Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 19:01
by SpudmanWP
Bound to happen eventually.... Still a butt-ton safer than a Harrier.

Prayers to the pilot

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 19:13
by ricnunes
This is the first F-35 (from any variant) to actually crash, right? This since it flew for the first time since 2006.
So and while this shouldn't happen at all, there aren't many (if any) fighter aircraft programs that can claim to only have a single crash after 12 years of continuous flying.

I also hope that the pilot is OK.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 19:16
by krorvik
Good to see the pilot doing OK.

Yeah, stats say this was bound to happen sometime. Will be interesting to see play out in the media though.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 19:51
by knowan

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 23:09
by steve2267
Reported video of the crash scene. Found on Twitter.

Not a lot to see: a plume of dark, gray smoke. Weather seems fine: mostly sunny, maybe call it broken clouds. Wind appears light.


Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 23:14
by dragracingmaniac
...cue the haters in 3..2..1... :bang:

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 03:05
by knowan
awsome wrote: Ok I'll bite... actually I don't really give a crap either way but I'm just imagining the comments by the F-16.net true believers if this had been the SU 57...


Big difference between a plane that has over 300 built and 150,000 total flight hours total, and a plane with only 10 prototypes built and a tiny fraction of those flight hours.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 03:15
by smsgtmac
awsome wrote:
dragracingmaniac wrote:...cue the haters in 3..2..1... :bang:



Ok I'll bite... actually I don't really give a crap either way but I'm just imagining the comments by the F-16.net true believers if this had been the SU 57...

If the Su-57 had over 300 examples flying, most of them now operational and for multiple users/countries, and been used in combat by two countries, AND had flown ~150k flight hours before the first in-flight loss, it would be pretty much the same.

But its the SU-57, so most would just chuckle knowingly.
Happy to help. :wink:

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 03:53
by element1loop
awsome wrote:
dragracingmaniac wrote:...cue the haters in 3..2..1... :bang:


Ok I'll bite...


Can you articulate precisely why you hate the F-35? Is it due to performance, lethality, safety or vulnerability issues?

Or is it just a personal ideological hang-up thing, which you never managed to shake or grow beyond, since your college days?

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 04:00
by white_lightning35
All in all, it was the biggest week the F-35 has ever had, although this is an unfortunate event. Think about it, the first ever combat usage by the US, the first ever landing on the QE, and the first ever crash. Quite the busy week. It is really unfortunate that the crash put a damper on what was an impressive week, otherwise.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 04:09
by spazsinbad
You forgot GREAT LRIP 11 prices. "...[F-35A] $89.2 million per aircraft [which includes F135 engine], a 5.4 % reduction..."

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 04:26
by element1loop
awsome wrote:
element1loop wrote:
awsome wrote:
Ok I'll bite...


Can you articulate precisely why you hate the F-35? Is it due to performance, lethality, safety or vulnerability issues?

Or is it just a personal ideological hang-up thing, which you never managed to shake or grow beyond, since your college days?



Speaking of college they seem to have never taught you to read beyond the first three words. Why does it matter to you what my opinion is of the F-35 or is it just the possibility that someone is questioning Americas exceptionalism?



So not due to performance, lethality, safety or vulnerability issues then.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 05:26
by geforcerfx
white_lightning35 wrote:All in all, it was the biggest week the F-35 has ever had, although this is an unfortunate event. Think about it, the first ever combat usage by the US, the first ever landing on the QE, and the first ever crash. Quite the busy week. It is really unfortunate that the crash put a damper on what was an impressive week, otherwise.


First thing I thought of as well, after all the good that happened this week then the crash happens. I mean still a insanely impressive run and safety record, but any person here knew it would would happen at some point, happy the pilot made it out ok. I guess a positive to take away from this is we now know the ejection seat for sure works and won't kill the pilot right away like the blogger mafia tried to claim a few years back.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 05:36
by popcorn
Glad the pilot punched out safely... Even happier he didn't do so over hostile territory.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 06:57
by alloycowboy
Can you articulate precisely why you hate the F-35? Is it due to performance, lethality, safety or vulnerability issues?

Or is it just a personal ideological hang-up thing, which you never managed to shake or grow beyond, since your college days?[/quote]


Speaking of college they seem to have never taught you to read beyond the first three words. Why does it matter to you what my opinion is of the F-35 or is it just the possibility that someone is questioning Americas exceptionalism?[/quote]

So awesome; just to summarize, you basicly don't like the F-35 because of Hoop Stress?

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 09:31
by cola
knowan wrote:...a plane that has over 300 built and 100,000 total flight hours total...

...in 18 years of development..."Great success!", to praphrase Borat.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 09:58
by botsing
It's interesting that trolls visit this thread to point out non-vital minor details without the willingness to look at the bigger picture.

They are the incredible callous people who celebrate a crash and possibly minor injuries since it empowers their underbelly feelings.


Now back to the real topic, I found this picture with statistics of other aircraft:
Accidents-by-Aircraft-Type-Navy-vs-Marine-.png

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2017/09/mar ... mes-navys/

Does anyone else know sources were to get better statistics about Class A mishaps and write-offs per military aircraft over their years of use?

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 11:28
by spazsinbad
knowan wrote:
awsome wrote: Ok I'll bite... actually I don't really give a crap either way but I'm just imagining the comments by the F-16.net true believers if this had been the SU 57...


Big difference between a plane that has over 300 built and 100,000 total flight hours total, and a plane with only 10 prototypes built and a tiny fraction of those flight hours.

Facts are in LM F-35 FAST FACTS or:
"...More than 320 F-35s of all types have been delivered, and they are operating at 15 bases worldwide. According to Lockheed Martin, more than 680 pilots and 6,100 maintainers have been trained on the jet, and the fleet has passed 155,000 cumulative flight hours…." http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... ot-11.aspx 28 Sep 2018

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 17:32
by strykerxo
cola wrote:
knowan wrote:...a plane that has over 300 built and 100,000 total flight hours total...

...in 18 years of development..."Great success!", to praphrase Borat.


