F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2014, 17:46
by maus92
Hmmm, with the Marines pushing for M-FARPS, maintaining the proper fuel temp might be interesting, particularly in the sandbox, and in other hot areas...

Luke AFB changes refueling truck color, mitigates F-35 shutdowns
By Staff Sgt. Luther Mitchell Jr., 56th Fighter Wing Public Affairs / Published December 06, 2014

"LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. (AFNS) -- The 56th Logistics Readiness Squadron recently added a new fuel truck to its fleet designed to improve mission effectiveness and safety on the flightline.

However, it’s not really a new fuel truck, but an old fuel truck with its tank painted white.

What LRS Airmen once referred to as "Big Green," the “new” truck with a white fuel tank has been a little difficult for some to get used to; however, the change has a better purpose then just being aesthetically pleasing.

"We painted the refuelers white to reduce the temperature of fuel being delivered to the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter," said Senior Airman Jacob Hartman, a 56th LRS fuels distribution operator. "The F-35 has a fuel temperature threshold and may not function properly if the fuel temperature is too high, so after collaborating with other bases and receiving waiver approval from (the Air Education Training Command), we painted the tanks white."

With the change, the 56th LRS hopes for no delay in aircraft take-offs, all while maintaining mission sorties and ensuring pilots meet training requirements.

"It ensures the F-35 is able to meet its sortie requirements," said Chief Master Sgt. Ralph Resch, the 56th LRS fuels manager. "We are taking proactive measures to mitigate any possible aircraft shutdowns due to high fuel temperatures in the future."

The squadron adopted the idea after it was first implemented at Edwards Air Force Base, California.

In the summer months at Luke AFB, temperatures can reach beyond 110 degrees. Painting the tanks white now will help prevent fuel stored in the tanks from over-heating.

"This is the short-term goal to cool the fuel for the F-35; however, the long-term fix is to have parking shades for the refuelers," Resch said...."

Source: http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... downs.aspx


Shelters and white painted trucks - not something you really want in forwards areas.

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2014, 17:59
by mk82
maus92 wrote:Hmmm, with the Marines pushing for M-FARPS, maintaining the proper fuel temp might be interesting, particularly in the sandbox, and in other hot areas...

Luke AFB changes refueling truck color, mitigates F-35 shutdowns
By Staff Sgt. Luther Mitchell Jr., 56th Fighter Wing Public Affairs / Published December 06, 2014


"LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. (AFNS) -- The 56th Logistics Readiness Squadron recently added a new fuel truck to its fleet designed to improve mission effectiveness and safety on the flightline.

However, it’s not really a new fuel truck, but an old fuel truck with its tank painted white.

What LRS Airmen once referred to as "Big Green," the “new” truck with a white fuel tank has been a little difficult for some to get used to; however, the change has a better purpose then just being aesthetically pleasing.

"We painted the refuelers white to reduce the temperature of fuel being delivered to the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter," said Senior Airman Jacob Hartman, a 56th LRS fuels distribution operator. "The F-35 has a fuel temperature threshold and may not function properly if the fuel temperature is too high, so after collaborating with other bases and receiving waiver approval from (the Air Education Training Command), we painted the tanks white."

With the change, the 56th LRS hopes for no delay in aircraft take-offs, all while maintaining mission sorties and ensuring pilots meet training requirements.

"It ensures the F-35 is able to meet its sortie requirements," said Chief Master Sgt. Ralph Resch, the 56th LRS fuels manager. "We are taking proactive measures to mitigate any possible aircraft shutdowns due to high fuel temperatures in the future."

The squadron adopted the idea after it was first implemented at Edwards Air Force Base, California.

In the summer months at Luke AFB, temperatures can reach beyond 110 degrees. Painting the tanks white now will help prevent fuel stored in the tanks from over-heating.

"This is the short-term goal to cool the fuel for the F-35; however, the long-term fix is to have parking shades for the refuelers," Resch said...."

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... downs.aspx

Shelters and white painted trucks - not something you really want in forwards areas.


I am quite sure that the Marines already have their own solution. The Harrier's Pegasus engine would also have a threshold on the temperature of its fuel and Harrier's have operated from FARPs in hot weather.

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2014, 19:45
by XanderCrews
Slow news day Maus?

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2014, 21:40
by sferrin
He's going to go apeshit when he discovers that the jet blast deflectors need to be upgraded to handle the F135 in full afterburner. (Of course he'll conveniently forget they had to do the same thing with the TF30s of the F-14.)

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2014, 22:25
by spazsinbad
The Super Hornet and F-35C will only be at 125% - half afterburner - at the JBD. Once down the catapult automatically the FULL A/B will light off. This has been explained - perhaps you meant that already? We have seen the F-35C half A/Being down the cat day/night already aboard NIMITZ. Did anyone read about their JBDs being upgraded? Perhaps there is a long term project to upgrade the JBDs for longer life?

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2014, 23:09
by smsgtmac
maus92 wrote:Hmmm, with the Marines pushing for M-FARPS, maintaining the proper fuel temp might be interesting, particularly in the sandbox, and in other hot areas...

