Jim Scanlon (deceased)
Senior Staff
FORUM CHAPLAIN
Commander South Texas outpost of the County Sligo Squadron
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,075
Location:
Joined: July 2007
Retired: USAF NBA: Spurs NFL: Niners MLB: Giants NHL: Penguins
|
Post by Jim Scanlon (deceased) on Jan 25, 2014 10:11:40 GMT 9
|
|
Bullhunter
Global Moderator
318th FIS Jet Shop 1975-78
Currently: Offline
Posts: 7,374
Location:
Joined: May 2005
|
Post by Bullhunter on Jan 25, 2014 17:07:36 GMT 9
Its a nightmare.
|
|
Jim Scanlon (deceased)
Senior Staff
FORUM CHAPLAIN
Commander South Texas outpost of the County Sligo Squadron
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,075
Location:
Joined: July 2007
Retired: USAF NBA: Spurs NFL: Niners MLB: Giants NHL: Penguins
|
Post by Jim Scanlon (deceased) on Feb 7, 2014 2:34:44 GMT 9
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 7, 2014 3:29:30 GMT 9
18 years to develop a piece of crap airplane that already has structural defects, some catastrophic in nature, and I am not referring to the turbine blades....... First roll out Feb 06, first installed engine run Sept 06, approx. 180 days = Wonderful achievement.... And it had yet to fly!!!!! Maiden flight on 15 Dec 2006.... First engine run to first flight- approximately 90 days.. look at the F-80-The Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star was the first jet fighter used operationally by the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF).[2] Designed and built by Lockheed in 1943 and delivered just 143 days from the start of the design process, production models were flying but not ready for service by the end of World War II!!!!!!!! It only took NAA 149 days from first pencil on paper to first flight for the P-51!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And this crappy thing is falling apart with probably less than 300 hours airframe time. Don't tell me that it is a more complex and complicated aircraft. Using the level of technology available in both eras, they are on par with each other. It is based on sorry assed attitudes and Uncle Sam's supposedly deep pockets
|
|
|
Post by Diamondback on Feb 7, 2014 14:55:33 GMT 9
Hell, we need more F-22s just because of how the Russians are exporting Super Flankers to anyone with an interest and cash money--remember, Flanker was designed to first and foremost kill F-15s, and F-22's first mission is to be a distributor of Flanker parts across the landscape below?
The Indians bought Super Flankers, and I'm having trouble recalling a joint exercise where they came in second-best against our Eagles. So, that tells me it's either F-22 or go All In on Pearl Harboring 'em on the ground... an all-eggs-in-one-basket strategy that sounds like "ordered mass suicide" to me for the grunts and "Criminally Negligent Homicide" for the ones giving that order...
|
|
Jim Scanlon (deceased)
Senior Staff
FORUM CHAPLAIN
Commander South Texas outpost of the County Sligo Squadron
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,075
Location:
Joined: July 2007
Retired: USAF NBA: Spurs NFL: Niners MLB: Giants NHL: Penguins
|
Post by Jim Scanlon (deceased) on Jun 21, 2014 8:06:42 GMT 9
|
|
|
Post by Tom Dlugosh on Jun 22, 2014 2:04:24 GMT 9
He seems to sugar coat the F35's failings. Ha!
|
|
Jim Scanlon (deceased)
Senior Staff
FORUM CHAPLAIN
Commander South Texas outpost of the County Sligo Squadron
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,075
Location:
Joined: July 2007
Retired: USAF NBA: Spurs NFL: Niners MLB: Giants NHL: Penguins
|
Post by Jim Scanlon (deceased) on Dec 10, 2014 1:32:07 GMT 9
I read this story and wonder what other "limitations" the F-35 Flying Lemon may have.
Good grief!
Why did they build a fighter with fuel temperature restrictions that other planes don't seem to have?
Seems to me the bird will be more useless if it can't handle the heat of many places it could be sent.
I wonder if they can use cold fuel, like at Minot or other Northern Tier bases?
This from AFA Journal.