Russian attempts at a 5th gen AC

1. MiG-1.44
2. Su-47
3. Su-57

Nearly 30 years of prototypes, testing, development and nothing to show for it, and I won't get into the plethora of other issues associated with these AC.

US 5th generation AC

1. B-2
2. F-22
3. F-35, in 3 major variants
4. 6th gen. ??????

F-22 so superior, multiple countries wanted it and and now are working on F-22 like AC. F-35, exports to many countries, if it was not a superior AC, why would their experts buy it.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 18:00
by marsavian
Don't forget to add to your list, 0. F-117, which saw active service in Iraq and Serbia. The Su-57 still hasn't reached this level of stealth decades later ...

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 18:52
by knowan
botsing wrote:Now back to the real topic, I found this picture with statistics of other aircraft:
Accidents-by-Aircraft-Type-Navy-vs-Marine-.png

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2017/09/mar ... mes-navys/

Does anyone else know sources were to get better statistics about Class A mishaps and write-offs per military aircraft over their years of use?


How many Class A accidents has the F-35 had now? This crash, the F-35C that ingested a refueling probe recently, and the F-35A fire in 2014 would be three by my count.

With the F-35 up to 150,000 flight hours, that is 2.0 Class A accidents per 100,000 flight hours.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 19:01
by spazsinbad
The info about CLASS A accidents has been well known since the F-35B was recently written off by the USMC after it had a weapon bay hydraulic fire inflight. Then two F-35A fires on the ground, the F-35C debris in engine and the F-35B crash. 5

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 19:33
by XanderCrews
cola wrote:
knowan wrote:...a plane that has over 300 built and 100,000 total flight hours total...

...in 18 years of development..."Great success!", to praphrase Borat.



Cola is back!!

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 19:42
by XanderCrews
awsome wrote:
dragracingmaniac wrote:...cue the haters in 3..2..1... :bang:



Ok I'll bite... actually I don't really give a crap either way but I'm just imagining the comments by the F-16.net true believers if this had been the SU 57...


Yawn.

All aircraft crash.

Crashes are the least of the Su-57s worries.

Eastern block standards of safety are very different than the west.


Image

once again the F-35 falls short of the Gripen which had 2 crashes by now.


F-35 will continue on just fine.

hope this covers everything


cola wrote:
knowan wrote:...a plane that has over 300 built and 100,000 total flight hours total...

...in 18 years of development..."Great success!", to praphrase Borat.



Cola is back!! Wow I missed the bitter cheap shots. its great to have you.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 22:29
by knowan
spazsinbad wrote:The info about CLASS A accidents has been well known since the F-35B was recently written off by the USMC after it had a weapon bay hydraulic fire inflight. Then two F-35A fires on the ground, the F-35C debris in engine and the F-35B crash. 5


That makes for 3.33 Class per 100,000 flight hours. Pretty low for such a new aircraft.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 23:20
by sferrin
XanderCrews wrote:
cola wrote:
knowan wrote:...a plane that has over 300 built and 100,000 total flight hours total...

...in 18 years of development..."Great success!", to praphrase Borat.



Cola is back!!


Well you had to know this would bring the roaches out from under their rocks. I'm sure SNAFU is somewhere lubing himself up in his gimp suit getting ready to party with Carlo Kopp.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2018, 00:18
by aquietguy
dragracingmaniac wrote:...cue the haters in 3..2..1... :bang:

Can't run, can't turn, can't climb, can't land.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2018, 01:13
by spazsinbad
[someone I cannot figure out because 'you can't embed 3 quotes!?]
Well you had to know this would bring the roaches out from under their rocks. I'm sure SNAFU is somewhere lubing himself up in his gimp suit getting ready to party with Carlo Kopp.

Some Body Help SNAFU to lose it:
"...I still have yet to hear what that [sensor fusion] is. If you ask 3 people you'll get three different definitions. What I do know is that one person sitting on his behind going at high subsonic speeds has to process all that info. Will they be able to and will that lead to winning the fight instead of information overload is beyond me but that's what they're hanging their hats on (if you're telling me that its putting everything on one screen instead of three then i'm gonna lose it!)…. 29 Sep 2018 https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2018/09/a ... rated.html

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2018, 02:32
by optimist
XanderCrews wrote:
cola wrote:
knowan wrote:...a plane that has over 300 built and 100,000 total flight hours total...

...in 18 years of development..."Great success!", to praphrase Borat.



Cola is back!!


The other one that has returned to the forums is Bill Sweetman, AKA LowObservable. Has he finished with norton grumman? He went full stealth for a year or so.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2018, 16:36
by SpudmanWP
Pilot released from Hospital
The Beaufort Marine Corps Air Station pilot who ejected from an F-35 jet Friday morning before it crashed on Little Barnwell Island has been released from the hospital, according to Lt. Samuel Stephenson of the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing.

...

The pilot, a U.S. Marine, ejected safely, Harrison said, and was evaluated by medical personnel.

No casualties on the ground were reported and the aircraft was not carrying any ordnance, Harrison said.

Stephenson said Saturday morning that flight operations at the air station will continue as normal Saturday and that the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing will also continue to operate as normal until directed otherwise.


More at the jump
https://www.islandpacket.com/news/local ... =mainstage

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2018, 17:16
by steve2267
Just an FYI that orients the reader to the locale of the reported crash site, Little Barnwell Island to Merrit Airfield At MCAS Beaufort. I have read one news report, posted here I think, that stated the pilot was not attempting to land. Dunno if he had just taken off or what. I'm trying hard to wait for any solid information released by the USMC instead of speculating.

Anyway, FWIW...

F-35B_crash_LittleBarnwellIsland_location_relative_Merrit_Field.PNG

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2018, 19:49
by ricnunes
SpudmanWP wrote:Pilot released from Hospital
The Beaufort Marine Corps Air Station pilot who ejected from an F-35 jet Friday morning before it crashed on Little Barnwell Island has been released from the hospital, according to Lt. Samuel Stephenson of the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing.

...

The pilot, a U.S. Marine, ejected safely, Harrison said, and was evaluated by medical personnel.