...Shelters and white painted trucks - not something you really want in forwards areas.


Oh noes! An apparently intractable problem! What oh what ever shall we do?

Other than pick up a GSA catalog I mean.
vmsandmtvr-1_0.jpg


Hmmm. What else?
Perhaps somebody could just remember to bring the netting?:
fmtv_m1078_03_700.jpg

Or maybe just ask the neighbors to loan them a little floor space?
DRASH_Maintenance_Facility_in_Iraq.jpg

House Trolls gotta troll, but c'mon Maus--at least TRY to put some thought into it.

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 01:40
by maus92
Just one more thing to carry to those 24-48hr M-FARPS.

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 01:42
by quicksilver
Maus knows better. He also knows that Hornet and SH have the same issues (ie its not an issue except in the .1 percentile conditions).

Nice try, but enough with the knuckle balls. Try something faster...

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 04:38
by thepointblank
maus92 wrote:Just one more thing to carry to those 24-48hr M-FARPS.

Except this is something that can be easily carried and planned for.. you think the logisticians are idiots? Realistically, this won't take up too much space or be too heavy for any transport aircraft to have it quickly loaded in.

Besides, these shelters make it much more easier to be crawling around underneath the trucks when they need maintenance. Out of the hot sun or pouring rain makes a mechanics' life easier.

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 05:20
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:Just one more thing to carry to those 24-48hr M-FARPS.


Marines never used to have bring tents anywhere!

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 16:24
by f35phixer
been using them from day one at PAX, Chilled fuel etc....

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 18:21
by sferrin
spazsinbad wrote:The Super Hornet and F-35C will only be at 125% - half afterburner - at the JBD. Once down the catapult automatically the FULL A/B will light off. This has been explained - perhaps you meant that already? We have seen the F-35C half A/Being down the cat day/night already aboard NIMITZ. Did anyone read about their JBDs being upgraded? Perhaps there is a long term project to upgrade the JBDs for longer life?


From a PDF that appeared recently:

"No modifications were required to the
flight deck, not even the Jet Blast Deflectors
(JBDs): hydraulic-controlled panels designed
to divert hot aircraft exhaust during launches.
The panels are raised in preparation for takeoff,
protecting the flight deck and aircraft
behind from the hot aircraft exhaust.
Modification of the JBDs will be required for
subsequent DT evolutions, when afterburner
will be required to launch aircraft with heavier
all-up weights than those used during DT
I.
Any changes implemented will alter the
cooling path of the F-35’s exhaust plume,
which interacts with the carrier’s decking
differently from that of the twin-engined
members of the Hornet family."

Thing is they've been modified on several occasions in the past to accommodate various aircraft so this is nothing out of the ordinary.

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2014, 20:37
by spazsinbad
Thanks. I recall reading that but could not be bothered to go find it - the thread is about fuel after all. And as mentioned in my post:
"...Perhaps there is a long term project to upgrade the JBDs for longer life?"
IF I had bothered to find the quote you mention or a similar one then I would not have used the 'perhaps'. I do not like to state things as fact without a reference to said facts. So now I'll look for references to the JBD upgrading whilst recalling that when "JBDs at Lakehurst testing finished" years ago - at that time - it was said that there were no big things to fix (that would be early on in the 'Lakehurst thread). Here is the night slo mo A/B light off video.

This link takes one to a long post with the 'JBDs' parts (word) highlighted and which only part was excerpted otherwise:
...No modifications were required to the flight deck, not even the Jet Blast Deflectors (JBDs): hydraulic-controlled panels designed to divert hot aircraft exhaust during launches. The panels are raised in preparation for takeoff, protecting the flight deck and aircraft behind from the hot aircraft exhaust. Modification of the JBDs will be required for subsequent DT evolutions, when afterburner will be required to launch aircraft with heavier all-up weights than those used during DT I. Any changes implemented will alter the cooling path of the F-35’s exhaust plume, which interacts with the carrier’s decking differently from that of the twin-engined members of the Hornet family...."

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=26634&p=282114&hilit=JBDs#p282114

& here is the long post about first JBD (on land) testing: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=200694&hilit=JBDs#p200694

& anotherie: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=200137&hilit=JBDs#p200137

A useful old quote from Manazir June 2010 - admittedly before other facts were known from testing: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=179606&hilit=JBDs#p179606
"...“Aboard the aircraft carrier, the F-35C exhaust impingement on the jet blast deflector has also been studied,” he said. “The aircraft obviously has a common engine, the F135, and so we took an airplane out at Eglin and did tests against just a flat plate. We’ve taken the data off of that and we’ve delivered it to Lakehurst.

“Lakehurst is going to take fleet representative JBDs [jet blast deflectors] and the cooling structure that’s associated with that,” he continued. “They’ll install it at Lakehurst, and we’re going to do tests against that jet blast deflector and those units will be able to be installed on a ship at a future date.”

Manazir said the problem is not the heat pattern on the JBD, but the fact that the F-35 and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets launch less than a minute apart and place a heat load on different places on the JBD.

“It means we have to have a slightly different cooling structure, which probably will involve extra piping in the JBD, but not that much of a change,” he said...."


Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2014, 05:32
by KamenRiderBlade
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f- ... 6/+megneal

The same complaint by a different whiney Anti F-35 writer.

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2014, 05:51
by spazsinbad
"...Luke AFB is not the first base to run into this issue, with Edwards AFB discovering the problem and initiating the fuel truck repaint solution some time ago. The USAF has some hope that the reflective paint process can be applied to a similar green color as the standard issue refueling trucks used by the USAF. A test will soon occur with a white truck and a green truck, with both being painted with a special solar reflective coating, to see if the green truck plus the reflective coating will keep the F-35's life-force cool enough under the sun for the jet not to have to shut down immediately after start-up due to heating issues...."


Would having a 'fuel refrigerator' powered by the same fuel from the hot truck help? :devil: I see no white [paint] here?

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/ima ... eax4fl.jpg

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2014, 13:41
by stobiewan
Didn't the USN have to rework the catapult track or deck on a few carriers for the Hornet as they discovered it sat low with a centre line tank and occasionally the damn thing would clip something and shower fuel everywhere?

I seem to recall some of the conventional carriers never carried Hornets while they were in fleet because of this?

Puts JBD tweeks into perspective.

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2014, 15:05
by XanderCrews
KamenRiderBlade wrote:http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-run-on-warm-gas-from-a-fuel-truck-that-sa-1668120726/+megneal

The same complaint by a different whiney Anti F-35 writer.


From the Author:

You may feel just at home with this sort of nonsense and after writing well over 200 pieces on this program I am insulted when you say myself and others probably have no idea what we are talking about.


http://media.giphy.com/media/1229mlttgo8aR2/giphy.gif

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2014, 18:31
by spazsinbad
Aircraft needs to be designed to the ship(s):
The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter
26-27 Feb 2002 Mr. Eric S. Ryberg

"...Geometric Compatibility
Probably the most intuitively obvious factor to influence the design of a ship-based aircraft is geometric compatibility. Simply stated, the airplane must be of an acceptable size and shape to fit within the constrained operating spaces aboard ship....

...OTHER GEOMETRIC CONSTRAINTS...
...Safe launch and recovery operations require sufficient separation from any deck obstacle, a criterion that often dictates the shape of an aircraft and the location of its wing pylons....

...[the graphic shows the] composite envelope formed by the superposition of the deck obstructions that surround the four catapults on CVN-68 class ships...

...AIRCRAFT LAUNCH AND RECOVERY
The JSF aircraft have been sized to take full advantage of the aircraft launch and recovery equipment available on the ships of interest. For example, the CV variant is designed to withstand the tow loads imposed by the C-13 Mod 1 and Mod 2 catapults, as well as the deceleration loads of the Mk-7 Mod 3 arresting gear. If future launch and recovery systems offer substantially different loading profiles than those factored into the design, a substantial impact to launch performance (i.e., wind-over-deck requirements) and/or service life could result...."

Source: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a399988.pdf (1.1Mb)

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2014, 19:44
by sferrin
XanderCrews wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-run-on-warm-gas-from-a-fuel-truck-that-sa-1668120726/+megneal

The same complaint by a different whiney Anti F-35 writer.


From the Author:

You may feel just at home with this sort of nonsense and after writing well over 200 pieces on this program I am insulted when you say myself and others probably have no idea what we are talking about.


http://media.giphy.com/media/1229mlttgo8aR2/giphy.gif


That place is a vast echo chamber of stupid. Like Sol's blog but the author managed to get hooked up with a conglomerate that caters to liberal kids. Gets lots of eyeballs, and that's really it's only purpose. Would not recommend frequenting unless you have IQ points to lose.

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2014, 20:28
by KamenRiderBlade
sferrin wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-run-on-warm-gas-from-a-fuel-truck-that-sa-1668120726/+megneal

The same complaint by a different whiney Anti F-35 writer.


From the Author:

You may feel just at home with this sort of nonsense and after writing well over 200 pieces on this program I am insulted when you say myself and others probably have no idea what we are talking about.


http://media.giphy.com/media/1229mlttgo8aR2/giphy.gif


That place is a vast echo chamber of stupid. Like Sol's blog but the author managed to get hooked up with a conglomerate that caters to liberal kids. Gets lots of eyeballs, and that's really it's only purpose. Would not recommend frequenting unless you have IQ points to lose.


The place is only good for tech / gadget news.

It's not a good place for military news, despite them trying to branch out.

They really should stick to what they are good with, but idiots like Tyler Rogoway has managed to bamboozle the masses with his BS.

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2014, 21:48
by sferrin
The Harrier needs 150 gallons of water onboard just to hover. Funny how these idiots seem to not know this. :doh:

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2014, 00:18
by quicksilver
sferrin wrote:The Harrier needs 150 gallons of water onboard just to hover. Funny how these idiots seem to not know this. :doh:


Actualy it is 50 Imperial gallons, and it only needs the water to hover at higher gross weights and higher OATs.

