F-35 "brake problem" - 03 May 2007

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2007, 23:29
by KeithTCU82
Today at NAS Fort Worth (5-3-07)

RE: F-35 "brake problem"

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2007, 01:39
by Corsair1963
Man as long as the aircraft isn't damaged... :applause:

RE: F-35 "brake problem"

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2007, 04:00
by dwightlooi
The F-35 looks fantastically sleek and pretty from these two angles though.

RE: F-35 "brake problem"

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2007, 06:43
by PhillyGuy
Man, you really get a sense of how big and tall the F-35 is with that guy standing next to it, it puts things into perspective...

RE: F-35 "brake problem"

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2007, 07:28
by Neno
It gives me the impression of an aircraft built around his engine..

Re: RE: F-35 "brake problem"

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2007, 09:27
by idesof
dwightlooi wrote:The F-35 looks fantastically sleek and pretty from these two angles though.


You remind me of "Shallow Hall," that movie where the guy looked at his girlfriend, who was hugely obese and ugly, and she looked to him like Gwyneth Paltrow. I'm sorry but the F-35 is one ugly mutha. Without a doubt the ugliest of all new fighter aircraft in the world. Looks is one aspect where the Eurofrauder Typhoon has got the F-35 beat hands down.

RE: Re: RE: F-35 "brake problem"

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2007, 13:50
by Lurch
Hopefully, It's just a minor problem, and it's back up in the air soon.

I'm stuck in the middle on it's looks. It's not pretty and it's not ugly, it's just there.

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2007, 15:13
by MKopack
Two comments from me (neither of which may mean anything, but I'll throw them out anyway...)

I'm with Lurch as far as the looks go, it seems that every other picture I see I go back and forth from 'good looking jet' to... All the while I'm thankful though for what 'could have been': Several years ago I was at the NAS Oceana airshow standing next to a Navy Hornet driver who was staring, open-mouthed, at the full-sized Boeing JSF mock-up. I said "You know what's even worse? Imagine it in Blue Angels (and Thunderbirds) markings..."

My second comment is for Keith Robinson, the photographer. Keith, don't you have a job, or are you lucky enough to be taking these from your porch? I've had your 'first flight' photo (from Fencecheck) as my Windows background for a couple of months now, and it seems that every time they pull the bird out of the barn, you're there to catch it! Great job covering the beginning of what will be the next 30+ years of military aviation.

Mike Kopack

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2007, 21:23
by KeithTCU82
MKopack wrote:
My second comment is for Keith Robinson, the photographer. Keith, don't you have a job, or are you lucky enough to be taking these from your porch? I've had your 'first flight' photo (from Fencecheck) as my Windows background for a couple of months now, and it seems that every time they pull the bird out of the barn, you're there to catch it! Great job covering the beginning of what will be the next 30+ years of military aviation.

Mike Kopack


Luck. . . and I have a job where I go in at 3pm so that helps. Also living less than 5 miles from Lockheed-Martin/NAS Fort Worth is also an advantage. I pulled up yesterday not knowing anything about the F-35 having problems and looked down the runway to see it surrounded by emergency vehicles.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2007, 05:02
by Ztex
Luck?!

You are one "lucky" SOB... :P

Good catch!

Z

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2007, 06:01
by KeithTCU82
Thanks Z

I have since found out that the F-35 had an electrical malfunction, and not a brake problem. Sorry for the misinformation.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2007, 17:20
by idesof
KeithTCU82 wrote:Thanks Z

I have since found out that the F-35 had an electrical malfunction, and not a brake problem. Sorry for the misinformation.


Well, so much for its vaunted reliability. Any clue about the nature of the malfunction and whether it has gone back up again?

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2007, 17:45
by MKopack
idesof wrote:Well, so much for its vaunted reliability. Any clue about the nature of the malfunction and whether it has gone back up again?


Vaunted reliability? Wow, with this 'electrical issue' and you're ready to write the whole thing off? How much time have you spent on a flightline? What do you think the ratio of Code 2 & 3's is to Code 1's?

If airplanes fly they are going to break - especially when it's a unique, hand-built, very pre-production bird. Military aviation isn't like jumping in your car.

Mike

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2007, 19:30
by Scorpion1alpha
MKopack wrote:
idesof wrote:Well, so much for its vaunted reliability. Any clue about the nature of the malfunction and whether it has gone back up again?


Vaunted reliability? Wow, with this 'electrical issue' and you're ready to write the whole thing off? How much time have you spent on a flightline? What do you think the ratio of Code 2 & 3's is to Code 1's?


Apparently he is. :roll: And in regards to the flightline, I betting a big donut.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2007, 21:06
by dwightlooi
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
MKopack wrote:
idesof wrote:Well, so much for its vaunted reliability. Any clue about the nature of the malfunction and whether it has gone back up again?


Vaunted reliability? Wow, with this 'electrical issue' and you're ready to write the whole thing off? How much time have you spent on a flightline? What do you think the ratio of Code 2 & 3's is to Code 1's?


Apparently he is. :roll: And in regards to the flightline, I betting a big donut.


We don't know how "serious" the problem is. It may be something minor enough that the aircraft will fly just fine other than a a little warning light coming on in the cockpit saying that some circuit monitoring system is reading out of the normal range.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2007, 21:19
by dwightlooi
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
MKopack wrote:
idesof wrote:Well, so much for its vaunted reliability. Any clue about the nature of the malfunction and whether it has gone back up again?


Vaunted reliability? Wow, with this 'electrical issue' and you're ready to write the whole thing off? How much time have you spent on a flightline? What do you think the ratio of Code 2 & 3's is to Code 1's?


Apparently he is. :roll: And in regards to the flightline, I betting a big donut.


We don't know how "serious" the problem is. It may be something minor enough that the aircraft will fly just fine other than a a little warning light coming on in the cockpit saying that some circuit monitoring system is reading out of the normal range.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2007, 21:24
by MKopack
dwightlooi wrote:We don't know how "serious" the problem is. It may be something minor enough that the aircraft will fly just fine other than a a little warning light coming on in the cockpit saying that some circuit monitoring system is reading out of the normal range.


Absolutely, we're talking about a totally new type of aircraft, and a unique example with less than twenty total flights. I can imagine that under those conditions it wouldn't take much to call in an IFE (if that even happened) or call out the trucks on landing.

