• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

F-35B/C Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)

Flash said:
Why still have a canopy bow? The only ones I have ever seen are where the canopy actually separates and the F-22 doesn't have one.
Click to expand...

Can't answer that, but it's not a conventional bow that separates and serves as mount for pieces of plexiglas as in a conventional configuration; it's internal (vvvv) to single piece of plexiglas. I can get you an answer next week though.

5L7P4610.jpg


HJ photo
 
heyjoe said:
It has an amzing clutch that connects the lift fan to the engine. The novel fan provides 18,000 pounds of lift alone with no combustion.

566x228_p_28.jpg
Click to expand...

and that's all driven by one engine.......right......? When this system was being pitched and sold as the most fail safe engine ever fielded did they send cranials, wrenches, hail, fine granular sand or bald eagles down the intakes?

I know, I know. I'm ignorant and need to get onboard with technology but I've had enough engines quit on me that I'm skeptical.
 
It looks like the strip of det cord going around the edge of the rest of the aft section of the canopy follows the aft edge that faux canopy rail. My guess is it's to hold the forward section in place, and to hold the rear-view mirrors in place. I want to emphasize that it's a complete guess.
 
Harrier has a canopy bow...canopy doesn't separate from a/c during ejection, instead it shatters. Can't eject on the ground with canopy open...well you can, but you're going to leave your legs in the jet.

I imagine the bow is there to provide structural integrity. Looks like a bulbous canopy anyway, at high airspeeds (Mach 1+) there's probably a lot of pressure on the canopy right there at the bow. IIRC, the JSF canopy stays attached during ejection too...don't want it going down the lift fan in a hover/slow flight with the fan doors open.

I imagine a/c with canopies that separate completely rely on forward airspeeds to help separate the canopy so the pilot doesn't pull a Goose. In an a/c that may have very little or no forward speed, it would take too much propellant and/or time to generate that separation.
 
heyjoe said:
Can't answer that, but it's not a conventional bow that separates and serves as mount for pieces of plexiglas as in a conventional configuration; it's internal (vvvv) to single piece of plexiglas. I can get you an answer next week though.
Click to expand...

That is exactly why I am curious it is there. Looking forward to the answer!

jboomer said:
I imagine the bow is there to provide structural integrity. Looks like a bulbous canopy anyway, at high airspeeds (Mach 1+) there's probably a lot of pressure on the canopy right there at the bow.
Click to expand...

That is what my History major trained mind thinks but the F-22 doesn't have one and the one on the F-16 has the box/rail all the way behind the pilot and largely out of FOV, hence the curiosity.
 
heyjoe said:
It has an amzing clutch that connects the lift fan to the engine.
Click to expand...

A group of Harrier guys were picking the brains of a group of JSF engineers are few years ago when they were socializing the lift fan design. What happens when the clutch fails, we asked? They assured us that it was designed to be fail-proof. Since complexity tends to be the natural enemy of reliability we again asked - so, really, what happens when it fails? They again insisted it couldn't fail. We just gave them the stink eye for a minute and then one of them piped up with - "Well there is an auto-eject mode on the seat that is only triggered in the event of lift fan or clutch failure". Seems that if the lift fan were to fail or the clutch were to give out, the subsequent pitch rate would be impossible to beat with a manual ejection. So in that scenario, HAL takes care of business for you. At least that was the selling point, no idea if that design feature is still incorporated.
 
vick said:
They assured us that it was designed to be fail-proof.
Click to expand...

Just like when asked, "So what happens when your engine fails?"

vick said:
They assured us that it was designed to be fail-proof.
Click to expand...

So, every flight is a single engine emergency?

Ok, right, gotcha. And go ahead on not put an internal gun in the thing as well while you are at it. Oh wait, they didn't.
 
JustAGuy said:
...go ahead on not put an internal gun in the thing as well while you are at it. Oh wait, they didn't.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Depends on variant. And for the ones they didn't, the decision was made well before OEF* so notion that fast movers would be called upon to strafe was considered ludicrous and notion that external stores would be carried was also scoffed at, but..........I was walking into Pentagon recently and saw an old friend who works for LMCO heading in same direction with a large box. As we chatted, he opened the lid and said it was first F-35 model delivered to building that had the full monty of external stores mounted on it.

*Backdrop: I went to very first meetings associated with JAST while still in uniform as the Navy AAM rep. It was all about first survivability across the beach in a double digit SAM threat environment. After retiring, I worked in Weapons Integration systems engineering mainly in AIM-9X arena, but also played in JSF quite a bit in their CONOPS development and in the novel NGC developed Sensor integration scheme. it was hard to get their minds off gearing for the big one just like the F-22 crowd who I also worked with. It was like the Cold War legacy Fulda Gap was so pervasive that they wouldn't or couldn't consider anything else even after we continued to get involved in skirmishes or protracted campaigns like Bosnia/Kosovo. By the time of 9/11, they had put JSF on the path it's on today. Oh well, so it goes as Kurt Vonnegut was wont to say.
 
heyjoe said:
Yes and no. Depends on variant. And for the ones they didn't, the decision was made well before OEF* so notion that fast movers would be called upon to strafe was considered ludicrous and notion that external stores would be carried was also scoffed at, but..
Click to expand...

I remember hearing that when Lockheed game and gave us a brief when I was in grad school. As a lowly Ensign I asked "haven't we learned this was a bad idea before with the F-4?" "Well, the missiles are so much better now and no one is going to dogfight ever again." "Wasn't that the same rationale they used for the F-4 that turned out to be pretty wrong?"
 
Pags said:
I remember hearing that when Lockheed game and gave us a brief when I was in grad school. As a lowly Ensign I asked "haven't we learned this was a bad idea before with the F-4?" "Well, the missiles are so much better now and no one is going to dogfight ever again." "Wasn't that the same rationale they used for the F-4 that turned out to be pretty wrong?"
Click to expand...

Precisely. The F-22 cadre were telling everyone the era of the dogfight was over and nobody would ever "go to the merge" again. However, it just hasn't worked out that way since beginning of aerial engagements. In fact, I was in a Flag/General Officer meeting in 1993 timeframe in which Program Manager (SPO Director in USAF-speak) boasted that F-22 was so effective in medium range environment that they were considering dropping AIM-9 capability altogether after already reducing internal loadout from 4 to 2. However, he was at a loss for words when a sharp O-5 asked why it needed to be so maneuverable then or need a...drum roll...a gun.

Note: The developers and specifically the engineers that delve into aircraft versus aircraft like to model engagements as if they were two knights jousting. Problem is there aren't always adversaries willing to joust using our ruleset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top