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2014, 00:23
by XanderCrews
Image

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2014, 01:07
by spazsinbad
gallons/lbs/imperial gallons - wot fun - I can see one website that claims 150 gals erroneously (must be heavy water) - go here:

http://www.technologystudent.com/culture1/harr1.htm

However I would go for the 50 impgal (500lbs/227kg) of distilled water as quoted earlier by 'qs' and it gives around 90 seconds of use:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Pegasus

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2014, 01:28
by eskodas
Here it shows in a nice graphic just how the fuel gets too hot in the ground idling phase.

http://i.imgur.com/quXJIUS.png

from here http://sdsi.asu.edu/wp-content/uploads/ ... hermal.pdf

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2014, 03:49
by tbarlow
The fuel trucks used to be yellow up till the early 80's, then everything got painted OD green. Anyone work F-15's at Luke or Nellis in the late 70's and early 80's when they when only their birds were having fuel pump problems. Turned out the problem was the jets after start up would be on the ground from 30-45 minutes because of taxi and end of runway (EOR) arm checks. But I guess it's better then the F-4 which would dump fuel all over the ramp while you were gassing them up. Anyone ever make the mistake of packing a F-4 drag chute while putting gas in at the same time? NO I never got a face full of JP-4, but saw a transit crew chief who did. :doh:

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2014, 07:52
by zero-one
You will not believe the comments going around on this story:
https://news.yahoo.com/usaf-paint-truck ... -container

Now on Facebook, F-35 haters and supporters are again at war. Naturally we are outnumbered
But we have the facts, and before long they resort to their age old, name calling, your mother's fat theatrics. That the usual sign that they lost.

Now people are blowing this out of proportion, the solution of having trucks painted White and putting them on parking shades isn't rocket science, it won't cost billions.

Now in exchange, you have a 5th generation aircraft with a state of the art thermal management system that can afford to carry all the advanced avionics it needs and be almost invisible to Infrared sensors as well

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2014, 08:26
by zero-one
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102253195

Major Matt Hasson of Luke AFB public affairs wrote:
This is not an F-35 issue; there are no special restrictions on the F-35 related to fuel temperature. The F-35 uses the same fuel as other military aircraft. It can fly under the same temperature conditions as any other advanced military aircraft,


Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2014, 08:59
by spazsinbad
WAIT - WOT? From above story - last paragraph before editor note:
"...It's anticipated that eventually 200 of the aircraft will be in operation in eight countries."

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2014, 09:45
by thepointblank
The F/A-18 has a number of fuel temperature limits; one that comes to mind is if you are on the ground, have less than 1,000 pounds of fuel, and external temperatures exceed 30C, the Hornet will fairly quickly throw a Airframe Mounted Accessory Drive warning light, which the listed procedure is to shut down the engine involved.

If you are in the air with less than 4,000 pounds fuel remaining at low altitude, the pilot is required to monitor fuel temperatures as again, the Airframe Mounted Accessory Drive could overheat. In fact, if the fuel temperature exceeds 75C, the NATOPS says you need to land immediately.

Also, in hot weather conditions, the NATOPS says one needs to keep all non-essential electronics shut down while on the ground unless you are just about to take off.

The F-16's flight manual also indicates that there are engine fuel temperature limits; if the hot fuel warning light goes off, you are limited to 10,000ft maximum altitude and you need to increase fuel consumption to 4000pph, until you can land, which you are required to do so immediately.

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2014, 09:50
by spazsinbad
'thepointblank' Thanks for that info - very interesting....

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2014, 11:36
by optimist
Weren't they going to use a fuel chiller? I understood there was a fuel temp requirement for the "heat sink' specs.

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2014, 15:42
by smsgtmac
thepointblank wrote:The F/A-18 has a number of fuel temperature limits; one that comes to mind is if you are on the ground, have less than 1,000 pounds of fuel, and external temperatures exceed 30C, the Hornet will fairly quickly throw a Airframe Mounted Accessory Drive warning light, which the listed procedure is to shut down the engine involved.

If you are in the air with less than 4,000 pounds fuel remaining at low altitude, the pilot is required to monitor fuel temperatures as again, the Airframe Mounted Accessory Drive could overheat. In fact, if the fuel temperature exceeds 75C, the NATOPS says you need to land immediately.

Also, in hot weather conditions, the NATOPS says one needs to keep all non-essential electronics shut down while on the ground unless you are just about to take off.

The F-16's flight manual also indicates that there are engine fuel temperature limits; if the hot fuel warning light goes off, you are limited to 10,000ft maximum altitude and you need to increase fuel consumption to 4000pph, until you can land, which you are required to do so immediately.


I could have gone to bed earlier last night if you had posted sooner :wink:
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... rucks.html

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2014, 20:00
by spazsinbad
Heheh fanks 'smsgtmac' - get some rest. Meanwhile here is some more detail that may help?
Luke AFB changes refueling truck color, mitigates F-35 shutdowns
06 Dec 2014 Staff Sgt. Luther Mitchell Jr., 56th Fighter Wing Public Affairs

"..."We are taking proactive measures to mitigate any possible aircraft shutdowns due to high fuel temperatures in the future."

The squadron adopted the idea after it was first implemented at Edwards Air Force Base, California. [Wot? No story earlier? Wot?]