Realistically, what we're seeing here could have been the result of something as small as an anti-lock light with the emergency response for hot brakes (or the possibility of hot brakes) - something that we probably saw down at MacDill daily on our F-16A/B's.

Some people just don't understand that aircraft, especially high performance military aircraft aren't like having a car - even a sports car - in the driveway. When you read about how many hours of maintenance an aircraft requires per flight hour, it's based on fixing things, not keeping them pretty.

How much does anyone want to bet that with only about 20 flights the F-35 is already on a red diagional with a couple of 781A writeups?

Mike

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2007, 21:29
by dwightlooi
Also, the aircraft must have flown fine under its own power, lowered the gears and landed normally, as straight as an arrow. The only reason the pilot was pulled in the middle of the runway was probably because if you have an unknown warning light on a new machine it is good procedure to not leave a pilot in it.

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2007, 02:32
by idesof
dwightlooi wrote:Also, the aircraft must have flown fine under its own power, lowered the gears and landed normally, as straight as an arrow. The only reason the pilot was pulled in the middle of the runway was probably because if you have an unknown warning light on a new machine it is good procedure to not leave a pilot in it.


Our friend Raptor_claw sure is being silent about the whole thing, and conspicuously so. Maybe the thing is fried. Then maybe we can cancel this whole misbegotten, ugly-as-all-holy-hell POS and get some far more attractive F-16s instead! :lol:

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2007, 06:00
by Ztex
I saw this on another board today...looks funny to me. Any Ideas?


Source: http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index. ... #msg140204

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2007, 06:15
by idesof
Ztex wrote:I saw this on another board today...looks funny to me. Any Ideas?
http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php/topic,689.msg140204.html#msg140204


Excellent catch. In the pictures first posted in this thread, I in fact noticed that the flaps, and especially the tailplanes, were in an asymetric position. The picture--awesome, by the way--of it coming in to land tells the story: the flying surfaces are totally asymetric. Looks like the pilot may have had a major electrical/hydraulic issue on at least one side, which in the F-35 presents an interesting issue, since the actuators are at least partially electrical rather than hydraulic. From the looks of it, whomever the pilot was seems to have done quite a job of saving the plane.

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2007, 06:19
by idesof
idesof wrote:
Ztex wrote:I saw this on another board today...looks funny to me. Any Ideas?
http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php/topic,689.msg140204.html#msg140204


Excellent catch. In the pictures first posted in this thread, I in fact noticed that the flaps, and especially the tailplanes, were in an asymetric position. The picture--awesome, by the way--of it coming in to land tells the story: the flying surfaces are totally asymetric. Looks like the pilot may have had a major electrical/hydraulic issue on at least one side, which in the F-35 presents an interesting issue, since the actuators are at least partially electrical rather than hydraulic. From the looks of it, whomever the pilot was seems to have done quite a job of saving the plane.


By the way, the editors of this site should post a story ASAP and contact the major news organizations to report that the very $$$$$$ F-35 prototype suffered some sort of major failure. Will be picked up by all the major wire services such as AP and Reuters, and guaranteed to generate exposure to this site, such as, "The internet site F-16.net is reporting that the JSF prototype, part of the controversial $gazillion program, has suffered a major failure..." Let me know if you guys want to move on this because if you won't, I certainly will!

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2007, 06:45
by Raptor_claw
idesof wrote:Our friend Raptor_claw sure is being silent about the whole thing, and conspicuously so.


Ya know I have been feeling a little funny. I thought it was allergies - turns out I just had a case of 'conspicuous silence'.

What I'm not is the LM V.P. for Media Relations... :roll: I'm also not an idiot, so I will just remain silent :whistle: (conspicuously or not) and enjoy the speculation.

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2007, 07:02
by parrothead
idesof wrote:
idesof wrote:
Ztex wrote:I saw this on another board today...looks funny to me. Any Ideas?
http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php/topic,689.msg140204.html#msg140204


Excellent catch. In the pictures first posted in this thread, I in fact noticed that the flaps, and especially the tailplanes, were in an asymetric position. The picture--awesome, by the way--of it coming in to land tells the story: the flying surfaces are totally asymetric. Looks like the pilot may have had a major electrical/hydraulic issue on at least one side, which in the F-35 presents an interesting issue, since the actuators are at least partially electrical rather than hydraulic. From the looks of it, whomever the pilot was seems to have done quite a job of saving the plane.


By the way, the editors of this site should post a story ASAP and contact the major news organizations to report that the very $$$$$$ F-35 prototype suffered some sort of major failure. Will be picked up by all the major wire services such as AP and Reuters, and guaranteed to generate exposure to this site, such as, "The internet site F-16.net is reporting that the JSF prototype, part of the controversial $gazillion program, has suffered a major failure..." Let me know if you guys want to move on this because if you won't, I certainly will!


Something tells me that the editors and moderators aren't nearly so crass, slanted, or alarmist as to do something like that :wink: ...

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2007, 07:14
by viper1234
I feel a hostile renaming in the works... new callsign Chiknlittle ;)

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2007, 07:22
by parrothead
You wouldn't be suggesting a change of callsign, now would you :lol: ?

Chiknlittle - I like it :lmao: !!!

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2007, 07:41
by idesof
parrothead wrote:
idesof wrote:By the way, the editors of this site should post a story ASAP and contact the major news organizations to report that the very $$$$$$ F-35 prototype suffered some sort of major failure. Will be picked up by all the major wire services such as AP and Reuters, and guaranteed to generate exposure to this site, such as, "The internet site F-16.net is reporting that the JSF prototype, part of the controversial $gazillion program, has suffered a major failure..." Let me know if you guys want to move on this because if you won't, I certainly will!


Something tells me that the editors and moderators aren't nearly so crass, slanted, or alarmist as to do something like that :wink: ...


Not crass, slanted or alarmist, merely opportunistic. The media would be all over this, and it would bring exposure to the site. It is, in fact, a legitimate news story. Simply lay out the facts and let the chips fall where they may. Like it or not, this is the way journalism works. And in this case, the public certainly has a right to know. I think it would be both prudent and legitimate to do something with this story.

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2007, 11:53
by MKopack
idesof wrote:Excellent catch. In the pictures first posted in this thread, I in fact noticed that the flaps, and especially the tailplanes, were in an asymetric position. The picture--awesome, by the way--of it coming in to land tells the story: the flying surfaces are totally asymetric. Looks like the pilot may have had a major electrical/hydraulic issue on at least one side, which in the F-35 presents an interesting issue, since the actuators are at least partially electrical rather than hydraulic. From the looks of it, whomever the pilot was seems to have done quite a job of saving the plane.


