F35s all grounded
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21554331
The US has grounded its entire fleet of 51 F-35 fighter jets after the discovery of a cracked engine blade.
Not a good week for the US aircraft industry, is it?
The US has grounded its entire fleet of 51 F-35 fighter jets after the discovery of a cracked engine blade.
Not a good week for the US aircraft industry, is it?
FourWheelDrift said:
Simpo Two said:
One might add 'But the Harrier worked'.
Eventually.There were plenty of problems early on and quite a few crashes including one rather publically at the 1963 Paris Air Show and even after was never an easy aircraft to fly.
FourWheelDrift said:
Eventually.
There were plenty of problems early on and quite a few crashes including one rather publically at the 1963 Paris Air Show and even after was never an easy aircraft to fly.
IIRC that was a protoype and not fully tested, but the F35 is now supposed to be operational, no?There were plenty of problems early on and quite a few crashes including one rather publically at the 1963 Paris Air Show and even after was never an easy aircraft to fly.
I think there is too much 'tech'. We are now obsessed with 'tech' to the point where things don't work properly. You can have the best aeroplane in the world but if it's non-operational you lose.
I can't help thinking of Tiger Tank vs T34.
The aircraft that crashed at the 1963 Paris air show was not a Harrier.
It was one of the development aircraft called the P1127. At that time there were no plans for turning the P1127 into an operational front line aircraft. It was purely a proof of concept test aircraft.
In 1964/65 a number of developed variants were produced called Kestrels so that the concept could be further tested in more realistic operational conditions with service pilots flying them.
In this time period, the actual production aircraft that was intended to emerge was a supersonic VTOL design called the P1154.
And just to show how "well" these early VTOL designs worked, according to Wiki -
"The first three P.1127s crashed, the second and third during development. The first prototype (XP831) crashed at the Paris Air Show in 1963 but was fully repaired and resumed development flying. All the pilots involved survived".
When the P1154 was cancelled, the RAF decided to order a fully millitarised development of the P1127/Kestrel which became the Harrier GR1.
It was one of the development aircraft called the P1127. At that time there were no plans for turning the P1127 into an operational front line aircraft. It was purely a proof of concept test aircraft.
In 1964/65 a number of developed variants were produced called Kestrels so that the concept could be further tested in more realistic operational conditions with service pilots flying them.
In this time period, the actual production aircraft that was intended to emerge was a supersonic VTOL design called the P1154.
And just to show how "well" these early VTOL designs worked, according to Wiki -
"The first three P.1127s crashed, the second and third during development. The first prototype (XP831) crashed at the Paris Air Show in 1963 but was fully repaired and resumed development flying. All the pilots involved survived".
When the P1154 was cancelled, the RAF decided to order a fully millitarised development of the P1127/Kestrel which became the Harrier GR1.
Simpo Two said:
FourWheelDrift said:
Eventually.
There were plenty of problems early on and quite a few crashes including one rather publically at the 1963 Paris Air Show and even after was never an easy aircraft to fly.
IIRC that was a protoype and not fully tested, but the F35 is now supposed to be operational, no?There were plenty of problems early on and quite a few crashes including one rather publically at the 1963 Paris Air Show and even after was never an easy aircraft to fly.
I think there is too much 'tech'. We are now obsessed with 'tech' to the point where things don't work properly. You can have the best aeroplane in the world but if it's non-operational you lose.
I can't help thinking of Tiger Tank vs T34.
Engines are far more reliable now than they were 'back in the day', but the operational need was greater back then - and the inspection and diagnostic techniques were far less sophisticated. My sister's father-in-law recalls having a Spey let go in an F4 in the seventies (even with the ridiculously low TBOH they were using, something like 30 hours or so) - stuck it into a diversion, and got a lift back home for the station Summer Ball that evening. Someone else went to fetch the F4 after the engine had been replaced, and the other engine let go on the way back.
Edited by eharding on Saturday 23 February 11:29
Crafty_ said:
Pretty ironic that the alternative engine that was ahead of the P&W got canned by the US gov, even after the manufacturer proposed to cover all costs for 2 years.
I'm sure the issue will be rectified soon.
What do you mean by "ahead of"? The F136 was a few years behind the F135 in its development programme?I'm sure the issue will be rectified soon.
Crafty_ said:
The engine was already performing to spec, more work to do mind..
At the time P&W had some issues and IIRC was over budget.
It was performing to spec as expected at that point in the programme; but hadn't done any endurance testing, and hadn't flown. The P&W engine was also performing to spec, had competed endurance testing, and had flown. How does that put the F136 ahead?At the time P&W had some issues and IIRC was over budget.
sebhaque said:
I'd imagine some of the old F136 boys in the office will be laughing at this news.
The F-35B also has some other teething issues going into service - looks like it's long hours for everybody on the project for the next few weeks.
The guys on the C side are going to be spending the next 4 years chained to a desk with a enema bag full of caffeine plumbed into them.The F-35B also has some other teething issues going into service - looks like it's long hours for everybody on the project for the next few weeks.
A whole lot of work to do.
toppstuff said:
Considering the gob smacking overspend and mind boggling amount of money this absurd thing has cost, it seems a monumental folly to me.
A proper carrier and a brace of super hornets would be up and running by now.
Yep we could have which would have been awesome but two things to take into account-A proper carrier and a brace of super hornets would be up and running by now.
The Super Hornet is a relatively old design evolved from the Hornet starting from the 70's although with excellent development there is only so far things can go and as these carriers are designed for 50 year use we would have to spend a whole lot of money changing the fleet to another type of aircraft at some point anyway. That or be faced with flying the equivalent of the Sea Fury into the 80's.
The UK has a great deal on F35 production, essentially 20% of them are built here which is a massive boost to our industry and economy, if we had gone for the super-hornet we would be purely a customer and the end result would have been a massive cheque to the states and the remnants of our aviation industry heading for the dole line.
- *IF*** The F35 grows like the aircraft before it (which also had development issues and reduced specifications) then the programme may get out of this OK and all we will be discussing in ten years is a troubled birth.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff