General Category > Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board

Dino Cattaneo F-14/T-45/F-35 News Update

<< < (9/16) > >>

SpazSinbad:
About  F-35C Control Laws Now and Possible Future + HMDS II Landing Aids (only some excerpts below)

Tailored to Trap 01 Dec 2012 Frank Colucci

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/military/Tailored-to-Trap_77964.html

"F-35C control laws give Navy pilots Integrated Direct Lift Control for easier carrier landings, and they open the door for future landing aids."...
 
"...Even with its innovative flight controls, the F-35C, from the pilot’s perspective, is relatively conventional coming aboard the carrier. “Determining where you are with respect to lineup and glideslope is all visual,” acknowledged Canin. “For lineup, you look at the ship and line up on centerline… easy enough if the ship’s heading is steady, but tricky if the ship is wallowing,” noted Canin. “As for glideslope, you have to watch the meatball and see small deviations. Then you have to put the ball back in the middle, with the right rate of descent so it stays there. None of that’s changed with this airplane, but what we’re giving the pilot is more responsiveness and bandwidth to do that.”
 
The F-35 uses a BAE Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) instead of a conventional Head-Up Display (HUD). Like a classic HUD, the HMD shows the pilot a flight path marker (or velocity vector), with a bracket to indicate if the aircraft is “on speed” or flying fast or slow. Meanwhile, a caret moves up or down in reference to the flight path marker to give an acceleration-deceleration cue.
 
Ashore, when the aircraft is on glideslope, the pilot simply puts the flight path marker by the meatball and the aircraft stays on that glideslope. “At the ship, since the landing area is moving through the water, the pilot needs to put the flight path marker out in front of it. He needs to put it where the landing area will be when he gets there, which again requires judgment. A better system would be put the velocity vector into the moving reference frame of the boat,” Canin said.
 
Though not currently part of the F-35 plan, implementing a “ship-referenced velocity vector” (SRVV) would allow the pilot to put the SRVV on the intended touchdown point to hold glideslope. “All we would need to know from the ship is its current velocity, so we can put the airplane symbology in that reference frame,” Canin said.
 
Readily rewritten control laws have other possibilities. “With the current flight control law, the pilot commands pitch rate with the stick, and uses that pitch rate to establish a glideslope,” noted Canin. “There’s no reason, though, why the flight control system couldn’t establish a baseline glideslope, and allow the pilot to apply control stick pressure to command tweaks around that glideslope in response to ball deviations.” A “glideslope command” mechanization of this sort is not in the baseline airplane now, but is an example of the type of changes that could relatively easily be incorporated in the F-35 control system....
 
...The JSF test program currently has no autolanding requirement, but plans call for an F-35C autolanding capability based on the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System. “The F-35 will take more of a self-contained approach — an internally generated glideslope from GPS.”
 
IDLC is just one part of the F-35 test program which will now include tests of a refined tailhook for arrested landings. “We look at approach handling qualities every chance we get,” said Canin. “Where the rubber meets the road, though, is at touchdown. Until recently we haven’t had a loads clearance that allowed us to do carrier-type landings, but now we do, so now we’ll be able to look at our control precision to touchdown.”
 
Canin concluded, “Carrier landings, particularly at night, are still considered to be the hardest thing to do in aviation. But I think we now have an airplane, and the people in our control laws group, that can kill that notion forever. The carrier approach is a very well-defined problem, and there’s no reason why this airplane can’t completely change the game.”"

GRAPHIC ADDITION - SRVV Ship Referenced Velocity Vector example from:

Paddles Monthly August 2011 ‘What the Future Beholds...’ Dan "Butters" Radocaj Test Pilot/LSO VX-23 Ship Suitability

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlyAugust2011.pdf

“...We may also need to add another lens-type glideslope indicator. One idea is called a Bedford Array. You can see in Figure 1 that a Bedford Array is like a lens spread of over the length of the LA. Unlike an IFLOLS which has 12 cells that are always on to create a glideslope reference, the Bedford Array is a set of Christmas lights and only the light corresponding to current position of the touchdown point is illuminated. Just as the dynamic touchdown point moves across the deck on the LSODS screen, the Bedford Array lights would “move” forward and back across the deck corresponding to the dynamic touchdown point. Figure 2 shows what your HUD may look like. You keep the ship stabilized velocity vector on top of the Bedford light that is illuminated. The datum is a reference line in your HUD. As long as the 3 all line up you are on glide path. A Bedford Array & a ship stabilized velocity are indicators of glide-slope that will show you if you are off glide-slope more precisely but they still don’t make the airplane respond differently....”

SUBS17:
That sounds very interesting as far as CV ops is concerned I can't believe it did not already have ACLS like the Hornet.

JamesChams:

--- Quote from: SUBS17 on March 19, 2013, 01:19:53 am ---... I can't believe it did not already have ACLS like the Hornet.

--- End quote ---
That's because the US Navy regards that system as archaic, like the steam catapult system, and are hoping to modernize it with newer technologies; Joint Precision Approach and Landing System being one system under consideration.  Moreover, logically, the US Navy doesn't set requirement on an existing project underdevelopment for a technology they have yet to decide on for the future.  Keep in mind gents that this is a project that is evolving and undergoing constant requiremental changes after changes for all of the different nations involved and all the NEW  technologies that are being forced into this small jets arsenal.

BTW what happened to the "group meeting" over at F-16.net; did "smudge" get booted out of there as well? ::)

But, I digress ... as far as Dino's models are concerned this one is a vast improvement over the payware version in looks, function, and capabilities.  Can't wait for it to be VRS TacPack compatible.  ;D

SUBS17:
They are still waiting for the SDK for Tacpac I suspect although there is already one Dev team testing Tacpac on an addon for another company.

JamesChams:

--- Quote from: SUBS17 on March 20, 2013, 12:41:35 am ---They are still waiting for the SDK for Tacpac I suspect although there is already one Dev team testing Tacpac on an addon for another company.

--- End quote ---
Yes, if you are referring to the Tomcat Dev. over at AS, I believe so; from what they have posted on their preview forums.  Do not know if Dino asked about that yet for his projects; he hasn't added any weapons to his existing Tomcat v2.0, so it might be something he's considering for it as well (along with a future F-35 v2.xx) the TacPack would add some much needed goodies to the FS World for even freeware aircraft.

But, the SDK might not be the only issue, FREEWARE vs. PAYWARE developments may/may not be an issue with VRS' licensing; might inquire that of Mr. Jon Blum sometime.

Later!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page