And that is obviously based on your deep knowledge of the flight control systems of the F-35 (or any other modern generation aircraft?)

Look at other F-35 photos, look at F-22 in flight photos, look at Typhoon photos, look at Rafale photos - modern flight controls DO move assymetrically - tailplanes and flaperons. Perhaps there was a problem, I don't know, I wasn't there, but it is a huge jump to make based on a couple of pictures which show a normal condition.

I hate to have to put it this way, because I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but Idesof, you're a moron. If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person in your own little dream world.

idesof wrote:Like it or not, this is the way journalism works.

Well thank you for that little gem of knowledge. By the way, your editor from the Enquirer called and said that it's still not "yellow" enough for them, and that if you can add some aliens into the story it's on the cover.

Mike
Phantom Productions Aviation Photography and Media Services

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2007, 14:37
by checksixx
I'd bet since the initial report had to do with brakes that maybe he just got a hot break indication. It could have been a faulty warning light also. Most test programs dictate that the aircraft fly code-1 only. I wouldn't call this a major event by any means.

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2007, 15:58
by idesof
MKopack wrote:
idesof wrote:Excellent catch. In the pictures first posted in this thread, I in fact noticed that the flaps, and especially the tailplanes, were in an asymetric position. The picture--awesome, by the way--of it coming in to land tells the story: the flying surfaces are totally asymetric. Looks like the pilot may have had a major electrical/hydraulic issue on at least one side, which in the F-35 presents an interesting issue, since the actuators are at least partially electrical rather than hydraulic. From the looks of it, whomever the pilot was seems to have done quite a job of saving the plane.


And that is obviously based on your deep knowledge of the flight control systems of the F-35 (or any other modern generation aircraft?)

Look at other F-35 photos, look at F-22 in flight photos, look at Typhoon photos, look at Rafale photos - modern flight controls DO move assymetrically - tailplanes and flaperons. Perhaps there was a problem, I don't know, I wasn't there, but it is a huge jump to make based on a couple of pictures which show a normal condition.

I hate to have to put it this way, because I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but Idesof, you're a moron. If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person in your own little dream world.

idesof wrote:Like it or not, this is the way journalism works.

Well thank you for that little gem of knowledge. By the way, your editor from the Enquirer called and said that it's still not "yellow" enough for them, and that if you can add some aliens into the story it's on the cover.

Mike
Phantom Productions Aviation Photography and Media Services


Of course they move asymetrically. But do they stay in that condition once the airplane is on the ground? Notice that they remain in the same asymetric attitude in the pictures of the aircraft on the ground. Also, had it been a problem with the brakes running hot, why was the aircraft not doused, which would have been SOP if there was any concern of ignition?

As for being a moron, if it pleases you to think so. Guess who was the first to suggest that the F-22 had an issue with the International Date Line when it first tried to deploy to Okinawa? Guess who first said that Maj. Gilbert made a tragic mistake while strafing a ground target, which got him killed? Guess who was the only person on this board to forcefully call for Rumsfeld's resignation, much to the chagrin of those who cannot countenance opposition to what they like to term "patriotism"? Of course, I may not be popular for it, but I am not trying to win any popularity contests.

Bottom line is, if the F-35 prototype has had a major malfunction, as is apparently the case, the public has a right to know, and it will know. LM public relaions will be getting a few phone calls, and they will provide answers. So far the mainstream media hasn't touched this, because obviously it is oblivious. But no more. Time to contact the AP...

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2007, 16:25
by MKopack
idesof wrote:Of course they move asymetrically. But do they stay in that condition once the airplane is on the ground? Notice that they remain in the same asymetric attitude in the pictures of the aircraft on the ground. Also, had it been a problem with the brakes running hot, why was the aircraft not doused, which would have been SOP if there was any concern of ignition?


I can think of several possible scenarios which would cause the flight controls to remain asymmetrical after power down - most of which do not portend any real crisis.

Since you are obviously so up to speed on the SOP for hot brakes I'll humor you - and stand way back when you douse them. There are a LOT of maintainers here - anyone like to answer why you don't dump cold water on hot brakes, or should I?

idesof wrote:Bottom line is, if the F-35 prototype has had a major malfunction, as is apparently the case, the public has a right to know, and it will know. LM public relaions will be getting a few phone calls, and they will provide answers. So far the mainstream media hasn't touched this, because obviously it is oblivious. But no more. Time to contact the AP...


No, the bottom line is, maybe you should contact an A&P, rather than the AP. Your knowledge doesn't seem to back up your suppositions/conspiracies. If you did more listening and less talking, you might just learn something here.

Mike

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2007, 16:27
by checksixx
idesof wrote:Also, had it been a problem with the brakes running hot, why was the aircraft not doused, which would have been SOP if there was any concern of ignition?

Bottom line is, if the F-35 prototype has had a major malfunction, as is apparently the case, the public has a right to know, and it will know. LM public relaions will be getting a few phone calls, and they will provide answers. So far the mainstream media hasn't touched this, because obviously it is oblivious. But no more. Time to contact the AP...


SOP isn't just to hose down the aircraft or the brakes for that matter unless they're already producing flame. Normally the aircraft sits with the fire department until the brakes have had time to throughly cool, or the aircraft will be shut down and towed back to the ramp with a fire unit in tow. As far as having any problems with the aircraft...the public has absolutely no specific right to know anythng as they don't have a need to know. Any major issue that comes up...such as a major design flaw...wouldn't be kept secret anyways. But minor issues...no one has the need to know except the vender and the customer....Check

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2007, 16:28
by viper1234
Firecrews most definitely do NOT douse an aircraft with hot brakes unless there is a fire. Wheel fusible plugs will relieve tire pressure if it gets to high (can take longer than 15 minutes for the heat to propogate and the pressure to build) so as to avoid damaging hyd. lines and other equip. An asymetric condition is an emergency but it would be a bit early to to call it news worthy. It there is significant delay in the program due to a flaw that is discovered than you have a story. Jumping to conclusions will serve no one. You don't know what happened and since you don't have the full context of what happened you really shouldn't jump to conclusions to quickly. On the other hand I'd love to hear the response from the news service when you 'break' your story. Could be priceless.