In the summer months at Luke AFB, temperatures can reach beyond 110 degrees. Painting the tanks white now will help prevent fuel stored in the tanks from over-heating.

"This is the short-term goal to cool the fuel for the F-35; however, the long-term fix is to have parking shades for the refuelers," Resch said.

The white paint is special because it is a solar polyurethane enamel that reflects the heat of the sun's rays. Interestingly, after dropping off the first truck to be painted, the 56th LRS learned it is not the color that reflects the heat.

"The painting process is a two-part process, and the second part is the reflective process," said Master Sgt. Joseph Maurin, the 56th LRS fuels distribution NCO in charge. "The painter said it did not have to be a white color, so we are going to send one of the four vehicles to get painted green, if possible. We will then compare temperatures between the green and white trucks."

Luke AFBs refuelers are also deployable and a white fuel truck would stick out like a sore thumb down range. The 56th LRS is hopeful that the tanks can be painted green and still keep fuel temperatures down.

The 56th LRS has been approved to paint four trucks and it takes about a week to complete, at a cost of $3,900 per truck."

Source: http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... downs.aspx

Caption: http://media.dma.mil/2014/Dec/05/200095 ... 80-001.JPG (2.2Mb)

"Senior Airman Jacob Hartman checks out the newly painted R-11 refueling truck at the Logistic Readiness Squadron vehicle yard at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz. After receiving waiver approval from the Air Education and Training Command, the 56th LRS had the fuel tank painted white to keep the fuel inside from overheating. The changes to the truck were made because the F-35 Lightning II has a fuel temperature threshold and cannot function properly if the fuel temperature is too high. Hartman is a 56th LRS fuels distribution operator (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Luther Mitchell Jr.)"

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2014, 20:43
by spazsinbad
A 'good' beatup for Israel here with some HOT LEMONADE baby (this story is otherwise known as a 'beat up').
Problematic for Israel
10 Dec 2014 Hana Levi Julian

"Not even off the lot, the F-35 fighter jet is proving to be a bigger lemon than anyone first thought...."

Source: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breakin ... 4/12/10/0/

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2014, 22:35
by spazsinbad
Here we go (geez I'm getting old - as we used to say in Oz) with another Bob Rogers Show:
The Tale Of The F-35 And Hot Jet Fuel
10 Dec 2014 Colin Clark

"...“This is not an F-35 issue; there are no special restrictions on the F-35 related to fuel temperature. The F-35 uses the same fuel as other military aircraft. It can fly under the same temperature conditions as any other advanced military aircraft,” said Joe DellaVedova, program spokesman, in an email yesterday evening.

The folks at Luke say they are testing the new paint jobs to avoid problems, according to the AETC story: “‘It ensures the F-35 is able to meet its sortie requirements,’ said Chief Master Sgt. Ralph Resch, 56th LRS fuels manager. ‘We are taking proactive measures to mitigate any possible aircraft shutdowns due to high fuel temperatures in the future.'”

“Painting fuel trucks to reduce fuel temperature and improve aircraft performance will benefit legacy aircraft as well as F-35. There is no fuel temperature upper limitation on F-35 operations that would prevent sorties, and no sorties have been cancelled as a result of fuel temperature,” Kyra Hawn, deputy spokesman at the JPO, said in an email this morning. “Daily F-35 operations at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, and Luke Air Force Base have been unaffected by hot environment or fuel temperature.”

The plane is now undergoing climate tests: heat, cold, rain, snow, ice etc. A lab test imposing temperatures in excess of 130 degrees was just completed “and the aircraft performed exceptionally well based on preliminary information collected,” Hawn wrote. Full climate results will be ready in the spring of 2015."

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/the- ... -jet-fuel/

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2014, 12:27
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:Hmmm, with the Marines pushing for M-FARPS, maintaining the proper fuel temp might be interesting, particularly in the sandbox, and in other hot areas...

Luke AFB changes refueling truck color, mitigates F-35 shutdowns
By Staff Sgt. Luther Mitchell Jr., 56th Fighter Wing Public Affairs / Published December 06, 2014

"LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. (AFNS) -- The 56th Logistics Readiness Squadron recently added a new fuel truck to its fleet designed to improve mission effectiveness and safety on the flightline.

However, it’s not really a new fuel truck, but an old fuel truck with its tank painted white.

What LRS Airmen once referred to as "Big Green," the “new” truck with a white fuel tank has been a little difficult for some to get used to; however, the change has a better purpose then just being aesthetically pleasing.

"We painted the refuelers white to reduce the temperature of fuel being delivered to the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter," said Senior Airman Jacob Hartman, a 56th LRS fuels distribution operator. "The F-35 has a fuel temperature threshold and may not function properly if the fuel temperature is too high, so after collaborating with other bases and receiving waiver approval from (the Air Education Training Command), we painted the tanks white."

With the change, the 56th LRS hopes for no delay in aircraft take-offs, all while maintaining mission sorties and ensuring pilots meet training requirements.

"It ensures the F-35 is able to meet its sortie requirements," said Chief Master Sgt. Ralph Resch, the 56th LRS fuels manager. "We are taking proactive measures to mitigate any possible aircraft shutdowns due to high fuel temperatures in the future."

