JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT

Engineering Notes

Downloaded by JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on November 16, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C033533

Acoustical Environment During F-35B

Vertical Landing Operations
Brent O. Reichman
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602
J. Micah Downing
Blue Ridge Research and Consulting, LLC, Asheville,
North Carolina 28801
Allan Aubert
U.S. Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River,
Maryland 20670
Kent L. Gee and Tracianne B. Neilsen
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602
Richard L. McKinley** and Alan T. Wall
U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, WrightPatterson Air
Force Base, Ohio 45433
and
Michael M. James
Blue Ridge Research and Consulting, LLC, Asheville,
North Carolina 28801
DOI: 10.2514/1.C033533

I.

Introduction

HE acoustical environments of fifth-generation military jet

aircraft (FA 18E, F-22A, and F-35) have been more significantly documented in the scientific literature than prior aircraft [15].
However, the short takeoff and vertical landing capability of the
F-35B represents a more complicated environment than exists in

Presented as Paper 2015-2377 at the 21st AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics

Conference, Dallas, TX, 2226 June 2015; received 11 May 2015; revision
received 11 March 2016; accepted for publication 2 May 2016; published
online 7 July 2016. Copyright 2016 by Brent Reichman. Published
by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with
permission. Copies of this paper may be made for personal and
internal use, on condition that the copier pay the per-copy fee to the
Copyright Clearance Center (CCC). All requests for copying and permission to reprint should be submitted to CCC at www.copyright.com;
employ the ISSN 0021-8669 (print) or 1533-3868 (online) to initiate your
request.
*Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Physics and Astronomy, N283 ESC.
Student Member AIAA.

Chief Scientist, 29 North Market Street, Suite 700. Member AIAA.

Senior Technical Specialist, Noise and Emissions Team Lead, NAVAIR

Propulsion and Power, Building 106, Room 229c, 22195 Elmer Road. Senior
Member AIAA.

Associate Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, N283 ESC.

Senior Member AIAA.

Part-Time Assistant Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy,

N283 ESC. Member AIAA.
**F-35 Performance and Specialty Engineering Acoustics Lead,
Battlespace Acoustics Branch, 2610 Seventh Street, Building 441.

Research Physicist, Battlespace Acoustics Branch, 2610 Seventh Street,

Building 441. Member AIAA.

Senior Principal Engineer, 29 North Market Street, Suite 700. Member

AIAA.

traditional aircraft. The F-35B is equipped with the RollsRoyce

LiftSystem, consisting of the lift fan, driveshaft, a three-bearing
swivel module (3BSM), and a roll post located on each wing (Fig. 1).
During vertical landing (VL), the lift fan provides up to 20,000 lbf
cold thrust, whereas the roll posts each provide an additional 1950 lbf
thrust. The 3BSM rotates downward, providing up to 18,000 lbf dry
thrust from the jet nozzle. The roll posts and lift fan, together with the
rotated 3BSM, fundamentally alter the noise field from normal flight
operations. Additionally, as the aircraft descends, the downwardfacing jet plume impinges on the landing surface, further changing
the noise source [610]. In this Note, the sound field during VL
operations is described using equivalent sound pressure levels Leq
and one-third-octave (OTO) band levels. Spatial maps of sound
pressure levels (SPLs) show the directivity of the noise radiation, and
waveform analyses demonstrate the level of nonlinear propagation
effects within the measured data.

II.

Measurement Summary

The F-35B VL measurements [11] were performed at Marine

Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona in September 2013. In this Note,
data are presented from a 45 microphone array, which consisted of
three semicircular arcs with radii of 76, 152, and 305 m (250, 500, and
1000 ft) from the touchdown pad, as shown in Fig. 2. (For convenience, references to the different arcs are made in feet hereafter.) The
seven microphones in the 250 ft arc were at a height of 5 ft and spaced
at 30 deg intervals, spanning 180 deg total. The 500 and 1000 ft arcs
both had 19 microphones located at heights of 12 and 30 ft, respectively, spaced 10 deg apart. The 0 and 10 deg microphones in the
1000 ft arc had to be placed at 700 and 750 ft, respectively, because of
landing site constraints. During the VL, as seen in Fig. 2, the aircraft
approached from approximately along the 30 deg measurement angle
at a nearly constant altitude of 188203 ft, hovered at a constant
position near the touchdown pad, and then descended, whereas the
nose of the aircraft was oriented toward approximately 230 deg,
relative to the x axis in Fig. 2, until touchdown.

