F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
The 'War Is Boring' blog has publicly released a USAF document classified 'Not For Public Release'.
It's called 'Public Affairs Guidance - F35A'
http://cdn.warisboring.com/images/F-...s-Guidance.pdf
This interesting document requires that US airmen extol the F-35’s questionable capabilities. It's apparently intended to publicise the aircraft’s capabilities in the face of mounting criticism, both internal and external.
Interestingly, it also reveals a new technical problem that had slipped through unnoticed:
I should think this thing'll give Pruners enough material to get their teeth into for several pages.
airsound
It's called 'Public Affairs Guidance - F35A'
http://cdn.warisboring.com/images/F-...s-Guidance.pdf
This interesting document requires that US airmen extol the F-35’s questionable capabilities. It's apparently intended to publicise the aircraft’s capabilities in the face of mounting criticism, both internal and external.
Interestingly, it also reveals a new technical problem that had slipped through unnoticed:
On 27 August 2015, the U.S. Services restricted F-35 pilots weighing less than 136 pounds from operating the aircraft due to an increased risk of injury that could occur in a low speed ejection.
airsound
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The seat needs enough oomph to get the heaviest pilot in the 95th percentile range out of the airplane in the worst-case scenario (which I believe is that in which the lift fan takes a poo and the jet starts falling out of the sky while flipping ass-over-teakettle).
This means a lot of acceleration for the lightest pilot, which in combination with a heavy helmet creates an unsafe condition, as was reported six years ago...
https://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/200...r-heavy-women/
Problem does not appear to have been fixed.
This means a lot of acceleration for the lightest pilot, which in combination with a heavy helmet creates an unsafe condition, as was reported six years ago...
https://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/200...r-heavy-women/
Problem does not appear to have been fixed.
Airsound - That's a very useful document, because it effectively shuts up the people who believe that anyone in a uniform is invariably telling the complete, unexpurgated and unvarnished truth. We now know that they are under orders to say nothing that a LockMart salesman wouldn't say.
Airsound - That's a very useful document, because it effectively shuts up the people who believe that anyone in a uniform is invariably telling the complete, unexpurgated and unvarnished truth. We now know that they are under orders to say nothing that a LockMart salesman wouldn't say.
I dare say there's a whole lot more to the F35's performance than I'm aware of. But the very fact that there is such an instruction says that there's something wrong somewhere in the procurement system.
Whether or not the F35 is the right or wrong aircraft doesn't really matter; the instruction suggests that at least some parts of the procurement system (and I include politicians as part of that system) don't know what the right aircraft is for any particular role. In the long run that's more problematic than the performance or otherwise of a single aircraft.
LO, I am a bit surprised at your take on this.
Seat limitations are not a new phenomenon.
It's not a problem to be fixed, it is a constraint / envelope / limitation imposed by the physics you describe regarding the effect on the human body of that rocket motor going off to separate the pilot from the aircraft ... with margin of safety (x) added in by the anthro gurus to arrive at a final "we can live with this" result.
Before I retired from the Navy, you could go to the manual and clearly see in writing the upper and lower limits of body shape and mass that allowed a student pilot to be permitted to fly in the Jet training pipeline in the T-45. Some were too big, a few too small, and the Navy had to get compelling support from the NAMI/NOMI flight surgeons and physiologists to allow a waiver. I had to do the staff work on that on more than one occasion.
If the long pole in the tent is the helmet (which looks to be a beast to me) then I can live with a few feathermerchants not qualifying for F-35.
134 pounds isn't a very big person ... someone that small may also run into effective reach problems when the anthro measurements are taken.
@msbbarrat: did you fly much in ejection sea aircraft?
Seat limitations are not a new phenomenon.
It's not a problem to be fixed, it is a constraint / envelope / limitation imposed by the physics you describe regarding the effect on the human body of that rocket motor going off to separate the pilot from the aircraft ... with margin of safety (x) added in by the anthro gurus to arrive at a final "we can live with this" result.