No casualties on the ground were reported and the aircraft was not carrying any ordnance, Harrison said.

Stephenson said Saturday morning that flight operations at the air station will continue as normal Saturday and that the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing will also continue to operate as normal until directed otherwise.


More at the jump
https://www.islandpacket.com/news/local ... =mainstage


Glad that the pilot is ok!

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2018, 21:25
by lamoey
I have not seen any information about any grounding, even temporarily, of any of the F-35 fleet, following the crash. Does this indicate they have information enough to tell it was not a technical malfunction that caused the crash?

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2018, 22:15
by spazsinbad
'lamoey': "...Does this indicate they have information enough to tell it was not a technical malfunction that caused the crash?" As good a guess as any. I'm certain once something official is said about the crash cause we will know about it eh.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2018, 23:06
by Dragon029
Something to remember too is that when we had the first F-35B written off for a weapon bay in-flight fire they didn't ground any jets because the issue was known and theoretically manageable via increased monitoring of that wiring bracket in maintenance. If the F-35B didn't suffer something like a low altitude bird strike then it could have been a known, theoretically manageable problem.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 01:41
by steve2267
Sucking a good sized bird through the lift fan might ruin your whole day, esp. depending on where you might be in STOVL Mode 4.

I know they fired frozen chickens at the aircraft canopy. Do we know to what extend they fired birds through a running F135 and/or the lift fan?

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 02:18
by element1loop
Dragon029 wrote:Something to remember too is that when we had the first F-35B written off for a weapon bay in-flight fire they didn't ground any jets because the issue was known and theoretically manageable via increased monitoring of that wiring bracket in maintenance. If the F-35B didn't suffer something like a low altitude bird strike then it could have been a known, theoretically manageable problem.


Many civil aircraft send logs on limit-exceed, performance trend, anomalous incidents, via SATCOM while in flight.

Not regarding this particular incident per-sec, but do you know if it's the case an F-35 in flight does this to give basic information on aircraft condition to maintenance and logistics heads-up. Or to make schedules for checks or part orders so an off-aircraft datalog of a developing system issue (non bird-strike, etc.) exists on the ground before an incident/accident occurs? I vaguely remember something along those lines being discussed (separate to the false-positives diagnostic issues). In new aircraft the trend is to move such data off the aircraft (or at least to duplicate it off-aircraft in relevant locations) before it turns into an incident, and before it lands, mitigating the potential for another complete data loss event from a crash. I would have expected that sort of system to also occur for a new production fighter like F-35, given fighter crashes or damage events can often lead to a complete loss, especially for a single. You'd want that data on the ground first, if you could get it in bursts before the aircraft was unable to transmit. And you can get it, or some of it, so the mysteries of prior-gen aircraft losses shouldn't be as opaque now, or slow to grasp the under laying nature, or course of events. The indicators should already exist off board and some of the crash event data should have also been sent, before it hit the ground. There’s no reason why high bandwidth comms can’t keep sending detailed emergency incident data after an ejection has occurred. In fact, besides raising flags everywhere, I’d make it the system’s last act and highest priority, as soon as an ejection is initiated.

i.e. you 'eject' the aircraft condition data, incident data, and basic flight data, not just the pilot.

To my way of thinking, detailed data on a crash's sequence of events should exist on the ground, before the lost aircraft hits it.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 02:52
by spazsinbad
lamoey wrote:I have not seen any information about any grounding, even temporarily, of any of the F-35 fleet, following the crash. Does this indicate they have information enough to tell it was not a technical malfunction that caused the crash?

"...Finally, Winter [head of the Joint Strike Fighter program, Vice Adm. Mat Winter] noted that neither Britain nor the Marines have taken any fleet-wide actions to curb F-35B flights in the wake of last Friday’s crash near Beaufort, S.C. Normally, if a systemic problem is suspected as the cause of a major crash a fleet might well be grounded or stood down for a safety review. That, Winter noted, has not happened." 02 Oct 2018 https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/f-3 ... 100-f-35s/

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 02:54
by spazsinbad
Last I recall reading about ALIS transmitting data from an F-35 & F135 inflight was that it was imminent but not now for various reasons. Perhaps an ALIS update has rectified that issue - meanwhile saving data when F-35 on the ground was very slow but speeded up recently by an ALIS update. I guess ALIS thread should have details.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 02:57
by kimjongnumbaun
steve2267 wrote:Sucking a good sized bird through the lift fan might ruin your whole day, esp. depending on where you might be in STOVL Mode 4.

I know they fired frozen chickens at the aircraft canopy. Do we know to what extend they fired birds through a running F135 and/or the lift fan?



I can't find it, but there's a video where they shoot the chicken at the F-35B door and the fan just spits it out.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 03:01
by spazsinbad
steve2267 wrote:Sucking a good sized bird through the lift fan might ruin your whole day, esp. depending on where you might be in STOVL Mode 4.

I know they fired frozen chickens at the aircraft canopy. Do we know to what extend they fired birds through a running F135 and/or the lift fan?

"I'll tell you a story about a man named Steve - a poor mountaineer but he kept his family fed".... A long long time ago now F-35A AA-1 was destroyed gradually deliberately along with a STOVL engine separately in a necessary mandated event. IIRC correctly the engine did good suffering lots of damage along with the LiftFan I think but of course one would have to know ALL THE DETAILS eh. Otherwise I recall a comment from a GENERALE to the effect that one could throw a flat iron? into the engine and it would still run (perhaps I've exaggerated). Who knows. Supposedly the F-35 is an all round tough bird, there is even a story the flight controls can compensate for damage very well - even if half a tail? is missing. The stories EH. :roll:

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 03:13
by spazsinbad
Here we go: "...the F-35 can fly with one horizontal tail and one rudder missing...." http://www.aviationpros.com/article/109 ... ke-fighter

Could not recall all the amerkanisms LIVE FIRE TEST: http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/asnews ... ring10.pdf
&
F135 LIVE FIRE TEST: http://jaspo.csd.disa.mil/images/archiv ... spring.pdf

THE TWO PDFs are ATTACHED probably because they no longer reside at the URLs but DUNNO. Note that the F135 STOVL engine test included a FUEL INGESTION TEST Series for those concerned about fuel leaking from hose drogue earlier. AND.... I'm certain this same material has been posted several times in various places in this forum so go look for it.

