear and flap and nearly departed on final whilst trying to fly a "punchy " pattern.
He later admitted that the Seajet ODM performance figures for takeoff and landing were only for sea level!!
I had to stage through Albuquerque (Elevation 5500ft) in a Heavy Tornado F3. At 14.00 in the afternoon we were offered a Take off Runway with a 7kt tailwind. We declined the offer and waited for the into wind runway. Once ATC saw our take off and climb performance they understood our decision.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 0
Received 66 Likes
on
53 Posts
https://www.afmc.af.mil/News/Article...light-testing/
“STOVL F-35 conducts flight testing 15 May 2014 EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, [2,311 feet] Calif. -- A Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing variant of the F-35 Lightning II is shown performing Crosswind and Wet Runway testing here May 6. Pilot Dan Levin and a team from the F-35 Integrated Test Facility at Patuxent River, Md., accompanied aircraft BF-4 for the deployment to Edwards April 11. Testing is expected to continue until June 14....” JPG: https://media.defense.gov/2014/May/1...-TW412-035.JPG
“STOVL F-35 conducts flight testing 15 May 2014 EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, [2,311 feet] Calif. -- A Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing variant of the F-35 Lightning II is shown performing Crosswind and Wet Runway testing here May 6. Pilot Dan Levin and a team from the F-35 Integrated Test Facility at Patuxent River, Md., accompanied aircraft BF-4 for the deployment to Edwards April 11. Testing is expected to continue until June 14....” JPG: https://media.defense.gov/2014/May/1...-TW412-035.JPG
Nice pictures but what testing was done for short takeoff transition at 8,000 ft DA or higher? Was this simply a case of operating outside the tested envelope? Even if that was the case why couldn't the takeoff have been aborted?
All fair questions. However, the operative question is what caused unsustainable flight after getting airborne? The jet got airborne; why didn’t it remain so (safely)? There are a host of mechanical matters that might be in-play. There is also the potential that the jet didn’t just leap off the ground, but wallowed (airborne) down the runway struggling to climb. I can tell you from experience w powered lift that is an attention-getting experience. Pull the nose up too much (and it doesn’t take much) and you get a drag increment greater than aero lift with less acceleration resulting in a settle. Did that happen? Dunno, but it’s a possibility.
The following users liked this post:
The wx at KABQ at the time of the crash appx 1352pm was T*85 F/29*C,ALTIM.PRESS 24.74",Wind 5mph..
To me that looks like a `pressure altitude of 8430ft.,and a density altitude of (temp correction) 11500 ft......Others may disagree with the calcs,but in hindsight,a14000 FT runway`may` just have been a `better` option.....
To me that looks like a `pressure altitude of 8430ft.,and a density altitude of (temp correction) 11500 ft......Others may disagree with the calcs,but in hindsight,a14000 FT runway`may` just have been a `better` option.....
I found the tower takeoff clearance on the LiveATC.net archive.
I can't provide a direct link to the archived recording but it can be found at https://www.liveatc.net/archive.php
It should be possible to navigate to May 28, KABQ tower 1, and select the recording starting at 1930Z.
File name is KABQ1-Twr-May-28-2024-1930Z.mp3 and the takeoff clearance is at 13:45 play time.
I can't provide a direct link to the archived recording but it can be found at https://www.liveatc.net/archive.php
It should be possible to navigate to May 28, KABQ tower 1, and select the recording starting at 1930Z.
File name is KABQ1-Twr-May-28-2024-1930Z.mp3 and the takeoff clearance is at 13:45 play time.