"Airmen at Luke AFB, Ariz., home to future F-35A strike fighter training, are testing a fuel truck with a white-painted, reflective tank scheme to reduce solar heating and keep fuel temperatures within the F-35's tolerated heat range. The F-35 "may not function properly if the fuel temperature is too high, so after collaborating with other bases and receiving waiver approval from [Air Education and Training Command], we painted the tanks white," said SrA. Jacob Hartman, a fueler with the 56th Logistics Readiness Squadron, in Luke's Dec. 5 release. "This is the short-term goal. … The long-term fix is to have parking shades for the refuelers," added CMSgt. Ralph Resch, 56th LRS fuels manager. Luke airmen are also testing tankers painted in the traditional green color, simply coated with a solar reflective coating to better camouflage combat-deployed vehicles. "We will then compare temperatures between the green and white trucks" to gauge whether the reflective coating provides equal cooling, said MSgt. Joseph Maurin, 56th LRS fuel distribution noncommissioned officer in charge."
Jim Too
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 10, 2014 8:09:30 GMT 9
There aren't enough NIXON EXPLETIVES DELETED to describe the intelligence level of all involved in this fiasco............ Imagine what Kelly Johnson would have to say about what happened to LOCKHEED... Painting fuel trucks white in an effort to maintain cool fuel (damn, a poet and I didn't know it).... When it is 110 degrees OAT, it will be hot fuel no matter what color the tank is.... And oh yeah, I am impressed by the squadron name- 56th LOGISTICS READINESS SQDN, fancy assed name for Supply Squadron, Aviation Fuels Branch
|
|
MOW
Administrator
Owner/Operator
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,821
Location:
Joined: September 2003
Retired: USAF, Civil Service
|
Post by MOW on Dec 10, 2014 10:49:07 GMT 9
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Dec 10, 2014 15:36:17 GMT 9
VERY interested to know the results of the temp test with the white vs. green trucks. Also interested in knowing how the temp is controlled in the aircraft tanks. Same, or similar coating on the F-35 is what I am guessing, so I'm betting the actual color does not matter as they said in the article.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 11, 2014 0:22:12 GMT 9
VERY interested to know the results of the temp test with the white vs. green trucks. Also interested in knowing how the temp is controlled in the aircraft tanks. Same, or similar coating on the F-35 is what I am guessing, so I'm betting the actual color does not matter as they said in the article. Do you suppose that, just suppose, that all of the French fries didn't get filtered out and it is plugging up the fuel nozzles!?!? Could this be more of Al Gore's global warming BS? Wonder what the spec # (like JP-4) is for that special crap? What is the thrust of this crap over the old JP-4, and how many changes have been made to jet fuel in the 37 years I have been gone and what were the gains in thrust produced vs cost per gallon to produce? Wonder how much ethanol they have added? So, Logistics Readiness Squadrons will now have to stock and transport special READY shelters cover the trucks whenever this piece of crap gets deployed.? How about the KC birds when they are fully loaded sitting on the ramp waiting to be scrambled- those birds are either gray, or camo painted? ?? Sounds like old MacNamarra's WHIZ KIDS have been resurrected....... No wonder they were in such a hurry to sabotage the F-22... More money to be made on this thing.......
|
|
MOW
Administrator
Owner/Operator
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,821
Location:
Joined: September 2003
Retired: USAF, Civil Service
|
Post by MOW on Dec 11, 2014 9:40:20 GMT 9
Knowing how today's media works and the many idiots we have out there reporting it who have ulterior motives, I honestly believe this all needs to be looked at with a wider eye. Here's another one from the Aviationist Fuel Trucks for the F-35 Painted White to keep the Jet Fuel Cool (and prevent engine shutdowns)theaviationist.com/2014/12/10/luke-afb-fuel-trucks/But, here are also some words from someone directly involved hands-on with the program. So who dow e believe? I tend to give more credence to my AD USAF brother on the ground getting his hands dirty whether that be turning wrenches, QA'ing, testing, whatever. From an active duty Air Force member at Eglin working in the JSF program.
"This is only for the early variants. We at Eglin don't have to use chilled fuel. As the aircraft matures, so does the thermal management. This was used on earlier models to help with avionics cooling. Not a factor for the active birds. Don't believe everything you read. As far as the engine issues, that was a one time occurrence due to a faulty batch of medal. Pratt has since launched a law suit against the vendor and has pursued other avenues to correct the issue. This plane is still in test phases and will have hiccups. All the great fighters went thru the same issues. Look at the F16's test flight with fly by wire and the disasters that occurred. Luckily we haven't lost a bird yet, which is a better track record than most test birds."
|
|
Bullhunter
Global Moderator
318th FIS Jet Shop 1975-78
Currently: Offline
Posts: 7,374
Location:
Joined: May 2005
|
Post by Bullhunter on Dec 15, 2014 0:53:39 GMT 9
Of course, just about anyone is going to defend his job position. Needs bread & butter to take care of himself and family. I believe the bird is too complex. Going to be a maintenance nightmare for years.
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Mar 5, 2015 18:10:02 GMT 9
|
|
dartfart
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 14
Location:
Joined: November 2010
Retired: USAF
|
Post by dartfart on Mar 6, 2015 5:20:53 GMT 9
With the possible exception of the P-51,What really good air craft have we ever had that did not have a period of growth and problems? The B-29 never got through the engine fire problem until the B-50 version. The P-38 was years behind before it matured. While it is still my favorite air plane ,in its early life the F-106 took an astronomical number of man hours to get a flying hour. The B-52 and C-135 a couple of the longest living war birds have suffered wing cracks and many other growth problems. A lot of people screamed we did not need the F-15 and F-16 because we had a proven dog of the F-4. The F-35 is a lot louder than the F-15 and F-16 but not near as loud an the Century series especially the F-105 with water. F-35's, F-15's and F-16's fly over my place daily.
|
|
Jim Scanlon (deceased)
Senior Staff
FORUM CHAPLAIN
Commander South Texas outpost of the County Sligo Squadron
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,075
Location:
Joined: July 2007
Retired: USAF NBA: Spurs NFL: Niners MLB: Giants NHL: Penguins
|
Post by Jim Scanlon (deceased) on Mar 6, 2015 10:23:12 GMT 9
With the possible exception of the P-51,What really good air craft have we ever had that did not have a period of growth and problems? The B-29 never got through the engine fire problem until the B-50 version. The P-38 was years behind before it matured. While it is still my favorite air plane ,in its early life the F-106 took an astronomical number of man hours to get a flying hour. The B-52 and C-135 a couple of the longest living war birds have suffered wing cracks and many other growth problems. A lot of people screamed we did not need the F-15 and F-16 because we had a proven dog of the F-4. The F-35 is a lot louder than the F-15 and F-16 but not near as loud an the Century series especially the F-105 with water. F-35's, F-15's and F-16's fly over my place daily. Dartfart, the Mustang was no exception to the "lots of teething pains" syndrome".
When it first flew, it was a certifiable DOG.
The Allison 1710 engine was not what the doctor ordered, and the Brits, who ordered the Mustang, used it for low altitude strafing and other stuff.
It had a three-bladed prop, and was just not up to snuff.
The solution was miraculous.
North American installed a Packard, licensed Rolls-Royce Merling, 1650 CI mill in it, with a 4 blade fan and it did wonders.
But, when I worked on them in 1953, they were still a beast to work on.
The cooling radiator was behind the cockpit, the scoop under the fuselage fed it air, and if it overheated, it meant taking the belly of the bird apart to replace the radiator.
The oil cooler was under the cockpit and it too was a devil to get to, as well as constantly leaking oil, making the bottom of the bird look like the floor of a grease pit.
The Old Sarge can tell you about flying them, but they had a really heavy torque roll on takeoff.
The B-29 was never fixed.
When I was at the SCAB, beginning in November 1952, it was common for the B-29s assigned to the SCAB seemed to always land with only three turning and one feathered.
So, yes, I think every plane has had a fair amount of teething, and some, like the Mustang and the B-29, never got completely over them.
Nor will the F-35 and whatever else comes along.
Jim Too
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Mar 7, 2015 18:35:44 GMT 9
Hell, we even said the C-130 was a "three-engine plane with a spare." I lost track of how many times I had to shut an engine down in flight.
This was about 15 minutes after takeoff from Pope AFB, NC in January, 2010 as we were heading down to Haiti. Just shut her down, turned around, and flew back to Pope.
|
|
Jim Scanlon (deceased)
Senior Staff
FORUM CHAPLAIN
Commander South Texas outpost of the County Sligo Squadron
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,075
Location:
Joined: July 2007
Retired: USAF NBA: Spurs NFL: Niners MLB: Giants NHL: Penguins
|
Post by Jim Scanlon (deceased) on Apr 16, 2015 5:05:19 GMT 9
|
|
Jim Scanlon (deceased)
Senior Staff
FORUM CHAPLAIN
Commander South Texas outpost of the County Sligo Squadron
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,075
Location:
Joined: July 2007
Retired: USAF NBA: Spurs NFL: Niners MLB: Giants NHL: Penguins
|
Post by Jim Scanlon (deceased) on Apr 23, 2015 5:54:51 GMT 9
|
|