SEARCH ON JASPO to find stuff: viewtopic.php?f=56&t=25547&p=289805&hilit=JASPO#p289805
&
2012 'SWP' find: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=14199&p=221179&hilit=JASPO#p221179

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 15:19
by SpudmanWP
The F-35B crash was due a faulty part and not a design issue.  Temp fleet grounding till inspected.

“The U.S. Services and international partners have temporarily suspended F-35 flight operations while the enterprise conducts a fleet-wide inspection of a fuel tube within the engine on all F-35 aircraft,” the F-35 Joint Program Office announced in a statement Thursday morning.

“If suspect fuel tubes are installed, the part will be removed and replaced. If known good fuel tubes are already installed, then those aircraft will be returned to flight status. Inspections are expected to be completed within the next 24 to 48 hours.”


​​​​​​​More at the JUMP
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/y ... all-f-35s/

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 15:40
by maus92
To be expected from time to time - when you have one engine.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 16:12
by SpudmanWP
Plenty of Hornets (both Classic and Super) have crashed when only one engine failed.

The myth of 2 being statistically better than one has been debunked a long time ago.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 16:20
by lamoey
Back in my F-16 days we had to check each plane for specific serial numbers, if a TCTO came out saying parts with certain serial numbers had to be replaced. I am assuming they now can tell from ALIS what plane has what serial numbers installed. If they have found a substandard batch, it should be easy to limit the grounding, but since they have to inspect every aircraft they must still be working to identify if a certain production batch is to blame.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 16:54
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:Plenty of Hornets (both Classic and Super) have crashed when only one engine failed.

The myth of 2 being statistically better than one has been debunked a long time ago.


Well it is Maus we're talking about you know.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 17:34
by krorvik
maus92 wrote:To be expected from time to time - when you have one engine.


Actually, the more engines you have, the greater the risk of hitting a bad part ;)

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 17:36
by ricnunes
maus92 wrote:To be expected from time to time - when you have one engine.


Err, you mean like this:
https://thenewsrep.com/100850/us-navy-s ... -happened/
https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... -says.html

:roll:

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 17:40
by hythelday
ricnunes wrote:
maus92 wrote:To be expected from time to time - when you have one engine.


Err, you mean like this:
https://thenewsrep.com/100850/us-navy-s ... -happened/
https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... -says.html

:roll:


I don't expect @maus92 to come up with an answer; he prefers hit and run tactics these days - say something dumb and instigating then disappear for the next 6 months.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 17:50
by ricnunes
hythelday wrote:I don't expect @maus92 to come up with an answer; he prefers hit and run tactics these days - say something dumb and instigating then disappear for the next 6 months.


Yeah I know.
Actually when I post these responses to Maus, I probably have more in mind any newer or new members who may join us here at F-16.net and read these particular threads/posts rather than Maus himself (due to the reason that you correctly mentioned).

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 18:08
by krorvik
ricnunes wrote:Actually when I post these responses to Maus, I probably have more in mind any newer or new members who may join us here at F-16.net and read these particular threads/posts rather than Maus himself (due to the reason that you correctly mentioned).


Precisely :) Simple, to the counterpoint answers.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 19:23
by hythelday
Hmmm, the Brits continue with flights: https://mobile.twitter.com/DefenceHQ/st ... 0293050368

But the Israelis grounded their fleet: https://mobile.twitter.com/IDFSpokesper ... 9769836546

Here's some tin foil thoughts - Israelis are deliberately misleading the public to trick S-300 crews into dropping their guard :D
In reality however, this is most likely due to the fact that operators know which jets contain faulty part, so the Brits paused flights of said fighters, while the Israel is likely playing it safe and double-checking evry jet.

Also, I find it impressive that they managed to narrow it down so precisely - I suppose such fragile part as fuel line must have been surely destroyed in the crash/fire? Meaning they must have uncovered the cause due to ALIS, not pilot report or crash "forensic examination"?

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 21:16
by ricnunes
krorvik wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Actually when I post these responses to Maus, I probably have more in mind any newer or new members who may join us here at F-16.net and read these particular threads/posts rather than Maus himself (due to the reason that you correctly mentioned).


Precisely :) Simple, to the counterpoint answers.


Exactly :)

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 21:21
by spazsinbad
Bit about F-35B QE Trials continuing from this article have been posted earlier here: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=403553&hilit=McLeary#p403553

F-35 Flights Suspended While F135 Fuel Tubes Checked; UK F-35Bs Keep Flying on HMS QE
11 Oct 2018 Colin Clark and Paul McLeary

"WASHINGTON: It may not last long, but the entire F-35 fleet — all versions from all countries — was just grounded “while the enterprise conducts a fleet-wide inspection of a fuel tube within the engine on all F-35 aircraft.”...

...“If suspect fuel tubes are installed, the part will be removed and replaced,” the JPO statement says. “If known good fuel tubes are already installed, then those aircraft will be returned to flight status. Inspections are expected to be completed within the next 24 to 48 hours.”

So the grounding may only last a few days if officials are confident the fixes address the cause of the Beaufort crash. (Pentagon officials will bridle at the use of the term “grounded,” which in strict military usage means the planes are not allowed to fly until further notice, while this is temporary)…. [so why use that term?]

...Here’s the Joint Program Office statement in full:

F-35 Fuel Tube Inspection and Flight Operations
The U.S. Services and international partners have temporarily suspended F-35 flight operations while the enterprise conducts a fleet-wide inspection of a fuel tube within the engine on all F-35 aircraft. If suspect fuel tubes are installed, the part will be removed and replaced. If known good fuel tubes are already installed, then those aircraft will be returned to flight status. Inspections are expected to be completed within the next 24 to 48 hours.