Before I retired from the Navy, you could go to the manual and clearly see in writing the upper and lower limits of body shape and mass that allowed a student pilot to be permitted to fly in the Jet training pipeline in the T-45. Some were too big, a few too small, and the Navy had to get compelling support from the NAMI/NOMI flight surgeons and physiologists to allow a waiver. I had to do the staff work on that on more than one occasion.
If the long pole in the tent is the helmet (which looks to be a beast to me) then I can live with a few feathermerchants not qualifying for F-35.
134 pounds isn't a very big person ... someone that small may also run into effective reach problems when the anthro measurements are taken.
@msbbarrat: did you fly much in ejection sea aircraft?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Stitchbitch
The seat lower limit is pretty light. Add the helmet, power cords, flight jacket, speed jeans and even the lightest western pilots should meet the boarding weight..
There is always this as a last resort medicine ;
You are right, Wolf, about seat boarding weight - not the same as body weight. Interestingly, when I was flying the Phantom I was about that weight (in fact pretty much the same during my Hawk, F-15 and Tornado days too). I didn't have a problem with reach in any of those aircraft, but then the RAF didn't even start doing anthropometrics until after I finished flying the F-4. Fortunately, I don't recall anyone checking my medical records for my body weight whenever I changed types.
LW50 - it's only a "problem" because it doesn't meet the requirement, which is to accommodate 95 per cent of the US pilot candidate population, with nude body weights between 103 lbs and 245 lbs.* No other fighter was designed to this, and I think the only ejection-seat-equipped aircraft that does is the T-6A.
The 95 percentile spec is pretty tough, and may be excessive. It starts to encompass a wide range of limb-to-torso ratios or, as someone from St Louis once put it, "some rather strange-looking individuals".
* If anyone needs brain bleach after thinking about a nude 245 lb fighter pilot, sorry, but I didn't write the spec.
The 95 percentile spec is pretty tough, and may be excessive. It starts to encompass a wide range of limb-to-torso ratios or, as someone from St Louis once put it, "some rather strange-looking individuals".
* If anyone needs brain bleach after thinking about a nude 245 lb fighter pilot, sorry, but I didn't write the spec.
Originally Posted by airsound
The 'War Is Boring' blog has publicly released a USAF document classified 'Not For Public Release'.
It's called 'Public Affairs Guidance - F35A'
http://cdn.warisboring.com/images/F-...s-Guidance.pdf
It's called 'Public Affairs Guidance - F35A'
http://cdn.warisboring.com/images/F-...s-Guidance.pdf
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Maine USA
Age: 82
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On 27 August 2015, the U.S. Services restricted F-35 pilots weighing less than 136 pounds from operating the aircraft due to an increased risk of injury that could occur in a low speed ejection.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airsound,
Apparently, Kendall, the head weapons buyer and F-35 Program Chief, General Bogdan got the word as well…
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...in-dev-417067/
TD
This interesting document requires that US airmen extol the F-35’s questionable capabilities. It's apparently intended to publicise the aircraft’s capabilities in the face of mounting criticism, both internal and external.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...in-dev-417067/
TD
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I can remember when, after a Harrier crash in which the chute carried a female cadet into the fireball, a minimum weight limit was put on seat requirements. Cue much moaning by girlfriends and pilots. We nicknamed it the Revenge of the Fat WRAFs.
Thereafter whenever they had to turn up in growbag to be weighed there would be a shortage of spanners in toolboxes and large lumps in pockets - leg as well as chest - which the medics ignored..........
Memories apart, increasing the 95% to cover female as well as male led to many legacy cockpits as well as seats being unsuitable for all aircrew, but there is no excuse for a modern type not to meet the design requirement. As stated by others, add it to the list.....
Thereafter whenever they had to turn up in growbag to be weighed there would be a shortage of spanners in toolboxes and large lumps in pockets - leg as well as chest - which the medics ignored..........
Memories apart, increasing the 95% to cover female as well as male led to many legacy cockpits as well as seats being unsuitable for all aircrew, but there is no excuse for a modern type not to meet the design requirement. As stated by others, add it to the list.....