The squadron adopted the idea after it was first implemented at Edwards Air Force Base, California.

In the summer months at Luke AFB, temperatures can reach beyond 110 degrees. Painting the tanks white now will help prevent fuel stored in the tanks from over-heating.

"This is the short-term goal to cool the fuel for the F-35; however, the long-term fix is to have parking shades for the refuelers," Resch said...."

Source: http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... downs.aspx


Shelters and white painted trucks - not something you really want in forwards areas.



Hopefully this whole episode shows why its bad for enlisted support personnel to take the initiative and proactively work to stop problems before they even happen. Thanks Maus.

And BTW, Fuel trucks operate in forward areas all the time, unless you think that Bradleys, Abrams, and hundreds of other Humvees and trucks run on hope and tanker farts.

Note how well the Green blends in too.

http://olive-drab.com/images/id_hemtt_m978_700_06.jpg

http://washingtonguard.org/news/images/ ... /COVER.JPG

Good god the age of the internet... Where if someone has never heard of something before, its never happened before. And one doesn't just leap to conclusions, they cannonball into them

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2014, 13:41
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:
Would having a 'fuel refrigerator' powered by the same fuel from the hot truck help?


LOL@spaz. You think in an age of hovering super sonic stealth fighters that can operate from small carriers that the technology exists to refrigerate the tank of a truck?? back to reality my friend.

Maybe some day, maybe some day. When we have floating cars and I'm sending my kids to space school with their rocket packs...

http://coffeecommander.net/wp-content/u ... Pickup.jpg

This problem will be unsolvable for a at least another few decades.

OMFG!! Someone get that guy off that death trap!

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834 ... 671970b-pi

How will they operate at forward bases!

http://gdb.rferl.org/266C1B1A-47BE-4F91 ... 24_s_n.jpg

How did they find them!?

http://online.wsj.com/media/101311pod03_J.jpg

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/57038353.jpg

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2014, 18:56
by KamenRiderBlade
Sadly, with the age of the internet, people haven't learned common sense or logic.

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2014, 19:33
by spazsinbad
Lookin' to plink some of dem white tankers...

Image

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2014, 20:53
by KamenRiderBlade
Is it me, or does the Gunpod look like it has a smiley face on the front where the intake / barrel holes are located?

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2014, 20:54
by KamenRiderBlade
http://www.dailytech.com/Air+Force+Worr ... e36985.htm

And the purported F-35 fuel problem keeps on spreading throughout the web.

-_-

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2014, 21:07
by spazsinbad
Yep the smiley face is becuz of this quote from above URL:
"...given the delicate nature of the powerful engine that drives the jet...."

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2014, 22:09
by neurotech
thepointblank wrote:The F/A-18 has a number of fuel temperature limits; one that comes to mind is if you are on the ground, have less than 1,000 pounds of fuel, and external temperatures exceed 30C, the Hornet will fairly quickly throw a Airframe Mounted Accessory Drive warning light, which the listed procedure is to shut down the engine involved.

If you are in the air with less than 4,000 pounds fuel remaining at low altitude, the pilot is required to monitor fuel temperatures as again, the Airframe Mounted Accessory Drive could overheat. In fact, if the fuel temperature exceeds 75C, the NATOPS says you need to land immediately.

Also, in hot weather conditions, the NATOPS says one needs to keep all non-essential electronics shut down while on the ground unless you are just about to take off.

The F-16's flight manual also indicates that there are engine fuel temperature limits; if the hot fuel warning light goes off, you are limited to 10,000ft maximum altitude and you need to increase fuel consumption to 4000pph, until you can land, which you are required to do so immediately.

Exactly. This isn't an F-35 only issue, although its been reported as such in certain media.

The early SuperBugs had major issues with high fuel temp and trapped fuel etc. when flying in hot conditions. On one flight that I recall, the crew had a dual AMAD caution during takeoff and aborted. The cause was hot fuel being loaded into the jet that got even hotter during taxiing.

What I find strange in all these discussions is that most people seems to think that having hot fuel in a refueling tanker is not a problem. Fuel vapor is quite explosive and JP-8 has a flash point of 38 Degrees Celsius.

I found this when searching for further info, from AZ National Guard;
http://www.azguard.gov/AZAASF1/quizstar ... safety.ppt

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2014, 22:38
by spazsinbad
Had not known about JP-8: PDF made from the .PPT above attached
Military Jet Fuel Grades and Specifications (NATO)

"...JP-8 is the military equivalent of Jet A-1 with the addition of corrosion inhibitor and anti-icing additives; it meets the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-T-83188D. It is the dominant military jet fuel grade for NATO airforces. The UK also have a specification for this grade namely DEF STAN 91-87 AVTUR/FSII (formerly DERD 2453). NATO Code F-34...."

Source: http://www.shell.com/global/products-se ... rades.html

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2014, 06:29
by smsgtmac
KamenRiderBlade wrote:http://www.dailytech.com/Air+Force+Worries+Hot+Fuel+Could+Harm+F35+Proactively+Paints+Trucks+Shiny/article36985.htm
And the purported F-35 fuel problem keeps on spreading throughout the web.

