Video: Marine Corps Welcomes First F-35B Aircraft to Yuma

F-35 unit & base selection, delivery, activation
Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 21:01
Location: Ohio

by marksengineer » 29 Nov 2012, 23:04

Irrespective of whether or not there has been falsification in the past the new ALIS system will make it difficult to fudge the records as it's a fleet wide reporting and database. If configured correctly they will be able to estabish metrics to manage the fleet. It will be difficult for a unit to hide maintenace fudges when they are compared to all the other units.


Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 03 May 2008, 00:23
Location: USA

by Pecker » 29 Nov 2012, 23:16

frontline wrote:
Pecker wrote:
frontline wrote: the clutch heat is because the jet is new and parts wear in, the shaft spins in the clutch housing all the time so the heating is the oil in the clutch housing caused by an extended flight,


It's a dry clutch. The only oil in the clutch 'housing' is to the various bearings. The clutch is definitely not 'wet' as your post would suggest.


Fact, but it also has oil that is used for cooling the clutch, not suggesting it is a wet clutch, it is dry. The clutch drag is what causes it to heat up and in addition to cooling oil the temp is also manged by forced air cooling and a clutch fan when below 11,000'.


Sorry frontline, i'm going to stick to my guns on this: there is no active clutch cooling by way of oil; ALL clutch plate cooling is by air flow (aerodynamically or via the cooling fan). The only oil in the clutch housing is that delivered to the bearings for lubrication and bearing cooling.

In theory (and it's a stretched theory at best) there may be some very minor conduction paths from the clutch plates, through small contact patches and via shafts and structures, to the bearing housings and, thence, to the oil but it is definitely not designed or intended to extract heat from the clutch plates. Thermal management of the plates is via cooling air only.
Last edited by Pecker on 29 Nov 2012, 23:18, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 7505
Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

by XanderCrews » 29 Nov 2012, 23:18

marksengineer wrote:Irrespective of whether or not there has been falsification in the past the new ALIS system will make it difficult to fudge the records as it's a fleet wide reporting and database. If configured correctly they will be able to estabish metrics to manage the fleet. It will be difficult for a unit to hide maintenace fudges when they are compared to all the other units.


Which is great! But it may also be used against the F-35 if its the first aircraft thats readiness rate is actually reported honestly. Be ready for lots of "The Harrier wasn't this bad!" reports .

You think Sweetman and CO won't be closely monitoring -121 and comparing it to other aircraft? And do you think they will bother to give background or side info about what the numbers mean? Or do you think they will just use it all as ammo indiscriminately to continue with the same narrative they have been pimping for years?


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 29 Nov 2012, 23:24

Hang on 'XanderCrews' what do we care what SweetiePie et al say about the F-35B C or A if it is either out of context or not correct. What we care about is the truth surely - not how that 'truth' is interpreted by others. The truth does not hurt anyone - especially aviation safety. The chaps in this video are not able to do what they do because all the aircraft/ship records are falsified.

F/A-18 $hit Hot Break and Trap

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 0Hcme7Usnk

"Published on Oct 29, 2012 by CloudSurfProductions
VFA-211 Super Hornets bringing the $hit Hot Break and bagging a few traps onboard the USS Enterprise. Also known as the "Triple Nickel" (Breaking 500', 500kts and .5NM BEFORE the boat).
***Not an Official Navy Video***"