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2007, 16:32
by checksixx
Damn viper...we must have been typing at the same time! LoL

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2007, 16:39
by viper1234
Idesof- I actually appreciate your desire for accountability. I think in this and in MANY other subjects your message is lost in the delivery.

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2007, 18:09
by VPRGUY
Accountability is of course a good thing. I think, however that what you're going to run into is most AP reporters going "Huh? Whats an F-..what did you call it? Something overheated? Are you talking about the fires in Florida and California?". And, most of the public will do the same thing. You will NOT get this on the front page of much of anything, no matter how hard you try. You may have good luck with defense and military related news publications, but that is about as far as it will go. An incident with the F-35, and most other airplanes that don't carry 400+ people, just isn't much of a concern to the general population.

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2007, 18:52
by habu2
idesof wrote:Bottom line is, if the F-35 prototype has had a major malfunction, as is apparently the case, the public has a right to know, and it will know. LM public relaions will be getting a few phone calls, and they will provide answers. So far the mainstream media hasn't touched this, because obviously it is oblivious. But no more. Time to contact the AP...

:shock:
This statement is wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. :roll:

idesof wrote:Not crass, slanted or alarmist, merely opportunistic. The media would be all over this, and it would bring exposure to the site. It is, in fact, a legitimate news story. Simply lay out the facts and let the chips fall where they may. Like it or not, this is the way journalism works. And in this case, the public certainly has a right to know. I think it would be both prudent and legitimate to do something with this story.

You assume the type of exposure this irresponsible speculation would bring to this site would be a good thing? :roll:

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2007, 20:23
by parrothead
idesof wrote:
parrothead wrote:
idesof wrote:By the way, the editors of this site should post a story ASAP and contact the major news organizations to report that the very $$$$$$ F-35 prototype suffered some sort of major failure. Will be picked up by all the major wire services such as AP and Reuters, and guaranteed to generate exposure to this site, such as, "The internet site F-16.net is reporting that the JSF prototype, part of the controversial $gazillion program, has suffered a major failure..." Let me know if you guys want to move on this because if you won't, I certainly will!


Something tells me that the editors and moderators aren't nearly so crass, slanted, or alarmist as to do something like that :wink: ...


Not crass, slanted or alarmist, merely opportunistic. The media would be all over this, and it would bring exposure to the site. It is, in fact, a legitimate news story. Simply lay out the facts and let the chips fall where they may. Like it or not, this is the way journalism works. And in this case, the public certainly has a right to know. I think it would be both prudent and legitimate to do something with this story.


I feel I must defend my earlier statement. I'll stand behind my assertion that the previous quote was crass, slanted, and alarmist.

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary wrote:Main Entry: crass
Pronunciation: 'kras
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin crassus thick, gross
1 a : GROSS 6a; especially : having or indicating such grossness of mind as precludes delicacy and discrimination
Source: Merriam-Webster


Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary wrote:transitive verb
2 : to interpret or present in line with a special interest
Source: Merriam-Webster


Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary wrote:Main Entry: alarm·ism
Pronunciation: &-'lär-"mi-z&m
Function: noun
: the often unwarranted exciting of fears or warning of danger
- alarm·ist /-mist/ noun or adjective
Source: Merriam-Webster


I have several reasons for my opinion. The main reason is that no details of the nature of the electrical problem have been publicly released. WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED OR HOW SERIOUS IT WAS. Therefore, there is no basis for the assertion that there was some sort of "major malfunction." Publishing a negative NEWS ARTICLE (bad news) based on an ASSUMPTION rather than fact would qualify as crass and alarmist. As many in this thread have stated, there could be any number of reasons for calling out the trucks and for the appearance of the flight controls.

I would also judge that your plan is slanted against the F-35 project. Why? Beacuse by running to every media outlet with a story based on assumptions and conjecture while trying to highlight the cost of a prototype of a high performance, state of the art military combat aircraft, you are clearly trying to draw NEGATIVE attention to the F-35 program.

A neutral article about the incident might read something like this:

Parrothead wrote:The first prototype for the F-35 Lightning II fighter jet suffered an unknown malfunction while on a test flight. Unofficial information posted in a forum on the website F-16.net indicate that an electrical malfunction occured during the flight. Other statements in the same forum indicate that such problems are to be expected during testing and that test flights are normally ended early for what might be considered minor problems in an operational environment due to the high cost and low numbers of prototype aircraft. Emergency vehicles were called out to the runway as a precautionary measure.

The F-35 Lightning II is scheduled to replace aircraft such as the F-16 Viper and the AV-8 Harrier in several different nations' air forces. The F-35 program is a multinational effort which is valued at several billion US dollars.


F-16.net is already cited by many different news outlets including the United States Department of Defense and IMHO doesn't need to resort to sensationalizing an electrical malfunction which occured on a test flight of a prototype fighter jet less than 20 flights into its test program for the sake of momentary publicity.

F-16.net probably chose not to publish such an article because an electrical malfunction on a prototype aircraft just ain't newsworthy.

I'll agree that your statements were opportunistic. Ambulance chasing lawyers are also opportunistic...

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2007, 00:59
by Roscoe
As a career tester, I will say with confidence that test jets are often aborted when production jets would fly.

If I'm going up on an envelope expansion flight, I want my jet 100% working with 100% confidence.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2007, 01:11
by sferrin
VPRGUY wrote:Accountability is of course a good thing. I think, however that what you're going to run into is most AP reporters going "Huh? Whats an F-..what did you call it? Something overheated? Are you talking about the fires in Florida and California?". And, most of the public will do the same thing. You will NOT get this on the front page of much of anything, no matter how hard you try. You may have good luck with defense and military related news publications, but that is about as far as it will go. An incident with the F-35, and most other airplanes that don't carry 400+ people, just isn't much of a concern to the general population.


Most likely he'd report his "story" and we'd see "$375 million dollar F-22 has major design flaw" by the time it was a headline.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2007, 05:54
by idesof
Parrothead, I never suggested that anyone publish speculation, and even less so present speculation as fact. There is a vast difference between a news story and idle chatter on a message board. In fact, your try at a news story is pretty close to what I would, as an editor, want to see published myself.

