You’ll have to excuse me. I don’t understand what you are saying in either part above. Most likely a language barrier, if you would not mind, please clarify.
The flow separation that the F-35 is experiencing is common, BUT both reports mention it. It is obvious that the buffeting in High AoA/High G maneuvers are more pronounced than the pilots are used to. The F-18 E/F has/had a similar issue. Both the Super and the F-35C experienced higher than normal buffeting and TRO (a more serious issue). With the F-35A, it sounds manageable. The F-15 also exhibited strong buffeting in high AoA. The real question is: does the flow separation inhibit the flight envelope? The test pilot from the leaked report and the Norwegian pilot seemed to be in agreement that the buffet was not limiting, and did give feedback that the aircraft was approaching lift limits. Again, is the buffeting a serious issue? In this case it does not seem to be, but pronounced buffet is not a favorable characteristic. What I was alluding to in the above post about the Super Hornet was the wing strake/wing fence to address buffeting and TRO (if you look at a Growler, it it very pronounced). The F-35C had the leading edge flap modified to address similar issue. What is also interesting is that buffet is pretty common in fighters with twin tails. The trade off is that a single vertical stab, may not have this issue, but will also not have the directional stability in high AoA.
If you are interested, here is the Nasa paper addressing the issue: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040110952.pdf
The F-16 has an AoA limiter because it has a pronounced pitch up at AoA above 25.5 degrees and enters a deep stall without warning. That is abrupt flow separation, definitely also not a desirable characteristic.
Dog tooth are used to control the flow separation (and prevent a dissimilar effect) or energize a surface exposed to the generated vortex downstream. Examples are the Phantom dog tooth for one and the F15 horizontal surfaces for the latter.
The vortex phenomenon can be so powerful that some fighter with a reduced vertical surface need to prematurely break the vortex before it can reach its maximum effect. Example is the Gripen with its small edges aside of the nose cone (the small vertical tail is there to contain the overall drag given the lower available trust).
The wing Fences are there to limit the boundary layer transition above the wing thanks to the spanwise component of the airstream velocity. It’s a draggy solution that you find only scarcely on modern fighter, unless some aircraft deployed on aircraft carrier that needs to the extra lift generated by a larger trapezoidal wing.
The TRO or Transonic roll off, is a characteristic of the 35 wing’s aerodynamic and aeroelasticity. In other term, it’s a draw back of the choice made by the engineers that must have been deemed negligible or acceptable given that it might be contained by adequate flight control laws. With the numerous modification of weight and volume, it is not a surprised that this still affect the bird and surprise new pilots that just went out of an airframe that had decade of use and refinements. In other words, it’s a transient problem.
Sign In