III.

Data Analysis

Analysis of the F-35B VL acoustic data helps characterize the

temporal and spectral properties of this unique noise source. First, flat
and A-weighted Leq time histories from selected microphones and
Leq maps across the measurement aperture demonstrate sound level
variations during the approach, hover, and descent phases of the VL.
The spatial maps show the corresponding changes in directivity of the
noise. Second, OTO band spectra are provided for selected locations
and times. Finally, a time waveform analysis provides bounds on the
strength of nonlinear propagation effects.
A. Equivalent Sound Pressure Level Time Histories

The noise level variation during the VL is examined using the flat
and A-weighted 1 s Leq for microphones located along array angles of
30 and 90 deg, which are shown as filled circles in Fig. 2. The Leq time
histories for the microphones at 30 deg are shown in Fig. 3 and for
90 deg in Fig. 4. Dashed black lines differentiate VL phases: the
aircraft passage over the measurement arcs and the beginnings of the
hover and descent portions, with the touchdown point set at 0 s. The
average difference between the flat and A-weighted Leq is approximately 2 dB, with greater or lesser difference at certain times,
depending on the spectral content.

Data available online at http://www.rolls-royce.com/customers/defenceaerospace/products/combat-jets/rolls-royce-liftsystem/technology.aspx [retrieved 7 March 2016].

Article in Advance / 1

Article in Advance

/ ENGINEERING NOTES

perspective, that reductions in level of 2030 dB may be expected

around the aircraft during the final portion of the descent phase.
Although the individual Leq histories reveal key features, a spatial
view of the noise field is important to determine azimuthal directivity.
Spatial maps of the 1 s Leq for four different events during the VL are
shown in Fig. 5, with contour lines at 3 dB intervals. As the aircraft
passes over the 500 and 250 ft arcs, shown in Figs. 5a and 5b, the
sound field does not appear strongly dependent on azimuthal angle. A
slightly nonuniform directivity can be seen for the hover condition,
but during the descent, the Leq varies less with azimuthal angle.
Despite the presence of the lift fan and roll posts, and possible
interaction with the jet, the noise source may be approximated as
independent of azimuthal angle within 1.5 dB.

Downloaded by JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on November 16, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C033533

Fig. 1 Vertical landing of an F-35B (http://www.navy.mil/view_image.

asp?id=157440 [retrieved 7 March 2016]).

B. One-Third-Octave Band Spectra

Figure 3 showed 1015 dB reductions in Leq as the aircraft passed

directly over the microphones, and Figs. 3 and 4 revealed an increase
in Leq 68 s before touchdown. These VL phenomena are further
elucidated by examination of the one-third-octave band spectra.
Figure 6 shows the 1.0 s OTO band spectra for the microphone at
250 ft and 30 deg for the times corresponding to the two Leq polar
directivity maxima (40 and 32 s) and the minimum shortly after
the aircraft passes over as well as the large-scale structure similarity
spectrum approximating the low-frequency region, shown as a
dashed gray line. Below 500 Hz, the spectra contain hard-ground
interference effects due to the microphone elevation, but are
otherwise similar, with a characteristic peak frequency around

Fig. 2 Aircraft F-35B VL trajectory and measurement locations.