The fact is that this development is newsworthy, if only because so much political attention is being devoted to the issue of funding for this program. If I were the editor of a news service and I was presented with this story, I would not hesitate to run it--just the facts as you stated them--because as a news editor I don't give a flying f*ck whether running the story is good or bad for the program. That's not my business. But I am in the business of journalism, and the currency of journalism is information. All I care about to determine is, is this a story that may interest my readers and do my readers have a right to know? The answer on both counts, regarding this specific issue, is yes. Should a news outlet contact LM and ask for comment regarding this incident? Certainly. Is LM or the USAF obligated to comment? Not at all. But they should be given the opportunity to explain themselves, if they so wish.

I understand that there are biases that affect how people on this board may react to this way of thinking--that is, there are people on this board who have a vested interest in this story never seeing the light of day--but that is not my concern.

I do not have a bias one way or another. Actually, I do--I think the F-35 is critically needed--but as a journalist, my opinion isn't worth a damn. The facts, however, are what counts, and we know what the facts are. The pictures alone are worth a thousand words.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2007, 08:53
by parrothead
idesof wrote:I never suggested that anyone publish speculation, and even less so present speculation as fact. There is a vast difference between a news story and idle chatter on a message board. In fact, your try at a news story is pretty close to what I would, as an editor, want to see published myself. The fact is that this development is newsworthy, if only because so much political attention is being devoted to the issue of funding for this program. If I were the editor of a news service and I was presented with this story, I would not hesitate to run it--just the facts as you stated them--because as a news editor I don't give a flying f*ck whether running the story is good or bad for the program. That's not my business. But I am in the business of journalism, and the currency of journalism is information. All I care about to determine is, is this a story that may interest my readers and do my readers have a right to know? The answer on both counts, regarding this specific issue, is yes. Should a news outlet contact LM and ask for comment regarding this incident? Certainly. Is LM or the USAF obligated to comment? Not at all. But they should be given the opportunity to explain themselves, if they so wish. I understand that there are biases that affect how people on this board may react to this way of thinking--that is, there are people on this board who have a vested interest in this story never seeing the light of day--but that is not my concern. I do not have a bias one way or another. Actually, I do--I think the F-35 is critically needed--but as a journalist, my opinion isn't worth a damn. The facts, however, are what counts, and we know what the facts are. The pictures alone are worth a thousand words.


I'm glad that what I wrote is what you would like to see as a news story - just the facts.

However, you did suggest that an article be published reporting a "major malfunction." That is pure speculation. Your previous posts show that you do not know how this aircraft functions, but you still wish to label this incident a "major malfunction" and that the press should publish it. Again, WE DO NOT KNOW FOR A FACT WHAT THE MALFUNCTION WAS so we have no way of knowing for a FACT that this was a MAJOR MALFUNCTION :bang:

idesof wrote:Excellent catch. In the pictures first posted in this thread, I in fact noticed that the flaps, and especially the tailplanes, were in an asymetric position. The picture--awesome, by the way--of it coming in to land tells the story: the flying surfaces are totally asymetric. Looks like the pilot may have had a major electrical/hydraulic issue on at least one side, which in the F-35 presents an interesting issue, since the actuators are at least partially electrical rather than hydraulic. From the looks of it, whomever the pilot was seems to have done quite a job of saving the plane.


idesof wrote:Of course they move asymetrically. But do they stay in that condition once the airplane is on the ground? Notice that they remain in the same asymetric attitude in the pictures of the aircraft on the ground.


idesof wrote:Bottom line is, if the F-35 prototype has had a major malfunction, as is apparently the case, the public has a right to know, and it will know. LM public relaions will be getting a few phone calls, and they will provide answers. So far the mainstream media hasn't touched this, because obviously it is oblivious. But no more. Time to contact the AP...


idesof wrote:By the way, the editors of this site should post a story ASAP and contact the major news organizations to report that the very $$$$$$ F-35 prototype suffered some sort of major failure.


You stated that this story is newsworthy if only because of the amount of political attention being devoted to the issue of funding for the F-35 program. By that reasoning it would seem that a string of successful test flights following succesful pre-flight tests (ie no leaks in the fuel barn) would also be newsworthy. In fact, each successful test flight should be newsworthy. I don't see you calling for all outlets to be alerted to these.

idesof wrote:Should a news outlet contact LM and ask for comment regarding this incident? Certainly. Is LM or the USAF obligated to comment? Not at all. But they should be given the opportunity to explain themselves, if they so wish.


I whole heartedly agree with you on this one. I just hope that the contacts and responses be completed prior to the story being written.

idesof wrote:I understand that there are biases that affect how people on this board may react to this way of thinking--that is, there are people on this board who have a vested interest in this story never seeing the light of day--but that is not my concern. I do not have a bias one way or another. Actually, I do--I think the F-35 is critically needed--but as a journalist, my opinion isn't worth a damn.


Well, I'm glad you acknowledge that as a journalist your opinion isn't worth much. There are people on this board who think that the F-35 is great. I just want the best that money can buy to put warheads on enemies' foreheads. Your stated opinion in this post is at odds with a previous post:

idesof wrote:Our friend Raptor_claw sure is being silent about the whole thing, and conspicuously so. Maybe the thing is fried. Then maybe we can cancel this whole misbegotten, ugly-as-all-holy-hell POS and get some far more attractive F-16s instead! :lol:


This might be an attempt at humor, but it comes across more as gloating.

idesof wrote:The facts, however, are what counts, and we know what the facts are. The pictures alone are worth a thousand words.


Yes, the facts are what count. I'll state again, we don't know what the facts are. You state that the pictures alone are worth a thousand words. The problem with that is that by your own admission, you have no idea what they show other than the emergency vehicles were called out. You don't know if the flight control surfaces staying in an asymmetric condition after shutdown is a normal condition. I don't know about that with regards to the F-35 either. I do know that the exhaust nozzle position on the two engines of an F-14 is normally different between the two engines. It has to do with which one loses power first if I recall correctly.

I'll sum it all up. By your own admission, you don't know if the pictures show any sort of abnormal positioning of the flight control surfaces. The only thing that the pictures show is an airplane with the canopy up on a runway with emergency vehicles around it. I've seen emergency vehicles called out at an airshow because a B-17 had a slight problem with one engine and the pilot had elected to shut the engine down. This was not a major malfunction - the pilot was being extra cautious with a rare aircraft and called the emergency vehicles out as a precaution.

