F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'PhilipG' said: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post8590318
You can read the article as much as I can. The quote is from a picture caption in it.
"....Are you sure about your answer? You quote an article of 16th July, before as I recall the decision not to go to RIAT, 17-19 or Farnborough 19-20. You seem to be stating that the Marines flew the planes back west before the decision no to fly trans Atlantic, could you confirm what you stated was strangely correct?"
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who was it who said that the only thing you can believe in a newspaper is the date?
Spaz, the fact that LM & the US DOD wanted the F35 to show its face in the UK, would suggest that the planes were at Pax waiting to go transatlantic, the strapline for the article was 16th, seems the photo has a typo.
Spaz, the fact that LM & the US DOD wanted the F35 to show its face in the UK, would suggest that the planes were at Pax waiting to go transatlantic, the strapline for the article was 16th, seems the photo has a typo.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
I believe this information is already on this thread. I may or may not find it but anyway here it is again. I would guess that all dates are local US time:
[this post] http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post8587568
Marine Corps welcomes the decision to return F-35Bs to flight
July 15, 2014
http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/News/Pre...to-flight.aspx
________________
Another date reference: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/07/n...-secdef-hagel/
[this post] http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post8587568
Marine Corps welcomes the decision to return F-35Bs to flight
July 15, 2014
"...On a related note, the Marine Corps will soon conduct a transcontinental redeployment of four F-35Bs from Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland to their home base at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona. The six-hour cross-country mission will include aerial refueling similar to what is required while transiting an ocean. Once back at their home station, the pilots and squadron will continue training and progress toward initial operational capability next summer."
________________
Another date reference: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/07/n...-secdef-hagel/
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note that the visit of the F-35 RIAT had been officially canceled, as well as the first 2 days of Farnborough, by the 12th of July, with the last 2 days being listed as "doubtful".
http://www.pprune.org/8560646-post4866.html
I suggest that the USMC had begun by that time to prepare their "return to Yuma" plan by that time, and when the rubbing problem and full-fleet inspection was announced on the 13th of July they dropped all Farnborough plans (as there was no possibility of completing the inspections in time to make it to even one day) and activated the preparations for "plan fly-home".
Remember that when the engine problem first was announced they said that the F-35Bs would have to depart 4 days before their initial appearance would be made.
http://www.pprune.org/8560646-post4866.html
I suggest that the USMC had begun by that time to prepare their "return to Yuma" plan by that time, and when the rubbing problem and full-fleet inspection was announced on the 13th of July they dropped all Farnborough plans (as there was no possibility of completing the inspections in time to make it to even one day) and activated the preparations for "plan fly-home".
Remember that when the engine problem first was announced they said that the F-35Bs would have to depart 4 days before their initial appearance would be made.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry if I got my dates confused, I thought that the planes stayed at Pax until the last moment, thinking that at least a fly by would be better than nothing.
As regards the flight back to Yuma, it is some 2,200 miles, according to the post a six hour flight, did the USMC have a special clearance to fly this journey, there is still I believe for not test aircraft a requirement to scope parts of the engine every 3 hours, suggesting that unless there was a special dispensation there would have to have been at least one stop on route, at a suitably equipped air base. Just saying...
As regards the flight back to Yuma, it is some 2,200 miles, according to the post a six hour flight, did the USMC have a special clearance to fly this journey, there is still I believe for not test aircraft a requirement to scope parts of the engine every 3 hours, suggesting that unless there was a special dispensation there would have to have been at least one stop on route, at a suitably equipped air base. Just saying...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flight restriction came after the initial "return to flight" if I have not confused myself - thus for a couple of days there was no "3 hour inspection" requirement, and this was when they planned to fly back - if they made the flight.
Fairford and Farnborough
Nice to meet the Green Knights at RIAT - bought a couple of souvenirs 
from them as their little tent booth was inundated with attendees.
Also nice to see and sit inside the mock-up at Farnborough
Though one question popped in my head, when prompted by a friend over the side of the Pond - was if they have come this far with the program, why not load up one working airframe in the back of a C-17 or C-5B or AN-124 and put it on static just do the usual security and safety precautions.
Cheers
from them as their little tent booth was inundated with attendees.Also nice to see and sit inside the mock-up at Farnborough
Though one question popped in my head, when prompted by a friend over the side of the Pond - was if they have come this far with the program, why not load up one working airframe in the back of a C-17 or C-5B or AN-124 and put it on static just do the usual security and safety precautions.Cheers
Last edited by chopper2004; 6th Aug 2014 at 10:15.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Thanks 'chopper2004'. Would you happen to have a photo of the magic 'STOVL/Hook' Button please? Thanks. The STOVL MODE/HOOK button is situated slightly down from near the top left corner of the PCD Panoramic Cockpit Display. I think the STOVL button is above the 'emergency' button seen at the top of the 'cowpie' throttle photo.