Banned
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

by 1st503rdsgt » 29 Nov 2012, 23:32

spazsinbad wrote:I don't buy the logic of falsifying maintenance records for each individual aircraft. Is this not separate from other records such as how many aircraft are available in a squadron or wing or whatever these other records are called in the US? Quite rightly falsifying maintenance records is a crime. Fudging other non critical numbers - I would have to know what these were. However a culture of 'falsifying' is not a good culture for flight safety. But I take your sweeping statement "Every unit in the entire US military aviation establishment falsifies or fudges numbers...." as just that - sweeping.
Memory of this story is fuzzy, but I once read an account of a lazy desk General who would drive his car out to the taxiway and check the tail numbers of F-105s heading out for Vietnam. If a plane was missing that wasn't scheduled for regular maintenance, there would be hell to pay, likewise for planes showing up when they were supposed to be getting worked on. Understandably, the underlings were vexed since they had no way of predicting when each individual plane was gonna break. So far as they were concerned, their job was to simply keep a given number of aircraft flying, regardless of tail-numbers. Their solution was to simply repaint the Thuds as necessary before a mission with numbers that would keep the General happy.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 7505
Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

by XanderCrews » 29 Nov 2012, 23:52

It all "works" because everyone is in on the game. I'm not saying that they are falsified to insane or dangerous degree. What happened with the V-22, is that they were and thats why people went down for it. There was a ton of pressure on the V-22 and the USMC was very much isolated on that. I havnt read Dream Machine that could probably tell you more.

Compared to the V-22 the F-35 is a dream of a program. The only way the two are similiar is the USMC involvement and for most of the slow folks thats enough of a connection.

With Harriers for example Sidewinders are rarely fitted so the nobody really cares whether the rails are G2G or not. However, in order for an AV-8B to be considered "fully mission capable" it must be sidewinder ready. So a lot of harriers fly without "full mission capability" However no one likes seeing numbers like "25 percent full mission capable" so you say they are higher than that because you have hours to fly and no one wants to screw with the sidewinders unless they are really needed. Same with the Gun on the harrier. Its not usually fitted in peace time and no one really cares so long as the jet is flying. Other times the aircraft really is down and the numbers get rounded up.

Another example would be creative hanger queening. In order to avoid hanger queens the USAF used to have a policy that every aircraft had to fly at least once every two weeks. solution? Have the hanger queen/parts donor contribute to the rest of the fleet as usual, and on the 13 day get all the parts it needs and put it back together so it can fly for an hour or two. Then when it lands strip it and put all the donated parts back on the other aircraft.


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 30 Nov 2012, 00:26

I still think you don't get it. Individual aircraft maintenance records cannot be falsified or it all falls over. However you give me statistical falsification which is another matter. If you believe your military lies as a matter of course then that is your business. I don't - and I'm not in your military. Hangar Queens have been around since aircraft and queens. So what. As long as aircraft are fit to fly with properly maintained bits and records of those bits properly maintained then that is fine. Fudging other things is apparently fair game in your military. I still don't believe that is the 'general' culture of US Armed Forces and of course there are going to be miscreants over the years. To blather on about these 'stories' on this forum does your individual credit no good for me IMHO.

Now I know why ELP thinks the ADF is similar to USAF. Hmmmm. Of course he has no clue about the ADF but that is another matter also.


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 7505
Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

by XanderCrews » 30 Nov 2012, 01:33

spazsinbad wrote:I still think you don't get it. Individual aircraft maintenance records cannot be falsified or it all falls over. However you give me statistical falsification which is another matter. If you believe your military lies as a matter of course then that is your business. I don't - and I'm not in your military. Hangar Queens have been around since aircraft and queens. So what. As long as aircraft are fit to fly with properly maintained bits and records of those bits properly maintained then that is fine. Fudging other things is apparently fair game in your military. I still don't believe that is the 'general' culture of US Armed Forces and of course there are going to be miscreants over the years. To blather on about these 'stories' on this forum does your individual credit no good for me IMHO.

Now I know why ELP thinks the ADF is similar to USAF. Hmmmm. Of course he has no clue about the ADF but that is another matter also.


Very well it never happened then. Everyone is beyond reproach, and no would ever, ever lie cheat or steal to get ahead in a highly competitive environment that encourages fudging numbers. i will never discredit myself ever again with these wild allegations.

If being honest hurts me around here I will just make an effort to avoid situations where I might have to show candor. It won't happen again. The wheat harvest is coming in well, Comrade and I apologize for bringing it up.


Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 21:01
Location: Ohio

by marksengineer » 30 Nov 2012, 01:48

Here is some info on the clutch:

"DESCRIPTION: Carbon-carbon composite clutch plates can meet a1,500 engagement life requirement for a lift fan clutch, but this is at least two times less than the desired lifetime. The carbon-carbon composite also does not consistently provide the desired range of friction coefficients. A new, innovative clutch plate concept that reduces wear rate and higher overall friction coefficient is required to increase the service life of the clutch.

The F-35 lift fan for vertical take-off and landing is powered by a rotational moment transferred from the engine through a clutch. The lift fan clutch is a 5 disk dry clutch. The clutch design constrains the size of the clutch plates to roughly one foot in diameter with a stack length of approximately 5 inches. The clutch engages at up to ~8500 rpm and the clutch plates must survive rotational speeds in excess of 10,000 rpm. The clutch plates are required to withstand a high shear load in transferring ~70,000 in-lb of torque. The required instantaneous dynamic friction coefficient is >0.1 with a desired mean static coefficient of ~0.2. The clutch plates need high thermal capacity and thermal conductivity to dissipate large amounts of frictional energy introduced at a very high rate during engagement and to avoid hot spot formation. The design must ensure minimum plate warpage. The heat sink must be able to absorb over 11,000 BTUs at an average temperature of 1500 F. In addition, because of the high speed operational environment, the clutch plates must meet a balance requirement of no greater than 5 gram-inches for each plate. "

That's taken from this:

http://www.navysbir.com/n12_1/N121-023.htm

Now for the bearings. The bearing supporting the engine shaft sees nominally 20,000 HP. If it's a normal bearing which it is probably not (would assume a high efficiency one with a lower coeff.) it has a coefficient of friction of 2%. In other words it converts 2% of the energy it receives into heat. For the 20,000 HP that equates to 400 HP. The conversion factor for Hp to BTU's is 1HP = 2545 Btu's per hour. So that bearing has a heat load of 101,800 Btu's per hour.

It's unclear to me whether the 11,000 BTU heat sink is per clutch plate or for all five. Whatever the case the predominate heat source is the bearing and that's why it is oil lubricated and cooled. As for the clutch it has a transient heat load and because of it's configuration as others have mentioned it's air cooled.


Banned
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

by 1st503rdsgt » 30 Nov 2012, 02:13

spazsinbad wrote:I still think you don't get it. Individual aircraft maintenance records cannot be falsified or it all falls over. However you give me statistical falsification which is another matter. If you believe your military lies as a matter of course then that is your business. I don't - and I'm not in your military. Hangar Queens have been around since aircraft and queens. So what. As long as aircraft are fit to fly with properly maintained bits and records of those bits properly maintained then that is fine. Fudging other things is apparently fair game in your military. I still don't believe that is the 'general' culture of US Armed Forces and of course there are going to be miscreants over the years. To blather on about these 'stories' on this forum does your individual credit no good for me IMHO.

Now I know why ELP thinks the ADF is similar to USAF. Hmmmm. Of course he has no clue about the ADF but that is another matter also.

Ok, maybe the RAAN was perfect; I envy Oz if that is indeed the case. As for reality in the US military, cooking the books and fudging numbers generally has more to do with meeting unrealistic expectations or getting around silly SOPs/regulations. In short, it's more about just getting the job done in spite of bureaucratic/legal obstacles.

Loosely related example: the Company XO tells you he wants 800 rounds of .50 cal for each guntruck, but that's well above what higher levels have determined is necessary, and half of what the previous unit left you is degraded and useless anyways. At this point in the tour, you are unable to turn the bad stuff in; so you spend the next few weeks filling out plausible expenditure reports until you have what you need.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 30 Nov 2012, 02:21

I rest my case. I'm talking about aircraft maintenance records. If anyone wants to speak about other items NOT those I'm referring to - then make my day. I'm not interested. I'm still not buying the general tone about the US military that is being foisted upon this forum. If your feelings are hurt by my disbelief then again - make my day.