Emergency vehicles being called out to an otherwise normal landing of a prototype aircraft on a flight test mission as a precaution does not indicate a major malfunction.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2007, 14:47
by VPRGUY
The fact is that this development is newsworthy, if only because so much political attention is being devoted to the issue of funding for this program.


There hasn't been a thing mentioned about the F-35 on any news channel I've seen in months- well, with exception of the Pentagon channel. It hasn't even made it onto the little "ticker" at the bottom of the screen. But I'll humor you, and post a question:

Since so much political attention has been focused on this airplane, how come we haven't seen you so adamant about getting facts and figures about the, what, 16+ incredibly successful flights this aircraft has had? I haven't seen anything about DEMANDING information from LM about what speeds the F-35 achieved the first time the jet flew with "afterburner". Or anything about the first flights with the Helmet Mounted Display. Or even if the airplane has returned code 1 or code 2 on previous flights.

Since you are so adamant about publishing something that may possibly be negative, but you have no personal bias, why have you not been eager to publish the good stuff? Is it because good news doesn't sell? Or, are you just thrilled to have garbage to throw at an airplane you obviously don't like?

Then maybe we can cancel this whole misbegotten, ugly-as-all-holy-hell POS and get some far more attractive F-16s instead!


This really doesn't sound like anything an "unbiased" publisher or reporter would be caught dead saying. Suck it up and admit it: You, personally, HATE the F-35. Nothing would make you happier than to see it scrubbed. You were almost giddy with excitement at the possibility of a major problem. The possibility that this was just a minor glitch, or even just precautionary measures, flies in the face of your opinions, so you're just going to go on the attack because you're in a corner and can't think of any other action to take. Step up and be honest, and quit trying to hide behind your "Journalistic rights".

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2007, 15:17
by habu2
idesof wrote:The facts, however, are what counts, and we know what the facts are. The pictures alone are worth a thousand words.

You don't know the facts, you are speculating. If you knew the facts you would not need to contact LM PR for answers.

Yes there is a photo of an aircraft with asymmetric surfaces. You are speculating this is an unplanned failure, you don't know that for a fact.

Here's a fact for you. Asymmetric surface conditions are practiced in the sim. Surfaces, actuators, and yes even brakes are intentionally "failed" to determine their effects on aircraft handling etc. The fact that the aircraft was observed landing successfully in this condition shows that system testing to determine handling qualities in asymmetric surface conditions was done successfully before being flown, and because of that the pilot landed the aircraft safely rather than spun into a smoking hole in the ground. My point is, there is just as much chance this was a planned test as there is it was an unplanned failure. More relevent to this thread, YOU don't know for a fact whether it was planned or not, and claiming your speculations as fact is irresponsible.

Flameouts and deadstick landings are tested in the sim, and will be tested in the air. Is that a failure?

Along with journalistic duties and freedom of speech comes a great deal of responsibility and the forethought to consider the consequences of your actions. I suggest you remember that next time.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2007, 15:34
by habu2
idesof, let's look at this from another point of view. When the YF-16 had it's famous "first flight" (Flight "0") did the media scream about a major malfunction on a new program? No, instead they wrote about the skill and courage with which the pilot handled the situation and saved the aircraft. And the famous "belly landing" of the second YF-16 at Carswell, did the media scream about another major malfunction on a new program? No, instead they wrote about the skill and courage with which the pilot handled the situation and saved the aircraft.

Another example a bit closer to home: when Gums landed that early A model with the right LEF jammed straight up, did the community scream about another major malfunction on a new jet? No, instead they wrote about the skill and courage with which he handled the situation and saved the aircraft.

To make my point here, let's assume (not speculate) that this was indeed a malfunction that placed the first F-35 (and pilot) is serious danger. How about we show some respect and recognition for the F-35 pilot whose skills, abilities and courage permitted him to save the aircraft with no more damage than overheated brakes? Or does it sell more papers when you sling mud instead of praise?

My, how times have changed.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2007, 15:39
by habu2
I meant to ask this earlier, does anyone know which pilot flew the jet on the flight in question? Was it Jon or Slim? Regardless of who it was, kudos to their performance!

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2007, 17:28
by idesof
Let me address the issues raised by habu2, vprguy and parrothead all at once. First of all, my previous negative comments regarding the F-35 were, I thought, evidently meant to be taken in the humorous spirit in which they were written. I obviously failed to amuse anyone by them, and that is my fault. In context, however, considering what I had written in the past, I thought it was obvious I was being facetious. I have been one of the staunchest defenders of the F-35 on this board, in my capacity as a "civilian", not a reporter. So let't make that clear: my personal bias regarding the F-35 is slanted in favor of it, not against it.

Regarding facts versus cojecture, whatever speculation as to the cause for the emergency landing on this board would not be fit to print, except perhaps in context and clearly identified as speculation. I don't know how many times I have to say that there are facts that can be reported here. Fact: F-35 made what appeared to be an unscheduled emergency landing. Fact: the pilot exited the aircraft in the middle of the runway. Fact: internet sites have been abuzz with speculation as to the nature of the problem, if there was in fact a problem. Fact: LM and USAF have so far remained silent about the situation. Fact: the airplane has not returned to the air since (although this is one I would have to double check if I were writing a report on this issue, which I'm not). There are enough facts to go on, and enough public interest in the project, that it would be more than enough to run a story about.

As for the number of successful flights, I don't know in what world some of you live in, or if you follow the news at all, but I have read literally dozens of stories in dozens of media outlets about the course of the F-35 flight test program. Some of you are either being ignorant or disingeneous when you suggest the media have conveniently ignored the successes of this program. Give me a break, guys: whenever the F-35 so much as took an itty-bitty baby step, the media reported it. First roll? Reported. First afterburner take-off? Reported. First wheels-up flight? Reported. If such minutiae of flight testing is being trumpeted by the manufacturer for PR purposes, to showcase its extraordinary creation, then it becomes subject to scrutiny by those of us who are not in the business of regurgitating press releases. Okay, so, you've now told us that the F-35 can, by god, roll inverted. How wonderful. Now tell us what happened here in these pictures that suggest there was a significant enough failure to bring back the airplane for an emergency landing. Of course, LM hasn't put out a press release about it. So you need to ask questions. Whether LM chooses to answer is up to them. But LM initiated the PR blitz by finding it necessary to tell the world that, golly, the F-35 has a freakin' afterburner. To print the press release stuff, and not follow up: that, my friends, is lazy and irresponsible journalism of the worst kind.