The 1 s Leq in Figs. 3 and 4 provides additional physical insight

into the noise field during VL. In Fig. 3, the Leq peaks shortly before
and a few seconds after the aircraft passes over each of the 30 deg
microphones, which are directly under the flight path. The maximum
levels are between 125 and 130 dB for all three microphones, which
corresponds to the levels observed for engine thrust requests between
50 and 75% for the static ground run-up noise of the F-35 AA-1
reported by Gee et al. [12]. Between the two maxima, the large Leq
reduction is caused by the jet polar directivity and associated cone of
silence [13], which occurs shortly after aircraft passage over the
microphones because of the slight angling of the engine nozzle
behind the aircraft (cf. Fig. 1). The Leq time histories measured at
microphones offset farther from the flight path exhibit less temporal
variation. For example, as shown in Fig. 4, the 1 s Leq measured along
the 90 deg array angle are fairly flat: each stays within a range of 5 dB
during approach.
During descent, which begins at t
25 s, the Leq histories
exhibit spatially dependent trends. The levels at the 250 ft arc in
Figs. 3c and 4c decrease by an average of 10 dB for 20 < t < 10 s.
This is caused by the relatively large change in polar angle relative to
the jet exhaust and is consistent with the static run-up results in [12]
for 50% Engine Thrust Request (ETR) over a similar angular range.
The 500 and 1000 ft Leq along the 30 deg radial, in Figs. 3a and 3b,
remain generally constant, whereas levels along 90 deg, in Figs. 4a
and 4b, are more variable. Approximately 68 s before touchdown,
when the aircraft altitude is about 50 ft, a 14 dB Leq increase occurs
at all the microphones. As shown in Sec. III.B, this increase is caused
by increased jet impingement on the landing surface and alteration of
the noise generation [14]. As the aircraft continues to descend, the Leq
decreases rapidly across the measurement aperture. This could be
caused by a combination of the changing polar directivity, by further
alteration of the noise generation mechanism and propagation
environment as impingement increases, or changes in ETR during
descent. Regardless, it is useful to note, from an operations

Fig. 3 Equivalent levels along trajectory of aircraft. Flat and Aweighted Leq for microphones located near trajectory of aircraft at
a) 1000, b) 500, and c) 250 ft from touchdown pad.

Article in Advance

/ ENGINEERING NOTES

Downloaded by JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on November 16, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C033533

200250 Hz and with an overall spectral shape indicative of the largescale structure similarity spectrum [15], which is also shown as a
dashed gray line. The difference in high-frequency slopes is likely
due to nonlinear propagation effects [16,17], which are further
described in Sec. III.C. The OTO spectrum within the Leq null is
essentially similar to pink noise.
The Leq increase from t
8 to 6 s in Figs. 3 and 4 contains
frequency content indicative of jet impingement. Figure 7 shows a
comparison of spectra measured at 500 ft and 90 deg at t
25 s
when the aircraft begins its descent, and t
8 s. Although ground
interference nulls are present, the low-frequency spectral shape
associated with the Leq increase is fundamentally different than that
seen at the beginning of the descent. The increase in noise is substantial and appears more broadband in nature and lower frequency
than is usual for impinging single jet tones [8], but shows similarity to
a laboratory-scale measurement of dual impinging jets [14].
C. Nonlinear Propagation

Additional insights regarding nonlinear propagation of radiated

noise during VL operations can be readily obtained with a time waveform analysis of the skewness of a waveforms first time derivative,
referred to as derivative skewness (DSK) [18]. The DSK has been
used previously to describe acoustic shock formation [1921] and
also jet crackle [22,23], which has been described as annoying [24]
and dominant [25] and can therefore impact VL operations. The 1 s
DSK time histories are shown in Fig. 8 from the 1000 ft arc at 20, 30,
and 40 deg, corresponding to the microphones to the left, beneath,

Fig. 5 Spatial maps of Leq for multiple for four events: ab) as aircraft
passes over 500 and 250 ft arcs, respectively; c) hover; and d) descent.

and to the right of the aircraft trajectory to represent observed

nonlinear waveform steepening and shock formation. The closest
point of approach for the microphones ranges from 215 to 325 ft,
depending on the microphone considered.
The range of DSK values seen as the aircraft passes over the 1000 ft
arc is consistent with values reported by Gee et al. [12] for the F-35
AA-1 between 50 and 75% ETR, which agrees with the noise levels
seen in Figs. 3 and 4. The lower values of DSK for the 30 deg location

Fig. 4 Equivalent levels away from aircraft. Flat and A-weighted Leq
for microphones located at 90 deg in local orientation at a) 1000, b) 500,
and c) 250 ft.

Fig. 6 Comparison of SPLs before, during, and after the aircraft passes
over the microphone.

Article in Advance

/ ENGINEERING NOTES

Performance Wing, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Warfighter

Interface Division, Battlespace Acoustics Branch, administered by
the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an
interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and
U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory. The assistance of the Naval
Air Systems Command Noise Team during measurements is also
acknowledged.

References

Downloaded by JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on November 16, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C033533

Fig. 7 OTO band pressure level variation during descent. OTO 1.0 s SPL
of the microphone at 500 ft and 90 deg is plotted for two different times.

Fig. 8 Nonlinearity metrics at 1000 ft. DSK calculated using 1 s intervals

is plotted against time for microphones located 1000 ft away from landing
pad.