The action to perform the inspection is driven from initial data from the ongoing investigation of the F-35B that crashed in the vicinity of Beaufort, South Carolina on 28 September. The aircraft mishap board is continuing its work and the U.S. Marine Corps will provide additional information when it becomes available.

The primary goal following any mishap is the prevention of future incidents. We will take every measure to ensure safe operations while we deliver, sustain and modernize the F-35 for the warfighter and our defense partners."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/f-3 ... on-hms-qe/

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 21:31
by spazsinbad
More about ADIR:
Worldwide F-35 fleet grounded temporarily for inspections related to crash
11 Oct 2018 Garrett Reim

"...For its part, the Israeli Air Force which operates a proprietary version of the aircraft, the F-35I, says it is also testing its fighters. “The Commander of the IAF, Maj Gen Amikam Norkin, decided to take additional precautions and conduct tests on all F-35I aircraft, despite the accident having occurred in a model not used by the IAF and although no malfunctions have been found in IAF aircraft. The testing will take several days and once completed the planes will return to full operations. In the meanwhile, if the F-35I are required for operational action, the F-35I aircraft are ready and prepared.”"

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ec-452617/

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2018, 00:13
by spazsinbad
This is news (or I have not seen it before now)…. otherwise usual blather about grounding / inspection etc.
All US F-35s grounded worldwide
11 Oct 2018 Tara Copp and Shawn Snow

"...In April, a Marine Corps F-35B out the Marine Corps air station at Cherry Point, North Carolina, was forced to make an emergency landing when the aircraft fuel light came on...."

Source: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your ... all-f-35s/

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2018, 04:45
by kimjongnumbaun
maus92 wrote:To be expected from time to time - when you have one engine.


I fail to see how two engines would be relevant. It was a fuel issue. In case you weren't aware, both engines require fuel in a twin engine fighter. Both engines would have failed in this case.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2018, 08:21
by krorvik
kimjongnumbaun wrote:I fail to see how two engines would be relevant. It was a fuel issue. In case you weren't aware, both engines require fuel in a twin engine fighter. Both engines would have failed in this case.


Not necessarily - it depends how close to the engine the fault was. If it was in a common fuel line, you're right of course.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2018, 08:42
by gtg947h
lamoey wrote:Back in my F-16 days we had to check each plane for specific serial numbers, if a TCTO came out saying parts with certain serial numbers had to be replaced. I am assuming they now can tell from ALIS what plane has what serial numbers installed. If they have found a substandard batch, it should be easy to limit the grounding, but since they have to inspect every aircraft they must still be working to identify if a certain production batch is to blame.


I doubt that fuel lines are serialized parts...

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2018, 10:10
by hythelday
Navy's "Commander, Joint Strike Fighter Wing" posted this on FB recently:

Cleared F-35Cs are taking to the skies in Lemoore.

Commander Joint Strike Fighter Wing continues to conduct a fleet-wide inspection of F-35C aircraft, continuously balancing safety and operational requirements. Aircraft assigned to CJSFW squadrons, executing a flight schedule today, are using aircraft that have completed and passed the inspection. Safety is the top priority, and we will continue to take every measure to ensure safe operations while we continue to execute our mission.


https://www.facebook.com/flynavyjsf/vid ... 627273799/

Also Heritage Flight Team (that would As) is flying:
https://twitter.com/thef35/status/1050464825309126657


USS Essex and VMFA-211 are in Persian Gulf as of today, but not confirmed to have resumed flight operations, yet.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2018, 12:50
by aasm
gtg947h wrote:
lamoey wrote:Back in my F-16 days we had to check each plane for specific serial numbers, if a TCTO came out saying parts with certain serial numbers had to be replaced. I am assuming they now can tell from ALIS what plane has what serial numbers installed. If they have found a substandard batch, it should be easy to limit the grounding, but since they have to inspect every aircraft they must still be working to identify if a certain production batch is to blame.


I doubt that fuel lines are serialized parts...


Depends on where in the fuel line there was a mishap

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2018, 14:49
by spazsinbad
Why I insist on calling AVIATION weak Aviation Week AVweak:
Fuel Tube Defect Grounds F-35 Fleet
11 Oct 2018 Lee Hudson

"...The only previous F-35B hull loss occurred at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort in 2016. The pilot landed safety, but the damage from a fire caused by a faulty bracket that nicked electrical wires near hydraulic lines forced the Marines to strike the aircraft from its inventory. Another F-35A operated by the U.S. Air Force was too damaged to repair after landing with an engine fire at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida in June 2014. That incident was caused by a integrally bladed rotor in the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine that rubbed deeply against the fan case...."
&
"...Meanwhile, F-35Bs assigned to the VX-23 flight test squadron are performing integration testing with the Royal Navy’s HMS Queen Elizabeth II aircraft carrier off the U.S. East Coast. The first landing occurred two weeks ago—only two days before the unrelated crash in South Carolina. That event marked the start of an eight-week series of flight tests before the newly commissioned aircraft carrier returned to the UK...." [reporter or editor is ASLEEP/drunk prolly]
OR
"... the F-35B can take off within 800 ft...." [KPP for STO flat deck is 600 feet IIRC - so sort of NOT accurate eh]

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/fuel-tu ... f-35-fleet

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2018, 16:40
by jetblast16
You would not want the check engine light to come on in a hover :mrgreen:

The Marine F-35B crash--engine fuel starved?

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2018, 17:12
by spazsinbad
Pure speculation eh. However if there is a problem in STOVL Mode Four the F-35B pilot is ejected automatically with no pilot input. Aircraft CLAW decides and within 0.5 seconds he is OUT. Is the crash site near a STOVL landing site? Dunno.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2018, 22:54
by steve2267
spazsinbad wrote:Pure speculation eh. However if there is a problem in STOVL Mode Four the F-35B pilot is ejected automatically with no pilot input. Aircraft CLAW decides and within 0.5 seconds he is OUT. Is the crash site near a STOVL landing site? Dunno.