You have to understand that there is a natural conflict of interests, if you will, between journalists who cover a controversial subject and those who have a vested interest in portraying the particularl subject in the best possible light. The former tries to get at the bottom of things, the latter tries to spin the tale. And it is in a journalist's bones to loathe press releases and spin. And it is also in a journalist's bones to ask questions, particularly those that are difficult for the spinmasters to spin.

vprguy wrote the following that I wish to address more directly:

There hasn't been a thing mentioned about the F-35 on any news channel I've seen in months- well, with exception of the Pentagon channel. It hasn't even made it onto the little "ticker" at the bottom of the screen. But I'll humor you, and post a question:

Since so much political attention has been focused on this airplane, how come we haven't seen you so adamant about getting facts and figures about the, what, 16+ incredibly successful flights this aircraft has had? I haven't seen anything about DEMANDING information from LM about what speeds the F-35 achieved the first time the jet flew with "afterburner". Or anything about the first flights with the Helmet Mounted Display. Or even if the airplane has returned code 1 or code 2 on previous flights.


Regarding the first paragraph, just yesterday the press reported that the HASC had voted to order the USAF to continue funding the development of the F135 GE engine as an alternative to the Pratt. Your first paragraph is plainly factually incorrect, as those of us who follow press coverage of this airplane know quite well. Regarding your second paragraph, I haven't been adamant becaue LM has seen it fit to tell the world every time the F-35 so much as leaves the ground. Information regarding the flight test program has been fairly covered and disseminated. Seond paragraph, second sentence: you either did not read what I wrote in an earlier post, you choose to ignore what I write, or you lack reading comprehension: neither I nor any reporter can DEMAND information from LM. We can ask, and it is up the company to comment. If the company chooses not to comment, that will be duly noted.

What we do know is this: there are people on this site who have shouted from the rooftops how much they loathe the press, with comments that, in some cases, have suggested journalists ought to be shot, either with a gun or into space. And yes, there is a substantial portion of the population that holds that opinion, particularly that portion of the population that watches Fox News, which is not really news anyway, and much less journalism, which is why that portion of the population watches it: because it tells them what they want to hear in the manner they want to hear it. But that's okay; these folks don't want anything to do with journalism or journalists anyway. Fortunately, there are other news organizations that think journalism is more than pandering and infotainment. And being a journalist has nothing to do with popularity contests. On the contrary--you will likely be hated by those whose claim to power it is your job to question and contest. If there aren't at least some people who hate you as a journalist, you're probably not doing your job.

Finally, there are two possibilities regarding the nature of the malfunction on May 3. First of all, if it was a "real" malfunction, it could not have been as minor as some have suggested. When it was clear in the first flight that they had a faulty air data probe, LM ended the flight early, but did not have the F-35 come in for an emergency landing with emergency vehicles waiting for it. So, if the malfunction was in fact a "real" malfunction, it was a more significant event than a minor malfunction of a minor system.

The other possibility is that this was actually all planned as a test. Given that, as far as I am aware, the plane has yet to return to the air, I find that unlikely.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2007, 18:20
by MKopack
idesof wrote:Finally, there are two possibilities regarding the nature of the malfunction on May 3. First of all, if it was a "real" malfunction, it could not have been as minor as some have suggested. When it was clear in the first flight that they had a faulty air data probe, LM ended the flight early, but did not have the F-35 come in for an emergency landing with emergency vehicles waiting for it. So, if the malfunction was in fact a "real" malfunction, it was a more significant event than a minor malfunction of a minor system.

The other possibility is that this was actually all planned as a test. Given that, as far as I am aware, the plane has yet to return to the air, I find that unlikely.


I hate to jump back into this, but I worked Blk. 10 A/B Vipers at MacDill in the late 80's. By this time they were 'tried and true' (or 'tired but true', depending on your perspective) an IFE just wasn't a big deal. We had up to 107 aircraft on the ramp, with most flying multiple times a day, and we saw just about everything you could imagine, from straight out crashes, to landings without gear, to, well, you name it.

IFE's were just something that happened at least a couple of times a week and neither we, nor any of the local media (with whom we had pretty good relations, they were out on the ramp pretty often) who knew about them, made a big deal about it.

Even when we had an aircraft dead stick into Tampa International from 50+ miles out over the Gulf, the media reported the incident and the fact that we fixed it and flew it home. No one cried that the world was ending. I'd guess I towed an aircraft that a pilot had 'abandoned' on or near the runway back to the ramp (and it's a long way at MacDill for those who haven't been there) at least every couple of weeks. No big deal.

It's the nature of the beast - military aviation. Fighters aren't Toyota Camrys, they're Formula 1 race cars. They break. When your race car breaks during a race, it's fixed, and they move on to the next race. Dissapointing, sure, and the media might report that it broke, but you fix it and move on.

The airplane broke, and it is, or it's being fixed. It happens every day.

Mike

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2007, 18:31
by parrothead
OK, all insults against Fox News and those who choose it as thier news outlet of choice aside (trying to stay on topic), I'll agree to three of the four points you propose as fact. The one that I still disagree with is that there's some reason to call attention to the fact that the aircraft landed with emergency vehicles and has yet to return to the air. Check with Lockheed and the Air Force and let us know why this is.

I (a civilian who works in telecommunications troubleshooting) can think of several reasons that emergency vehicles might have been called out and the pilot deplaned on the runway without a major malfunction having occured. Something might have given a false indication of a serious condition - could have been something like brake anti-skid inoperative indication or a brakes inoperative indication. Such an indication could raise fears of hot brakes or non-functional brakes which would make me think it would be a good idea to get the fire trucks out in case of a brake fire or failure. You'd want to tow it back to the hangar because even if the brakes worked right then, you need to check it out to be absolutely certain that it's OK before you trust them again. And you'd want the pilot out of the aircraft because there's other people who can take care of cockpit chores on the ground, but the pilot needs to debrief.

Nobody knows the flight schedule (been over that one already), so there are any number of unrelated reasons for the aircraft not to have flown since then.

I have no problem publishing the fact that the aircraft had an unknown problem which caused the guys in charge to call out the crash trucks and that the plane hasn't flown since. What I have a problem with is the sensational nature with which it was proposed that I have a problem with.

We can agree to disagree on many issues, but I'm glad we agree that the F-35 is a good idea and the best way to put warheads on foreheads in the near future :) .

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2007, 19:27
by dwightlooi
parrothead wrote:OK, all insults against Fox News and those who choose it as thier news outlet of choice aside (trying to stay on topic),


Well, all aside, Fox News happens to be the most fair, balanced and (most importantly) accurate news outlet amongst the big five. Sure, they have right leaning talk shows on -- like nobody else does -- and many who do not subscribe to the generally left leaning media of the USA may watch them because of that. But, I watch them because they have the highest propensity towards accurate reporting and presenting both sides of a story. For instance, they are the only news network which gave airtime to scientists who present the very solid case that Global Warming does not exist. It is also not the news outlet for America, Bush, military or corporate bashing. And that is a good thing.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2007, 21:06
by VPRGUY
Idesof; you've done a much better job being "objective" in your reply. The standard impression, myself included, is that you've been bashing the F-35 on a fairly regular basis, and most of us haven't seen any "joking" nature in the way your responses were written. I'm not saying you were or you weren't- that is something that, behind the text of a computer screen, only you can know for sure. Perhaps you have a deadpan sense of humor, that is known and understood by those who know you- but it doesn't carry over well to strangers who can only read your words. As a writer, I'm sure you understand that tone, inflection, and body language that clearly define a spoken statement are nearly impossible to carry over into a written statement.

Your second paragraph:
It appears that you listed the things that are known, without going into what should or should not be done about it. That is a far better stance to take, than the following comments that came before:

Then maybe we can cancel this whole misbegotten, ugly-as-all-holy-hell POS and get some far more attractive F-16s instead!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, the editors of this site should post a story ASAP and contact the major news organizations to report that the very $$$$$$ F-35 prototype suffered some sort of major failure.


To me, and apparently many others here, this sounds like the rant of someone with an axe to grind against the program, not a supporter who was cracking jokes-or an independent journalist.


What I said:
There hasn't been a thing mentioned about the F-35 on any news channel I've seen in months- well, with exception of the Pentagon channel. It hasn't even made it onto the little "ticker" at the bottom of the screen.

I am one of those lackeys who follows the main news sources; AP (newspapers), MSNBC, CBS, and >gasp< Fox News. I stand by my statement, that I haven't seen a drop of coverage about the F-35 there-or the F-22 for that matter. I also try to check out the af.mil website every day, and have not seen anything more than passing observations of the F-35 there. In fact, using the af.mil news search engine, I did not recieve a single hit on "F-35" or "F-35 Lightning II". I used to follow "Combat Aircraft" magazine, and I'm sure there will be information there, but I haven't seen that magazine in some time. Regardless of the press releases being published by LM, as far as I can tell they just aren't getting out to the mainstream media.

I have no doubt that the House Armed Services Committees' vote on the F-35's engine was published, somewhere. Would you mind telling us where, other than perhaps a .gov website that is required to print whatever votes are taken? I'm not attempting to slam you here, but if you're going to "prove" to me that I'm "factually incorrect" then you should include where I might find the proof. I've cited where I haven't seen the information. I'm hoping you will be able to tell me to reference possibly the Wall Street Journal, or maybe a significant defense publication.

the public has a right to know, and it will know. LM public relaions will be getting a few phone calls, and they will provide answers. So far the mainstream media hasn't touched this, because obviously it is oblivious. But no more. Time to contact the AP...


I added the emphasis to four particular words. You had emphasis on the one. If this isn't a demand for information, I honestly can't say that I read it as leaving LM the choice to comment or not. In the interest of getting accurate information, and possibly out of frustration with some of us on these boards, perhaps you mis-spoke? In re-reading some of my posts, perhaps I have slammed you as being too hostile to the F-35:
VPRGUY wrote:This really doesn't sound like anything an "unbiased" publisher or reporter would be caught dead saying. Suck it up and admit it: You, personally, HATE the F-35.
This is certainly the impression I came away with after reading what you have posted throughout this (and the flight #14/15) thread. If so then my apologies, but if not, I stand by my statements.

I, for one, do appreciate your efforts at getting information. I think you've gone about it the wrong way, and certainly came across as less than "neutral" in your position - and therefore your motives - in your desire to get this story out. That, more than anything, is what has kept you under fire here.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2007, 22:10
by habu2
TTBOMK the "official" public source for JSF & F-35 related news is http://www.jsf.mil/

Note that many of the "news" links there are to LM press releases.

That's about as close as you're gonna get to "official" news unless you are on JDL.

(if you know what JDL is then you know what I mean) :wink:

(and if you don't know what JDL is then don't ask) 8)

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2007, 14:30
by Lieven
Flight International reports today:

Flight International wrote:Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter recovers from in-flight power failure
By Craig Hoyle

Lockheed Martin has launched a planned software modification to its lone F-35 test asset, after suffering an unexpected power failure during the aircraft’s 19th and most recent test flight on 3 May.

“We had some very unusual electrical transient through the airplane,” says Joint Strike Fighter programme executive officer US Air Force Brig Gen Charles Davis. “All the electrics dropped offline and came back after a few milliseconds.”

Lockheed confirms: “The test pilot observed a partial failure of the electrical power system. The issue required that the pilot return to base and the 45min flight was slightly shorter than planned. Although the aircraft’s redundant systems worked, we wanted to recover the aircraft to investigate the fault as soon as possible.” The JSF uses electrical power to control all its primary flight control surfaces.

The conventional take-off and landing aircraft – AA-1 – has been returned to its run station for an engineering review and to receive flight software update FTU-2, which Lockheed says will adjust its flight parameters following the 20h flown to date and introduce on-board prognostic health management systems. “The F-35 team does not expect any overall delays in the flight testing programme as a result of the incident,” it says.

Source: <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/05/11/213794/lockheed-martins-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-recovers-from-in-flight-power.html" rel="nofollow">flightglobal.com</a>

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2007, 15:43
by Draykov
And now we know...

Thanks, Lieven.

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2007, 17:42
by dwightlooi
The JSF uses electrical power to control all its primary flight control surfaces.


Just like a Boeing 787... :lol:

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2007, 21:11
by checksixx
This has blown out of control..at least there's an answer now. Much like the F-22/dateline incident...many absolutely false reports of how bad the problem really was. Anyways...an ECS failure will generate an IFE and thats relatively minor.