And I spent time of approx. 9.3 years in the RAN most of them in the RAN FAA; however probably in a time before most of you were born - again make my day. If you don't know what that means then - make my day (say something else stupid). :D


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 30 Nov 2012, 03:03

"General Amos on the F-35s at Yuma

http://www.sldinfo.com/general-amos-on- ... s-at-yuma/

"The Marines have stood up their first squadron of F-35 Bs at MCAS Yuma.

But the Marine Corps approach to the aircraft is built on recognition that it is a C2 and Information Warfare aircraft, which will be a central piece to the ACE or Aviation Combat Element of the MAGTF....

...The F-35 will replace our Hornets, our AV-8B Harrier attack aircraft and our EA-6B electronic warfare aircraft.

Replacing so many different platforms with a single, multi-capable aircraft represents a new way of operating and thinking. This jet possesses “eye-watering” capabilities.

The things it can do are most impressive to a couple of old F-4 Phantom guys like General John Hudson… and myself. Unfortunately, I can’t talk about most of those capabilities here!!

But, suffice it to say this is not your father’s fighter!...

......I noted earlier that having F-35Bs in Yuma shows tangible progress in this vitally important aircraft program.

There is additional progress all over our Corps today regarding fielding the F35B. I call your attention to the 7 F-35Bs currently at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, conducting flight test activities, the 11 F-35Bs now at our training squadron, VMFAT-501, at Eglin AFB, Florida and the 2 United Kingdom F-35Bs that have joined 501 and have also begun training there.

We are making strides in every aspect of this program. Aircraft are being produced tested and flown, pilots are being trained in the air and in the simulators and aircraft mechanics and technicians are learning to ply their trade on this magnificent jet. Yuma will eventually have five operational squadrons, and be responsible for operational evaluation of the F35B. MCAS Yuma will continue to be a busy base.

REMARKS by Gen. Amos:
http://www.sldinfo.com/general-amos-on- ... tribution/


Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 21:01
Location: Ohio

by marksengineer » 30 Nov 2012, 03:03

If the maintenance records were falsified as much as some claim then the results of that would become clearly visible during ORI's and deployments to the OIF and OEF by lower sortie rates.


Banned
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

by 1st503rdsgt » 30 Nov 2012, 03:33

spazsinbad wrote:I rest my case. I'm talking about aircraft maintenance records. If anyone wants to speak about other items NOT those I'm referring to - then make my day. I'm not interested. I'm still not buying the general tone about the US military that is being foisted upon this forum. If your feelings are hurt by my disbelief then again - make my day.

And I spent time of approx. 9.3 years in the RAN most of them in the RAN FAA; however probably in a time before most of you were born - again make my day. If you don't know what that means then - make my day (say something else stupid). :D
I'm flattered that you want to think so highly of us, but the fact remains that numbers can be obfuscated to make a system look good or bad.

Using the V-22 example: Opponents will have us believe that the USMC is willfully putting Marines at risk and lying about it... just because they're the "big-bad military." To that end, they will classify every hiccup as a serious incident and every accident as an equipment failure that's being covered up as pilot-error. Conversely, the USMC (being sensitive to over-zealous criticism) is probably using every trick in the book to make the aircraft look as reliable as possible.

This also seems to be the case with other systems and service branches. It's an endless propaganda war between the military and crybabies of a certain ideological persuasion who'd prefer our guys using crossbows. For everyone else, the truth is in there somewhere... somewhere.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 30 Nov 2012, 03:50

OK - I'll say this for the last time (huge sigh of relief from the peanut gallery). I'm am referring to 'aircraft maintenance records' what I'll presume is understood to refer to those individual maintenance records collected into one often very large book for one aircraft. I'm not referring to statistics - fudged or otherwise. Thanks. 'marksengineer' gets it.


PreviousNext

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests