Forest Green
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 14,501
- Reaction score
- 31,535
The plastic scraper left in the wing fold is definitely a failure in tool control, and should never happen (although systems do fail all too often).That does not sound good TomcatVIP, metal shavings in fuel? That would lead to a catastrophic loss of engine either during flight or at engine start up, it is a good job that the Marines found the shavings in the fuel.
Oh, please please please tell me that they're going to give them some tail art of the Hussar's wings!
At Tramco, the plastic scrapers weren't controlled at all. Yes, you had to go to the tool crib to get one, but they're just acrylic with an angle cut on the ends.The plastic scraper left in the wing fold is definitely a failure in tool control, and should never happen (although systems do fail all too often).
The shavings in the fuel tanks is a common issue with new aircraft and after fuel tank maintenance. Those little pieces can escape and hide in places where they cannot be found, until the aircraft flies and sloshes the fuel around. There are fuel strainers for the big stuff and fuel filters for the microscopic bits before they get into engine fuel controls and fuel nozzles where they could cause mischief. Not saying they should be there, but it is almost impossible for the tanks to be 100% clean after manufacture. It is likely the Marines will find some more debris even after their tank flush activity.
A proper tool control program would require that the scrapers should be turned back in to the tool crib to be accounted for at the end of the work day - one out, one in. The tool crib would then be able to discard the used ones, and there are no stray tools around to be left in the airframe or engine.Oh, please please please tell me that they're going to give them some tail art of the Hussar's wings!
At Tramco, the plastic scrapers weren't controlled at all. Yes, you had to go to the tool crib to get one, but they're just acrylic with an angle cut on the ends.
The Marines are going to flush out a LOT more metal shavings from the tanks.
the flushing should have been made at the factory. I would bet my olive contaminated martini that, with fuel price rising, some clever LM supervisors thought that they would fare good scraping that cost incognito...The plastic scraper left in the wing fold is definitely a failure in tool control, and should never happen (although systems do fail all too often).
The shavings in the fuel tanks is a common issue with new aircraft and after fuel tank maintenance. Those little pieces can escape and hide in places where they cannot be found, until the aircraft flies and sloshes the fuel around. There are fuel strainers for the big stuff and fuel filters for the microscopic bits before they get into engine fuel controls and fuel nozzles where they could cause mischief. Not saying they should be there, but it is almost impossible for the tanks to be 100% clean after manufacture. It is likely the Marines will find some more debris even after their tank flush activity.
I should add that Tramco hired out the tank-diving to a separate company. They probably had tight control over everything that went into the tank, but I don't know that for certain.A proper tool control program would require that the scrapers should be turned back in to the tool crib to be accounted for at the end of the work day - one out, one in. The tool crib would then be able to discard the used ones, and there are no stray tools around to be left in the airframe or engine.
We still struggled with accounting for consumable parts like o-rings where an extra could be left in the component.
I should add that Tramco hired out the tank-diving to a separate company. They probably had tight control over everything that went into the tank, but I don't know that for certain.
It's not like kerosene dissolves acrylic.
Degreasing, I'd imagine.Why would anyone put kerosene on the wing-fold joint (which is where the scraper was found)?
Next Gen DAS.
Original DAS tech is 20 freaking years old already.Next Gen DAS.
What happened to the Old Gen? Fukkin plane is barely entering service and it needs major upgrades.
What a stiff.
in fact it's extremely annoying that it does not for some reason get a new letter.The Blk 4 aircraft are sufficiently different from a technical standpoint that in the days of old it probably would deserve a new letter designation. New ESM antennas and arrangement, new DAS, new IR/laser designator, new radar, new computer core with 25x the processor power.
in fact it's extremely annoying that it does not for some reason get a new letter.
Because it indeed 100% fits the requirement, and writing all those block technology increments is simply inconvenient.
Sukhoi and Chengdu aren't afraid of it, what's the problem with F-35s?
Then why produce 1,000 aircraft of reduced capability that are barely in service now?The Blk 4 aircraft are sufficiently different from a technical standpoint that in the days of old it probably would deserve a new letter designation. New ESM antennas and arrangement, new DAS, new IR/laser designator, new radar, new computer core with 25x the processor power.
And after 20 years still isn't mounted on any other Western fighter...Original DAS tech is 20 freaking years old already.
Tranche 4 Typhoons are more capable than the Tranche 1s 2s or 3s. Why did any of those countries bother with producing those?Then why produce 1,000 aircraft of reduced capability that are barely in service now?
To be fair, F-35 IOC is indeed rather underpacked - probably due to overoptimistic expectations on the blk 4 schedule.Tranche 4 Typhoons are more capable than the Tranche 1s 2s or 3s. Why did any of those countries bother with producing those?
Why did NAA bother to make the P-51A or B?
Etc. etc.
Go back and look at how few capabilities the Typhoon Block 2 or Gripen As had as examplesTo be fair, F-35 IOC is indeed rather underpacked - probably due to overoptimistic expectations on the blk 4 schedule.
Like, leaving full weapon integration out in retrospect is highly doubtful.
The Blk 4 aircraft are sufficiently different from a technical standpoint that in the days of old it probably would deserve a new letter designation. New ESM antennas and arrangement, new DAS, new IR/laser designator, new radar, new computer core with 25x the processor power.
I don’t think there’s anyone on earth who knows what their capabilities are least of all the operators.Does it really matter what they are called...so long as the operators know the capabilities they have.
Those 2 planes have their own issues but let’s not act like the F-35 is some fresh off the drawing board aircraft.Go back and look at how few capabilities the Typhoon Block 2 or Gripen As had as examples
Expecting fully developed aircraft from the start with all existing weapons (including those that haven't finished development) integrated is unrealistic
Next Gen DAS.
What happened to the Old Gen? Fukkin plane is barely entering service and it needs major upgrades.
What a stiff.
I assume this is all displayed on the HMD?For reference, the Next Gen DAS is supposed to offer (according to Raytheon):
Because they're still more effective than anything else.Then why produce 1,000 aircraft of reduced capability that are barely in service now?
I can guarantee that the operators do.I don’t think there’s anyone on earth who knows what their capabilities are least of all the operators.
Then why the mad rush for TR-3/Block 4 that makes it sound absolutely critical?Because they're still more effective than anything else.
I assume this is all displayed on the HMD?
Has that been debugged?
A stupid question. Is DAS(new or old) supposed to help in a WVR fight? Will constant head turning still be necessary?
Then why the mad rush for TR-3/Block 4 that makes it sound absolutely critical?
The program was so behind schedule that they had to get any & all flyable aircraft out there.Why buy something when you know the next model which is vastly superior will be ready in only a few months and you will have to pay to refit to that standard?
Yep. Can the previous TR be so limiting?Actually big backlogs of undelivered aircraft building up as various governments are refusing delivery until TR-3 is signed off and so LM have been slowing production lines.
I’m just questioning why so many were built with an apparently very limited config.The F-35 has been in production for many years and has produced a thousand aircraft. While I think it is the absolute poster child of a miss managed program, not upgrading the baseline configuration hardly seems like a solution.