|
Airsound
I could never be considered an expert in F35 ops but I’m guessing the answer is to use the EJ seat. Just like every other single engine, carrier borne aircraft that was thus equipped. For the F35 to have been spec’d with a single engine I feel sure that lots of clever people had to first be sure the engine was safe enough for that situation. From my, Air Force, perspective carrier ops are inherently risky at any time. I don’t think the F35, of any variant, has ratcheted up the risk level in any appreciable way. BV |
airsound,
As this is the exact same criteria for the Sea Harrier, I expect it is planned for and handled in exactly the same way, as BV says, by ejecting promptly. |
air sound, et al,
there is no concept of V1 in a single engined aircraft. With engine failure, the aircraft is ‘no go’ :{, whereas the pilot, in this instance, is ‘go’. :) As I recall there was discussion, even a requirement for ‘auto eject’ for seaborne STOL aircraft. The late JF presented this in review and history of vertical flight, and indicated that Russian aircraft had the capability, and had used it. Adopting this for takeoff would be an interesting challenge. After an interesting ‘pax’ flight off the experimental ramp at Bedford, JF related to an incident where an overseas evaluation pilot forgot to rotate the nozzles at ramp exit - not quite an engine failure, but … . Is prevention of this aspect automated in the F-35 ? |
Originally Posted by safetypee
(Post 10628127)
air sound, et al,
After an interesting ‘pax’ flight off the experimental ramp at Bedford, JF related to an incident where an overseas evaluation pilot forgot to rotate the nozzles at ramp exit - not quite an engine failure, but … . Is prevention of this aspect automated in the F-35 ? Yes, several people (including me!) have forgotten the nozzles off the ramp. Actually it was no prob as long as you remained wings-level. It didn't half accelerate to wing-borne flight sharpish but picking a wing up would have been tricky. More exciting was forgetting the flap; this resulted in a very close encounter with the oggin, a certain amount of spray, a change of long-johns and a heart attack for Wings. Swing the lamp. Mog |
Originally Posted by Mogwi
(Post 10629160)
Yes, several people (including me!) have forgotten the nozzles off the ramp. Actually it was no prob as long as you remained wings-level. It didn't half accelerate to wing-borne flight sharpish but picking a wing up would have been tricky. More exciting was forgetting the flap; this resulted in a very close encounter with the oggin, a certain amount of spray, a change of long-johns and a heart attack for Wings. Swing the lamp. Mog Your endeavours in the South Atlantic were nothing short of legendary. Thank you for your Service. |
That particular "cognitive failure" has been designed out in in the sense that the F-35B has no nozzle lever. It has a throttle and a stick. The former is the means by which the pilot conveys to the aircraft a desire to go faster or slower, the latter does the uppy-downy-letfy-righty stuff (all relative to the pilot's seat, not necessarily relative to the surface of the planet). For ski-jumps, the aircraft detects that it's going up the ramp (there are some suitably unambiguous cues to the control software that this is what is happening) and behaves accordingly when it finds itself no longer supported by its wheels in a situation where it is briefly incapable of steady-state 1g flight.
Originally Posted by safetypee
(Post 10628127)
...
After an interesting ‘pax’ flight off the experimental ramp at Bedford, JF related to an incident where an overseas evaluation pilot forgot to rotate the nozzles at ramp exit - not quite an engine failure, but … . Is prevention of this aspect automated in the F-35 ? |
NoHoverstop, #12068, informative and interesting.
Would such an ‘intelligent’ system (F-35) be able to differentiate between the aircraft flight path required from a level deck (still aircraft referenced) and that from a downwards pitching deck. I have no operational experience of such matters, although around the developments many years ago. A few rides during the expansive ski jumps at large angles, and in the systems Harrier, and simulation and discussions during the development of the control concept. |
DOT&E 2019 Annual report, F-35 'highlights'...
|
LM Potentially Mixed Up Structural Fasteners in Most F-35s
Hundreds of F-35s could have the wrong fasteners in “critical areas,” according to the Defense Contract Management Agency. But F-35 builder Lockheed Martin says the problem may not need to be fixed.“All aircraft produced prior to discovery of this [problem] have titanium fasteners incorrectly installed in locations where the design calls for Inconel,” the F-35 Joint Program Office said in an email in response to a query from Air Force Magazine. “Because of this, the engineering safety analysis of the issue has assumed that each critical F-35 joint was assembled with the incorrect fasteners.” Inconel is an alloy of nickel and chromium, and is supposed to be used in places where greater strength and corrosion resistance are required, while the titanium bolts are used in areas where its strength and lightness helps reduce weight. Titanium, however, has a lower shear strength than Inconel. Both fasteners are called “eddie bolts” and are similar in appearance except for a number stamped on them. The titanium bolts cost about $5 apiece, while the Inconel parts cost about $20 each. A Lockheed spokeswoman said the two parts are “very difficult to distinguish, visually.” The Lockheed spokesman said an initial analysis concluded that “titanium has sufficient strength in locations that called for Inconel eddie bolts.” Another Lockheed official said components are built with “twice the strength specified,” but he did not specify whether this was the case with the titanium eddie bolts. |
Both fasteners are called “eddie bolts” and are similar in appearance except for a number stamped on them. The titanium bolts cost about $5 apiece, while the Inconel parts cost about $20 each. A Lockheed spokeswoman said the two parts are “very difficult to distinguish, visually.” I've used both and I can't imagine not noticing the difference in weight - even on small (10/32) bolts. |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10678922)
Maybe not visually, but titanium bolts feel like feathers compared to steel or Inconel bolts - they are much lighter...
I've used both and I can't imagine not noticing the difference in weight - even on small (10/32) bolts. Don't think, just do...what the drawing says.. "Hundreds of F-35s could have the wrong fasteners in “critical areas,” according to the Defense Contract Management Agency. But F-35 builder Lockheed Martin says the problem may not need to be fixed.“All aircraft produced prior to discovery of this [problem] have titanium fasteners incorrectly installed in locations where the design calls for Inconel,” the F-35 Joint Program Office said in an email in response to a query from Air Force Magazine. “Because of this, the engineering safety analysis of the issue has assumed that each critical F-35 joint was assembled with the incorrect fasteners.” Boeing levels of assumption (not to mention quality controls) being displayed there..slap some paint over the top no one will spot it.. To paraphrase Joe Stalin "corrosion has a quality all of its own" wonder if the weight reduction program may have led to an proposal drawing actually being adopted??? |
Originally Posted by weemonkey
(Post 10679074)
Don't think, just do...what the drawing says..
Boeing levels of assumption (not to mention quality controls) being displayed there..slap some paint over the top no one will spot it.. Pick up a steel or Inconel fastener and a titanium fastener of the same size, and tell me you can't tell the difference (and if you're paying for them, your wallet will notice as well)? LockMart's explanation doesn't pass the sniff test. |
Seems to me that if you're relying on your staff to visually identify which fasteners to use you might just have some quality control issues?!
|
To have two parts that are identical in shape and fit but that meet different critical specs is a set-up for a classic Murphy.
|
On Flight Global.
Poland signs F-35 contract worth $4.6bn Poland has signed a $4.6 billion contract to purchase 32 Lockheed Martin F-35As, with deliveries to start in 2024. Signed on 31 January at the Polish air force academy in Deblin, the deal also includes a training package and logistics support services. To be produced in the F-35’s Block 4 configuration, the Polish aircraft will be equipped with electronic warfare equipment, plus a braking parachute, to increase landing safety in poor weather conditions. Deliveries are scheduled for the 2024-2030 period, at an annual rate of between four and six examples. An initial six F-35As accepted in 2024 and 2025 will remain in the USA to support the training of pilots and maintenance personnel: most likely at Luke AFB, Arizona. This activity could include preparing 24 pilots and 90 technicians, some to the instructor level. A subsequent batch of aircraft will be delivered to Poland in 2025 and 2026 to equip a first squadron, which should declare initial operational capability in 2026. Warsaw also will receive eight synthetic training devices for procedural and mission instruction. Logistics support will be provided until 2030 under the deal, including use of the F-35’s Autonomic Logistics Global Support System and Autonomic Logistics Information System. Poland’s defence ministry says future operational and support costs will be determined after this date. Warsaw has yet to decide where its F-35As will be based. Its military says candidate locations are the three sites where its current RAC MiG-29s and Sukhoi Su-22s are located (Minsk Mazowiecki, Malbork and Swidwin), plus another facility in central Poland, which has not been operational for more than a decade. Base modernisation work will cost between 700 million and 1.5 billion zlotys ($180-386 million), it adds. A suite of weapons for the combat aircraft will be agreed by the Polish and US governments, with the potential for Warsaw to select munitions already employed by its Lockheed F-16s, or unique equipment. Poland has declined possible offset business linked to the acquisition, however, including developing its maintenance capabilities for the F-16 and Lockheed C-130, noting: “The US proposals have not been satisfying considering the cost-effect ratio. Its cost will exceed $1 billion, and that money can be better spent for other modernisation programmes. “Without being a member of the F-35 programme it would be much more difficult for Poland to acquire any production or maintenance capabilities for this aircraft,” it adds. |
Originally Posted by weemonkey
(Post 10679074)
Don't think, just do...what the drawing says..
"Hundreds of F-35s could have the wrong fasteners in “critical areas,” according to the Defense Contract Management Agency. But F-35 builder Lockheed Martin says the problem may not need to be fixed.“All aircraft produced prior to discovery of this [problem] have titanium fasteners incorrectly installed in locations where the design calls for Inconel,” the F-35 Joint Program Office said in an email in response to a query from Air Force Magazine. “Because of this, the engineering safety analysis of the issue has assumed that each critical F-35 joint was assembled with the incorrect fasteners.” Boeing levels of assumption (not to mention quality controls) being displayed there..slap some paint over the top no one will spot it.. To paraphrase Joe Stalin "corrosion has a quality all of its own" wonder if the weight reduction program may have led to an proposal drawing actually being adopted??? tdracer is correct, a huge difference is weight, titanium lighter, Inconel much heavier. As for visual differences, there is a number stamped on each fastener to distinguish one from another, e.g., titanium from Inconel. Now inserting fasteners seems to me to be a rather boring job on the factory floor, sort of like the repetitive sandblasting job. Nevertheless, training and monitoring the results of training are significant factors in acceptable quality control. Hopefully, LM is correct in asserting the titanium fasteners will be okay and will not need to be replaced in the critical locations. Then the 874 known deficiencies can be reduced to 873 assuming another new deficiency isn't found right away. Insofar as Stalin is concerned, hopefully the correct fasteners were used in his coffin to prevent corrosion and early release of the contents. |
Heads Up
Just seen on UK tv Yesterday channel a 'new' documentary about the F35 Lightning II. Not expecting anything secret but... Had not seen it before K |
Weapons integration with Block 4 - including Meteor for UK and B-61 Mod 2 nuke for USAF and relevant NATO partners (see qty 2 in weapons bay at 6:22 in video):
|
What was the animation of a B61 being dropped on London all about at 6:50?
-RP |
Originally Posted by Rhino power
(Post 10703291)
What was the animation of a B61 being dropped on London all about at 6:50?
-RP Mod Note: For those wishing to continue the F-35 general discussion, please do so in the new thread here. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:43. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.