See graphic I posted a little while back -- a screen cut-and-paste from Google Earth. "Crash site" was about 5 miles from MCAS Beaufort. Could the Bee have been in Mode 4? I suppose that is possible. I dunno how close / far away the pilots push that magic STOVL MODE 4 button when approaching the base for a landing.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 00:01
by SpudmanWP
Nearly a day after the Pentagon grounded all U.S. F-35s, the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit and all three active Marine air wings are back to normal F-35 flight operations.

More at the jump

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your ... ounding-2/

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 00:20
by spazsinbad
steve2267 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Pure speculation eh. However if there is a problem in STOVL Mode Four the F-35B pilot is ejected automatically with no pilot input. Aircraft CLAW decides and within 0.5 seconds he is OUT. Is the crash site near a STOVL landing site? Dunno.


See graphic I posted a little while back -- a screen cut-and-paste from Google Earth. "Crash site" was about 5 miles from MCAS Beaufort. Could the Bee have been in Mode 4? I suppose that is possible. I dunno how close / far away the pilots push that magic STOVL MODE 4 button when approaching the base for a landing.

Until more details are known then there are many possibilities - likely some that neither of us can think of generally.

A story (where details matter). Ever since I joined NAS Nowra from flying training with the RAAF beginning of 1969 I heard the story of the successful night ejection in the circuit by a Sea Venom crew in strong gusty westerly wind condition which wreak havoc via severe turbulence in the circuit from surrounding tabletop/valley landscape to the west of the airfield including very severe turbulence when on finals for runway 26. When in 1969 night circuit height was 1000 feet AGL I thought it odd that the pilot hit trees when level turning downwind in the break. Not until recently reading an old publication referencing these details did I know that the Sea Venom was carrying out the night circuit at 400 feet! FARK!

There was no room for error in the terrain west of the airfield to downwind at this height. The pilot explained, after his return from survivor leave, lots of trees had been cut down around the airfield whilst night circuit height was raised to 1,000 feet AGL. The Venoms did day/night carrier circuits at 400 feet ASL (without an LSO) for 'security' reasons (plus being able to see the carrier when relatively close downwind). FARK! :-) So the story made sense once details known with supporting explanations about how the aircraft would behave when turning in turbulence relatively irrelevant.

In other words 'details matter' so imagining stuff - without detail - is really fruitless IMHO. I'm patient - I can wait....

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 00:27
by Gums
Salute!

The failure of one component after a few years of production is not unique to the Stubbie.

As production ramps up, more vendors contribute what are normally "minor" parts or assemblies or whatever. So that's why even many small things are tracked just in case there's a flaw embedded due to design or manufacturing problems or human factors.

The accident board experts go thru every piece of the plane they can find. If the fuel to the motor(s) is suspect, then you can bet that they will try to recounstruct the whole system from tank to the burner nozzles.

My only problem is the failure mode of the "tube". Does the thing simply rupture and you have no fuel to the rest of the motor? Is there a warning lite for low flow or another symptom?

Despite all the years of flying the test planes and such, you usually do not find the little problems until you have over a hundred planes flying hundreds of missions with normal folks flying them and maintaining them, Even tho the little part results in a crash, heh heh.

Gums sends...

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 00:54
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'Gums'. I'm not speculating here just providing information not seen here before? (see fuel warning light above).

VIA: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24 ... fuel-tubes TO: The Drive has uses when it provides facts....
Marine F-35B forced to land over fuel issue
04 May 2018 Shawn Snow

"An F-35B out the Marine Corps air station at Cherry Point, North Carolina, was forced to make an emergency landing on April 23 when the aircraft fuel light came on. Officials provided few details of the incident and referred to the event as a “precautionary” and “uneventful landing.”

The pilot landed his F-35B after “receiving a fuel-related warning light from the aircraft” and returned to Fleet Readiness Center East located aboard Cherry Point, John M. Olmstead, a spokesman for FRC East told Marine Corps Times in an emailed statement.

However, Marine Corps Times has learned the F-35 was leaking fuel when it landed, and the engine abruptly shut off before coming to a complete stop because the aircraft was out of fuel. The F-35B can carry nearly 14,000 pounds of fuel. The F-35B involved in the incident had “recently undergone airframe modifications,” Olmstead explained. [at FRC East]

“The specifics of the events that resulted post landing are the subject of an ongoing engineering investigation,” Olmstead told Marine Corps Times.

Source: https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/y ... uel-issue/

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 05:03
by Gums
Salute!

Good poop, Spaz.

I just wish to see what mal the "fuel" light indicates other than "low" fuel. Apparently that first incident was a close call.

In my flameout case, I had many bullet holes and fuel was being pumped out between the "sump" tank and the engine fuel control units by the boost pump setup in the A-37. It was a T-37 system So I ran out but had plenty altitude and was able to do a practice circle while descending over the field.

This thing could be something really simple like a pressure seal on the high side of a pump. I doubt it's a seam in the "tube" or an outright rupture.

Gums sends...

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2018, 12:09
by aasm
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks 'Gums'. I'm not speculating here just providing information not seen here before? (see fuel warning light above).

VIA: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24 ... fuel-tubes TO: The Drive has uses when it provides facts....
Marine F-35B forced to land over fuel issue
04 May 2018 Shawn Snow

"An F-35B out the Marine Corps air station at Cherry Point, North Carolina, was forced to make an emergency landing on April 23 when the aircraft fuel light came on. Officials provided few details of the incident and referred to the event as a “precautionary” and “uneventful landing.”

The pilot landed his F-35B after “receiving a fuel-related warning light from the aircraft” and returned to Fleet Readiness Center East located aboard Cherry Point, John M. Olmstead, a spokesman for FRC East told Marine Corps Times in an emailed statement.

However, Marine Corps Times has learned the F-35 was leaking fuel when it landed, and the engine abruptly shut off before coming to a complete stop because the aircraft was out of fuel. The F-35B can carry nearly 14,000 pounds of fuel. The F-35B involved in the incident had “recently undergone airframe modifications,” Olmstead explained. [at FRC East]

“The specifics of the events that resulted post landing are the subject of an ongoing engineering investigation,” Olmstead told Marine Corps Times.