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 6th Aug 2014 at 17:34. Reason: name
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'CM' how desperate are you to trash the forward view of the F-35? Have you sat in the cockpit with seat adjusted? Did you enquire about the conditions under which the commented upon photo was taken - was the seat all the way down for example - but who cares what you think eh.
Steady, Tiger. Spaz, didn't want to cause an explosion in your head. It was just a comment on a photo. Don't take it personally.
Edit: sorry, I didn't answer your question. No, I haven't been in the F-35 cockpit and I doubt I ever shall - especially as I'm a resident of a country that isn't even in the programme. But I do know how to adjust a seat in a fast jet cockpit. Of course I know no more than you about the conditions under which the photo was taken.
I'm sorry you think no one cares what I think. Again, just a comment on a very good photo. Didn't expect your anger, if I touched a nerve, it was not intentional.
Whatever.
Edit: sorry, I didn't answer your question. No, I haven't been in the F-35 cockpit and I doubt I ever shall - especially as I'm a resident of a country that isn't even in the programme. But I do know how to adjust a seat in a fast jet cockpit. Of course I know no more than you about the conditions under which the photo was taken.
I'm sorry you think no one cares what I think. Again, just a comment on a very good photo. Didn't expect your anger, if I touched a nerve, it was not intentional.
Whatever.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any chance of a close-up pic of the 'BRAKE APPLICATION' twirly knob thing? It looks utterly fascinating, even more so than the knob, Spaz is concerned with...
-RP
-RP
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney,
Perhaps I can help on F-35 cockpit visibility.
The cockpit design was driven (as ever) by a number of competing factors, which included maximum field of view, bird strike resistance ( a requirement pressed hard by the UK) and not least view over the nose for F-35C carrier approaches.
It also had to address LO requirements, the shaping part of which led to a very wide cockpit aperture. Oh, and as ever, the designers were aiming for minimum drag. (you might be aware that some engineers have observed that the 'maximum visibility' trend of the 80s led to some over large cockpits that caused significant performance degradation - GR7 has been quoted as an example).
There were a number of sessions where the cockpit FOV was examined in minute detail, especially looking at the positioning of the arch (required to meet bird strike targets) and also of the AAR probe, as well as view of wing tips and other parts of the airframe. At no meetings I attended was the 'magic hat' offered as a palliative.
The sessions were attended by highly experienced fighter and strike pilots from a number of countries, and the basic cockpit design has hardly changed from early concepts. Every UK pilot I spoke with thought the view was excellent, and you might like to know that cockpit and crew station design was heavily influenced by UK Typhoon experience.
I apologise for a longish post, but as ever I'd just like to point out that there are one or two (thousand) people on the F-35 programme who know what they are doing, are listening to aircrew and are doing the massively hard stuff involved in fielding a new combat aircraft.
Best regards as ever to all those working the hard yards
Engines
Perhaps I can help on F-35 cockpit visibility.
The cockpit design was driven (as ever) by a number of competing factors, which included maximum field of view, bird strike resistance ( a requirement pressed hard by the UK) and not least view over the nose for F-35C carrier approaches.
It also had to address LO requirements, the shaping part of which led to a very wide cockpit aperture. Oh, and as ever, the designers were aiming for minimum drag. (you might be aware that some engineers have observed that the 'maximum visibility' trend of the 80s led to some over large cockpits that caused significant performance degradation - GR7 has been quoted as an example).
There were a number of sessions where the cockpit FOV was examined in minute detail, especially looking at the positioning of the arch (required to meet bird strike targets) and also of the AAR probe, as well as view of wing tips and other parts of the airframe. At no meetings I attended was the 'magic hat' offered as a palliative.
The sessions were attended by highly experienced fighter and strike pilots from a number of countries, and the basic cockpit design has hardly changed from early concepts. Every UK pilot I spoke with thought the view was excellent, and you might like to know that cockpit and crew station design was heavily influenced by UK Typhoon experience.
I apologise for a longish post, but as ever I'd just like to point out that there are one or two (thousand) people on the F-35 programme who know what they are doing, are listening to aircrew and are doing the massively hard stuff involved in fielding a new combat aircraft.
Best regards as ever to all those working the hard yards
Engines