(directly under the aircraft passage) was also observed for the microphones at 500 and 250 ft and shows that the interaction of the cold and
hot jets may potentially interfere with shock formation. The DSK
values of 8.3 and 6.0 observed at 20 and 40 deg, respectively, suggest
that shock formation has likely occurred, whereas the maximum
value of 2.7 at 30 deg points to steepened waveforms, but no significant shock content [18]. This is confirmed by a notable change in
the perception of crackle in the auralized waveforms.

IV.

Conclusions

This Note presents an analysis of the first acoustical measurements

made near an F-35B during vertical landing operations. As the aircraft
passes over microphones, measured Leq values correspond with measured levels from static run up of an F-35 AA-1 operating at between 50
and 75% ETR. The jet noise varies substantially more in the polar
direction than azimuthally, despite possible interactions between the
heated jet and the cold flow from the lift fan. During descent, impingement first enhances the low-frequency radiated noise, resulting in an
overall boost in level, which then rapidly decreases until touchdown.
Nonlinear waveform steepening and, at some angles, acoustic shock
formation are observed, thus adding to the knowledge base of when
these effects occur in military jet aircraft operations. The derivative
skewness calculated near, but not directly underneath, the aircraft also
shows values similar to those observed near an F-35 AA-1 operating
between 50 and 75% ETR, further validating comparisons made using
the Leq between the in-flight and ground run-up data. These analyses
may be used in the assessment of noise levels for ground personnel as
well as the near-landing acoustical environments.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge funding for the
measurements, provided through the F-35 Program Office and Air
Force Research Laboratories. (Distribution A Approved for Public
Release; Distribution is Unlimited; JSF14-506.) B. O. Reichman was
funded by an appointment to the Student Research Participation
Program at the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, 711th Human

[1] Gee, K. L., Sparrow, V. W., James, M. M., Downing, J. M., Hobbs, C.
M., Gabrielson, T. B., and Atchley, A. A., Measurement and Prediction
of Noise Propagation from a High-Power Jet Aircraft, AIAA Journal,
Vol. 45, No. 12, 2007, pp. 30033006.
doi:10.2514/1.28985
[2] Gee, K. L., Sparrow, V. W., James, M. M., Downing, J. M., Hobbs, C.
M., Gabrielson, T. B., and Atchley, A. A., The Role of Nonlinear
Effects in the Propagation of Noise from High-Power Jet Aircraft,
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 123, No. 6, 2008,
pp. 40824093.
doi:10.1121/1.2903871
[3] McKinley, R., McKinley, R., Gee, K. L., Pilon, T., Mobley, F., Gillespie,
M., and Downing, J. M., Measurement of Near-Field and Far-Field
Noise from Full Scale High Performance Jet Engines, Proceedings of
ASME Turbo Expo 2010, American Soc. of Mechanical Engineers
Paper GT2010-22531, June 2010.
[4] Wall, A. T., Gee, K. L., James, M. M., Bradley, K. A., McInerny, S. A.,
and Neilsen, T. B., Near-Field Noise Measurements of a HighPerformance Military Jet Aircraft, Noise Control Engineering Journal,
Vol. 60, No. 4, 2012, pp. 421434.
doi:10.3397/1.3701021
[5] Schlinker, R. H., Liljenberg, S. A., Polak, D. R., Post, K. A., Chipman,
C. T., and Stern, A. M., Supersonic Jet Noise Source Characteristics &
Propagation: Engine and Model Scale, AIAA Paper 2007-3623,
May 2007.
[6] Henderson, B., An Experimental Investigation into the Sound Producing Characteristics of Supersonic Impinging Jets, AIAA Paper
2001-2145, May 2001.
[7] Marsh, A., Noise Measurements Around a Subsonic Air Jet Impinging
on a Plane, Rigid Surface, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
Vol. 33, No. 8, 1961, pp. 10651066.
doi:10.1121/1.1908894
[8] Henderson, B., The Connection Between Sound Production and Jet
Structure of the Supersonic Impinging Jet, Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, Vol. 111, No. 2, 2002, pp. 735747.
doi:10.1121/1.1436069
[9] Krothapalli, A., Rajkuperan, E., Alvi, F., and Lourenco, L., Flow Field
and Noise Characteristics of a Supersonic Impinging Jet, Journal of
Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 392, Aug. 1999, pp. 155181.
doi:10.1017/S0022112099005406
[10] Henderson, B., Bridges, J., and Wernet, M., An Experimental Study of
the Oscillatory Flow Structure of Tone-Producing Supersonic Impinging Jets, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 542, Nov. 2005, pp. 115
137.
doi:10.1017/S0022112005006385
[11] Reichman, B. O., Wall, A. T., Gee, K. L., Neilsen, T. B., Downing, J. M.,
James, M. M., and McKinley, R., Modeling Far-Field Acoustical
Nonlinearity from F-35 Aircraft During Ground Run-Up, AIAA Paper
2016-1888, 2016.
[12] Gee, K. L., Neilsen, T. B., Reichman, B. O., Muhlestein, M. B., Thomas,
D. C., Downing, J. M., James, M. M., and McKinley, R. L.,
Comparison of Two Time-Domain Measures of Nonlinearity in NearField Propagation of High-Power Jet Noise, AIAA Paper 2014-3199,
2014.
[13] Ribner, H. S., An Extension of the Lighthill Theory of Jet Noise to
Encompass Refraction and Shielding, NASA TM-110163, 1995.
[14] Myers, L. M., Rudenko, N., and McLaughlin, D. K., Investigation on
the Flow-Field of Two Parallel Round Jets Impinging Normal to a Flat
Surface, AIAA Paper 2016-1776, Jan. 2016.
[15] Tam, C. K. W., Viswanathan, K., Ahuja, K. K., and Panda, J., The
Sources of Jet Noise: Experimental Evidence, Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, Vol. 615, Nov. 2008, pp. 253292.
doi:10.1017/S0022112008003704
[16] Neilsen, T. B., Gee, K. L., and James, M. M., Spectral Characterization
in the Near- and Mid-Field of Military Jet Aircraft Noise, AIAA Paper
2013-2191, May 2013.
[17] Neilsen, T. B., Gee, K. L., Wall, A. T., and James, M. M., Similarity
Spectra Analysis of High-Performance Jet Aircraft Noise, Journal of the

Article in Advance

[18]

[19]
[20]

Downloaded by JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on November 16, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C033533

[21]

Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 133, No. 4, 2013, pp. 21162125.

doi:10.1121/1.4792360
Reichman, B. O., Muhlestein, M. B., Gee, K. L., Neilsen, T. B., and
Thomas, D. C., Evolution of the Pressure Derivative Skewness for
Nonlinearly Propagating Waves, Journal of Acoustical Society of
America (to be published).
McInerny, S. A., Gee, K. L., Downing, J. M., and James, M. M.,
Acoustical Nonlinearities in Aircraft Flyover Data, AIAA Paper
2007-3654, May 2007.
Mora, P., Heeb, N., Kastner, J., Gutmark, E. J., and Kailasanath, K.,
Impact of Heat on the Pressure Skewness and Kurtosis in Supersonic
Jets, AIAA Journal, Vol. 52, No. 4, 2014, pp. 777787.
doi:10.2514/1.J052612
McInerny, S. A., Launch Vehicle Acoustics Part 2: Statistics of the
Time Domain Data, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 33, No. 3, May 1996,
pp. 518523.
doi:10.2514/3.46975

/ ENGINEERING NOTES

[22] Gee, K. L., Neilsen, T. B., Wall, A. T., Downing, J. M., James, M. M.,
and McKinley, R. L., Propagation of Crackle-Containing Jet Noise
from High-Performance Engines, Noise Control Engineering Journal,
Vol. 64, No. 1, 2016, pp. 112.
doi:10.3397/1/376354
[23] Gee, K. L., Sparrow, V. W., Atchley, A., and Gabrielson, T. B., On the
Perception of Crackle in High-Amplitude Jet Noise, AIAA Journal,
Vol. 45, No. 3, March 2007, pp. 593598.
doi:10.2514/1.26484
[24] Ffowcs-Williams, J. E., Simson, J., and Virchis, V. J., Crackle: An
Annoying Component of Jet Noise, Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
Vol. 71, No. 2, 1975, pp. 251271.
doi:10.1017/S0022112075002558
[25] Krothapalli, A., Venkatakrishnan, L., and Lourenco, L., Crackle: A
Dominant Component of Supersonic Jet Mixing Noise, AIAA Paper
2000-2024, 2000.