Source: https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/y ... uel-issue/


Reminds me one of Rafale crash : young pilot emptied its fuel tanks, included external ones , misslanded several times, then asked for refuel, forgetting that once emptied, EFT qould remain open... Both pilot and MMI guilty

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2018, 18:18
by spazsinbad
Most F-35s return to flight operations after fuel tube problem
15 Oct 2018 Valerie Insinna

"WASHINGTON — After a fuel tube problem sidelined all operational F-35 aircraft last week, more than 80 percent of jets have been cleared to return to flight, the F-35 joint program office stated Monday. In a Oct. 15 statement, the JPO confirmed that all U.S. service and international partners have completed inspections of their F-35 inventories for faulty fuel tubes, and the aircraft that are not impacted by the bad tubes are back in flying status.

“The F-35 Joint Program Office continues to work closely with the military services to prioritize fuel tube replacements using the current spares inventory,” the JPO said. “Pratt & Whitney is rapidly procuring more parts to minimize the overall repair timeline for the remaining jets. Current inventory will restore about half of the impacted jets to flight operations [10%], and the remaining aircraft [10%] are expected to be cleared for flight over the coming weeks.”..."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/10 ... e-problem/

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2018, 22:41
by spazsinbad
UK's F-35s given all-clear after US crash
16 Oct 2018

"The "vast majority" of Britain's F-35 fighter jets have been cleared to resume operations following a crash in the United States. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) ordered an inspection of its fleet after an F-35B came down in South Carolina on 28 September. A spokesman confirmed eight of the nine operational aircraft at RAF Marham in Norfolk were unaffected.

Five of the 16 aircraft need a replacement fuel tube. The MoD said most of those affected were test jets which are not operational and repairs will be carried out as soon as possible...."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-45868818

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2018, 23:47
by smsgtmac
spazsinbad wrote:
Most F-35s return to flight operations after fuel tube problem
15 Oct 2018 Valerie Insinna

... “Pratt & Whitney is rapidly procuring more parts to minimize the overall repair timeline for the remaining jets. Current inventory will restore about half of the impacted jets to flight operations [10%], and the remaining aircraft [10%] are expected to be cleared for flight over the coming weeks.”..."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/10 ... e-problem/


Thanks Spaz, I've been sitting on info for days wanting to scream "it was a (relatively) easy-to-replace engine fuel tube!" (which still may not be the root cause BTW). Sounds like Pratt is stepping right up to the problematic tube.

Just think. if it had been a twin engine jet the lot buys would have been twice as large doubling the number of problematic tubes and perhaps the number of fuel leaks. What kind of cascading power failures would have been experienced? (Power transfers can be a hard problem) And NOT to "troll" or anything like that but what was the number of F-22's that couldn't be flown out of Tyndall were there because of something needed for one engine? Just Asking. :devil:

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2018, 15:29
by aasm
smsgtmac wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:
Most F-35s return to flight operations after fuel tube problem
15 Oct 2018 Valerie Insinna

... “Pratt & Whitney is rapidly procuring more parts to minimize the overall repair timeline for the remaining jets. Current inventory will restore about half of the impacted jets to flight operations [10%], and the remaining aircraft [10%] are expected to be cleared for flight over the coming weeks.”..."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/10 ... e-problem/


Thanks Spaz, I've been sitting on info for days wanting to scream "it was a (relatively) easy-to-replace engine fuel tube!" (which still may not be the root cause BTW). Sounds like Pratt is stepping right up to the problematic tube.

Just think. if it had been a twin engine jet the lot buys would have been twice as large doubling the number of problematic tubes and perhaps the number of fuel leaks. What kind of cascading power failures would have been experienced? (Power transfers can be a hard problem) And NOT to "troll" or anything like that but what was the number of F-22's that couldn't be flown out of Tyndall were there because of something needed for one engine? Just Asking. :devil:


Or it would not have crashed. Noone knows for sertainty

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2018, 20:18
by SpudmanWP
Apparently the fuel tube is in an easily accessed location (no need to pull the engine?) as Hill AFB maintainers were able to check all of their jets in less than a day.

As part of the inspection process, F-35s maintenance crews removed and replaced faulty fuel tubes. Garbarino said maintainers at the 388th FW completed their inspections the same day flights were suspended and resumed flying operations later that afternoon.


More at the JUMP
https://www.standard.net/news/hill-s-f- ... 42760.html

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2018, 21:13
by steve2267
I have been in contact with an F-35 wrench bender. He stated that a combination of ALIS and physical inspections would take care of the issue. I did not press him on to what extent ALIS could ameliorate or remove the need for physical inspections. However, he did confirm the part in question was on the engine "side" rather than on the airframe, and that pulling an engine was not required -- it could be inspected and/or replaced without pulling the motor. FWIW.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2018, 22:12
by Dragon029
The Dutch TES Commander's twitter mentioned that it was a "fuel hydraulic" tube, which sounds to me like a fueldraulic line. If that's the case it might have been the line that actuates the convergent-divergent nozzle on all F-35s; I'm not sure what other actuators (if any) use fueldraulics on the A and C variants.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2018, 22:28
by SpudmanWP
Australia says the same thing.

Two of Australia’s new $100 million F-35 strike fighters have been found to contain “suspect hydraulic fuel tubes” requiring replacement, Defence has confirmed.


https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/n ... 4y8Z-PYjGU

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2018, 22:37
by spazsinbad
Could not get past that Oz subscriber URL so found this one: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/n ... a343676f8d
Two new fighter jets with faults still grounded, seven cleared: ADF
17 Oct 2019 Rory Callinan

"Two of Australia’s new $100 million F-35 strike fighters have been found to contain “suspect hydraulic fuel tubes” requiring replacement, Defence has confirmed.

The problems were uncovered as a result of the crash of a US Marine Corps operated F-35B aircraft in the United States on September 28. All operational planes had been grounded after the crash including Australia’s small US-based fleet.

An investigation was then undertaken into the cause of the South Carolina crash which involved the pilot ejecting safely and the aircraft being destroyed.

US authorities then concluded the crash was likely related to faulty tube causing fuel supply problems and all aircraft were then subject to an inspection of the fuel tubes.