Michael Hatamoto.jpg
Common "Dorkus Maxima Left Coastus" in its native habitat

Obviously a 'deep thinker' who should be taken seriously [/sarc]

From: https://plus.google.com/110843335283283802166/posts

And....
My Word! Have you seen the comment thread at Breaking Defense? They're unhappy with Colin Clark calling for sanity on this story and there appears to be a team fiction-writing project going on in the thread rewriting the story to suit their taste. They're making sh*t up you wouldn't believe!

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2014, 13:36
by XanderCrews
She is going to make some girl very happy one day

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2014, 15:13
by sferrin
XanderCrews wrote:She is going to make some girl very happy one day



I thought that was dude. That's one fugly chick. Or is it a dude? Definitely has a punchable face whatever it is.

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2014, 03:40
by Corsair1963
So far, however, "The jets are performing phenomenally...there's no problem."


"This is not an F-35 issue; there are no special restrictions on the F-35 related to fuel temperature. The F-35 uses the same fuel as other military aircraft. It can fly under the same temperature conditions as any other advanced military aircraft," the Pentagon's F-35 Joint Program Office told CNBC.



http://www.cnbc.com/id/102253195#.

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2014, 04:46
by spazsinbad
'zero-one' Pointed out same URL here earlier: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=26708&p=282616&hilit=Hasson#p282616

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2014, 06:18
by Corsair1963
Sorry, my mistake........don't have the time to keep up as much as I would like. :?

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 10:29
by spazsinbad
No worries - just that it is easy for those experiencing deja vu to know that things were seen before and/or discussed elsewhere. Here is a good example how the FUD of Chinese Whispering gets around and distorted - but we knew that...
RAF's £150million stealth fighter jet could 'shut down' after overheating fears
15 Dec 2014 John Tmomey [2 mommies? so that is his problem]

"The RAF’s new £150m stealth fighter jet will “shut down” if the aircraft’s fuel becomes too hot, test pilots now fear...." [FUD = Fear Uncertainty Doubt]

...The problem emerged last week at Luke airforce base in the United States where the F-35 Lightning 11 aircraft is being tested.

The F-35, the most expensive aircraft ever produced, is designed to use its fuel as a cooling agent.

But if the fuel gets too hot the whole aircraft could shut down in mid flight causing the jet to crash, according to aviation engineers...."

Source: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/547086 ... ting-fears

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2015, 01:05
by KamenRiderBlade
Marine’s Construct Tactical Fuel System
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv7lWhOmFuc

Another forward thinking option that the USMC are doing.

With this kind of setup, they can have cold fuel ready to go.

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2015, 00:29
by beepa
Off topic a bit but interesting vid of F35b mid air refuel...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWcTJUDaYAE

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2015, 05:38
by archeman
beepa wrote:Off topic a bit but interesting vid of F35b mid air refuel...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWcTJUDaYAE


That really is an interesting video.
What the heck are they doing up there (2nd half)?

From those perspectives, the 'B's neck muscles really stand out.

neck-muscle.jpg
ScreenHunter_06 May. 26 21.38.jpg

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2015, 09:44
by Dragon029
Sorry to bring up an old thread like this, but I'm looking for a particular chart / diagram plotting fuel temperature vs time in an F-35 sortie. It was only perhaps 1/6th of the page (relatively small), and it didn't have any units listed.

I'm pretty sure it was in a PDF, but I can't say for certain.

Anyone know of the chart I'm talking about and are able to link it?

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2015, 21:05
by Lightndattic
archeman wrote:
beepa wrote:Off topic a bit but interesting vid of F35b mid air refuel...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWcTJUDaYAE


That really is an interesting video.
What the heck are they doing up there (2nd half)?



They're doing the same thing I do on my motorcycle when stuck behind slower traffic.

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 09:49
by Dragon029
A post made by user Frostiken on Reddit, who has previously worked as (to my understanding) an avionics tech for the F-35, explaining the "hot fuel problem" to another user:

The F-35 uses fuel as a heatsink. The PTMS (power/thermal management system) system is fiendishly complicated and robust so I wish I had a block diagram to be a little more accurate here, but all you really need to know is this: under typical circumstances, avionics are cooled with PAO (polyalphaolefin, liquid coolant) which is pumped through heat exchangers to keep it below a certain temperature. The radar system and DAS especially are two of the hottest-running systems in the jet. Heat is dumped into fuel to keep the PAO cool. Fuel is subsequently cooled via the Fuel-Air Heat Exchanger (FAHX), which is fed with ram air. This heat exchanger and ram air duct are located above the right intake, opposite the gun.

The problem occurs when your fuel reaches thermal saturation. Now the F-35 carries tons of ****** fuel. The thing is a giant flying fuel tank. It carries more fuel than the F-22, and has half as many engines. It carries an F-15's plus an F-16's worth of internal fuel. If you asked me to describe the F-35 in one word it would be 'fuel'. So under typical flight (it's cold as **** in the air and the fuel-air heat exchanger works great) this isn't an issue.