An Australian Defence Force spokesman today said two out of Australia’s nine F-35 aircraft were found to have been fitted with suspect hydraulic fuel tubes which would be replaced.

He said all non-affected Australian aircraft had now been cleared to fly and the safety inspections have not affected the delivery of the first two aircraft to Australia in December.

The spokesman did not provide any detail as to how much the fix might cost or who would be paying for the repair.

The Australian has sought comment on this issue from the F-35 Joint Program Office in the US.

US military authorities have previously declined to say exactly how many of their aircraft were affected by the problem but local defence media sources estimated the numbers could be about 60 planes.

Earlier this week the US authorities cleared about 80 per cent of the military’s F-35s to return to flying...."

Source: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/n ... a343676f8d

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2018, 23:23
by quicksilver
Fueldraulics...remember this?

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=22024

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2018, 00:16
by spazsinbad
:doh: Cor blimey Guv that was nearly six years ago. Good info on the fuelDEhydraulico though. :roll:

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2018, 00:20
by quicksilver
Just another data point.

Fuel runs all over the jet doing a variety of things, including cooling functions. Thus, we are likely a long way from root cause.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2018, 03:21
by Dragon029
We do know however that the fueldraulic line in question was on the engine itself, with the tube having a seemingly known manufacturing (vs design or contamination / blockage) defect. I'd suspect that it came loose or cracked (if it was metal) / split, possibly due to an incorrect material being used, or due to something like diameters not being correct.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2018, 15:40
by Gums
Salute!

Yeppers, may not be actual JP-4 or 5 used for hydraulic purposes, but no kidding "brake fluid" like we use in our autos for clutches and brakes.

Wondering if it was a connection versus an actual split in a tube. And what was the exact gizmo? Nozzle opening for AB or for rotation and deflection in the Bee? And so forth.

Question for Viper and Eagle wrenchbenders/engine troops? Is the nozzle drive train driven by a hydraulic motor? The zip-zip-zip sound is very noticeable if the pilot is moving throttle around a lot.

Gums ponders...

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2018, 16:33
by quicksilver
Actual fuel is used. Link for historical reference -- http://aviationweek.com/awin/troublesom ... ved-f-35bs

If you root around you'll find that fueldraulics are used on other things too, like the Saturn V boosters.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2018, 17:01
by Dragon029
Gums wrote:Wondering if it was a connection versus an actual split in a tube. And what was the exact gizmo? Nozzle opening for AB or for rotation and deflection in the Bee? And so forth.

It'd be the nozzle opening for AB, otherwise the tube being inspected / replaced wouldn't be found on the F-35A and C. And on the F-35, fuel is used as the hydraulic fluid to actuate the convergent-divergent nozzle; the fuel is then sent back to the middle of the engine to go into the injectors and get burned.

The advantage of this system is that it can help vapourise the fuel / make it mix and burn better, plus it means you have one less connection between the engine and fuselage that you need to connect / disconnect whenever you're removing it.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2018, 12:23
by marsavian
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2 ... spections/

The F-35 Joint Program Office temporarily has halted flight operations for a number of F-35s with higher flight hours after finding two new parts that will require inspection on older models of the jets.

A spokesman for the F-35 JPO, who confirmed the issue exclusively to Defense News and Marine Corps Times, declined to detail exactly how many jets may possibly be grounded as a result of the inspections. However, one source close to the program said that only a couple dozen F-35Bs meet the criteria where an operational pause would be necessary.

“The joint government and industry technical team has completed their assessment of the fuel supply tubes within the Pratt & Whitney engine on F-35 aircraft,” the F-35 Joint Program Office announced in a statement. “In addition to the previously identified failed tube, the analysis has identified two additional fuel supply tubes that require inspection.”

Some of the older engines with higher flight hours may require additional fuel tube replacements.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2018, 16:56
by steve2267
It was unclear from the twittering aerospace aviation reporters whether the engine will have to be pulled to inspect and possibly replace these two other fuel tubes. One tweet said the engines had to be pulled. Another tweet referred to a web "article" that stated the engines did not have to be pulled. As pulling an F135 and replacing is a 5-7 hour process... that is no small task.

What is a fuel "tube" anyway? I know what a tube is. And I'm familiar with fuel "hoses"... but what is a tube? Is it the shunt to which is affixed a hose?

With all the recent announcements about "fuel tubes", the accident is beginning to sound like a fuel starvation incident, although a failure in a fueldraulic system, esp. during a Mode 4 STOVL transition would not be good.

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2018, 21:19
by quicksilver
steve2267 wrote:It was unclear from the twittering aerospace aviation reporters whether the engine will have to be pulled to inspect and possibly replace these two other fuel tubes. One tweet said the engines had to be pulled. Another tweet referred to a web "article" that stated the engines did not have to be pulled. As pulling an F135 and replacing is a 5-7 hour process... that is no small task.

What is a fuel "tube" anyway? I know what a tube is. And I'm familiar with fuel "hoses"... but what is a tube? Is it the shunt to which is affixed a hose?

With all the recent announcements about "fuel tubes", the accident is beginning to sound like a fuel starvation incident, although a failure in a fueldraulic system, esp. during a Mode 4 STOVL transition would not be good.


From the article at the MCT link above -- “The procedure to inspect and replace can be done by flightline maintenance without removing the engine.”

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2019, 17:50
by zerion
Defective fuel tube caused September F-35 crash in South Carolina: report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A failed fuel tube caused the first crash of an F-35 jet in September of last year, U.S. government investigators said in a report issued this week.

“An investigation determined a manufacturing defect caused an engine fuel tube to rupture during flight, resulting in a loss of power to the engine,” the Government Accountability Office said in a report issued this week...

After the September crash the Pentagon’s office that runs the F-35 program said that some fuel tubes from Pratt & Whitney would be replaced during regular maintenance...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1SH0G9

Re: Reports of F-35B Crash/Pilot Ejection MCAS Beaufort

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2019, 21:34
by spazsinbad
Thanks for that 'zerion' - another here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... t-gao-says (looking for GAO report)