Where problems arise is when the aircraft land after flying a sortie. Because they land with very little fuel, it means that the fuel has diminished ability to sink the PTMS heat. Less fuel = heats up faster. Furthermore, without the ram air and with the substantially hotter atmospheric temperatures at ground-level, the FAHX has to rely on the substantially less powerful (compared to ram air) suction of the IPP (integrated power package, basically the beating heart of the aircraft) to move air across the FAHX. (Sidenote: remember that I said the PTMS system is fiendishly complicated? There's something like eight different modes of operation for the system all for various states of thermal saturation or failure. In the event that the IPP can't draw air across the FAHX, there's a little fan in there that will kick on in a last-ditch effort to help keep the fuel cool. It looks like a huge heavy-duty version of the heatsinks you put on a PC CPU). When the fuel gets too hot the jet enters Thermal Management mode and shuts down the hotter avionics to avoid damage. Like I said, not an issue when flying, but an issue when they're at 1,000 pounds of gas or less and landing after a day of flying. This means that the post-flight Vehicle Systems test (VSBIT) is going to fail, which is a code-3 grounding situation. But it's a recognized problem so not much thought is put into it.

The problems are exacerbated when you fuel them up from a fuel truck, however, and they already have fuel in them. Air Force fuel trucks are a dark evergreen color which absorbs a lot of thermal radiation from the sun, which makes the fuel in the truck heat up. You pump all this hot fuel into a jet that already has lots of hot fuel in it, and simply put, you aren't going to be able to run the jet until that fuel radiatively cools down enough to adequately sink avionics heat. Until that fuel is cool enough (remember that the larger the difference in temperatures, the faster and more efficiently heat can be swapped), you can't get the jet off the ground because it won't pass its preflight VSBIT.

This is where the story about the Air Force painting the fuel trucks white came from, in order to keep the fuel in the trucks as cool as possible to help the jet cool down and be able to quick-turn it if need be. It's a problem in-work, and it's simply because the F-35 avionics are so advanced and powerful that they generate a lot of heat. This actually is a rather interesting problem and I would therefore hazard a guess and say that if other fifth-gen-plus aircraft that are still in development (like the T-50) aren't having thermal management issues, it reflects that the avionics are substantially less powerful than what the F-35 has at its disposal.

Even the F-22 had thermal management issues and the military-hating media was all over that too, so this isn't a new problem. All that said, personally I haven't seen a single jet miss its second sortie of the day because it was still too hot from its first flight.

So basically we're dealing with Mechwarrior-style heat issues. Bottom line: thermodynamics ain't noone's fool.




Is there not some way to put heat sinks, all finned and ribbed, on trailing parts of the airframe to bleed excess heat, in conjunction with controls already in place? Or would this severely compromise its stealth capabilities?


You may have caught my post before I added some more at the beginning. The jet doesn't have any problem keeping fuel cool when it's flying. There's a ram air duct above the right intake that feeds the primary fuel-air heat exchanger. All the thermal issues happen when the jet is very low on fuel and mostly caused by heat buildup once its on the ground. Air temperature at ground level is scorching compared to at altitude, and without that delicious ram air, it has to rely on the IPP to pull air across the heat exchanger, which isn't as good.

Honestly even then, it doesn't happen very often. Maybe once or twice a week out of a full flying schedule, and this is in July in ****** Florida. I suspect that the 'white fuel truck' thing is specifically only going to be for 'hot-pit' refueling, where the aircraft lands, is refueled, and takes off again without shutting down.

Point is that more heat sinks isn't going to really do much, and wouldn't be worth it for the minor issue that the hot fuel is causing. Not only would that add weight, but since I believe (I don't know really anything about the stuff) the RAM coatings function as an insulator, it simply wouldn't really work.

This is a problem that could be solved with software, as the 'problem' is really entirely caused by the jet not wanting to pass its VSBIT when it is in TMS mode. There already are some workarounds used on the ground for various VSBIT failures.

Really I think if we were looking for a 'solution' regarding the fuel trucks, the best long-term solution (which I don't doubt may actually end up being the Air Force's ultimate idea) is to just upgrade the fuel trucks to cool the fuel as it comes down the fuel line.


Oh, so more than this being a genuine weakness of the aircraft, this is more a "We get that these conditions produce circumstances that look frightening, but really aren't" situation that the testing/diagnostic protocols and logic haven't been modernized to account for?


That's basically exactly it. That's why I said it is a real issue, but it's definitely not what it sounds like. You have to understand how the cooling system of the F-35 works to make sense of how 'white fuel trucks' and 'hot fuel' aren't really problems that are as stupid as they sound.

But even, the issue still isn't really that big of a deal. It's an irritating inconvenience more than anything, and it only really is ever going to affect one aspect of the aircraft - hot-pit refuels from a fuel truck. Which considering I've never seen that actually done in any warzone I've been in, is pretty low priority in the big picture.

Re: F-35 fuel handling

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2015, 04:19
by cantaz
We use fuel as heat sinks even in legacy Hornets, both "scoops" one sees right behind the fuselage stations are fuel/heat exchangers.

Heck, these days it's probably easier to list off aircraft that don't use fuel for some form of cooling.