
spazsinbad wrote:Depending upon F-35 Variant the MAX G is 9 for A; 7 for B & 7.5 for C from LM F-35 Fast Facts April 2020: [full int load]
https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... l_2020.pdf (2Mb)
IIRC when taxiing in high temps there was a time limit for doors closed due to overheating however AFAIK the issue fixed by wiring changes in bomb bay a long time ago. The F-35A & B variants operate in high temp desert environments today.
Discussion about it here: viewtopic.php?f=60&t=52580 Weapons bay thermal environment 11 Dec 2016
Another post to ponder: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25623&p=316585&hilit=skirts#p316585
leads to: Currently there are 12+ pages of articles so this quote is on page 12 (with many more HTML pages subsequently).
Some comments on new claims about the F-35
25 Feb 2016 Morten Klever [Norsk F-35 pilote]
"...It is true that a weapon room so close to the engine places strict demands on the weapons to be carried inside the F-35. However, Berg's discussion of the problem DOT & E describes is misleading. What the report is talking about has nothing to do with the weapons or overheating of the weapons room . The reason is that to facilitate the maintenance of the aircraft, the designers have put in place a number of systems, such as cables, pipes and electronics along the walls of the weapon room. This makes them easier to access for the technicians who no longer have to open a variety of hatches in the hull each time they have access. The test program has now revealed that some of these, which belong to the electronic systems on board, have not been tested and qualified for the temperatures that will occur in the weapon room at high speed at low altitude, or when the aircraft are on the ground with the engine running at ambient temperatures above 32 degrees Celsius. Therefore, the program cannot document that the parts in question will withstand these temperatures. Until such documentation is in place, routines have been introduced in accordance with the "precautionary" principle to ensure that the temperature in the weapon room does not exceed the known and documented maximum temperature. This is therefore not a problem with the aircraft as such, but with the specifications of a single type of parts.
When this new documentation is ready, one of three things will happen. Either it shows that the parts actually withstand the temperatures in the weapon room, and then the current routines will be removed. If they do not, the parts will either be improved to meet the requirements or they will be replaced. If improvements or modifications have to be made, and it turns out that Lockheed Martin has ordered parts that do not meet the requirements, then they will probably also have to cover the cost of this. However, neither Lockheed Martin nor the program can facilitate the requirements of the aircraft without being approved by the partner countries, including Norway.
As long as these routines apply it will affect the use of the aircraft, but the Norwegian F-35 pilots at Luke Air Force Base report that they have so far not experienced that this has placed any restrictions on their training. The reason is that contrary to what Berg claims, these are not moderate conditions, but very high speeds at relatively low altitudes. At these altitudes, it takes a lot of fuel to fly at such a high speed, which is something that is rarely done for extended periods of time, either with the F-35 or today's aircraft. The training with the Norwegian planes therefore continues to the full!"
Source: https://translate.google.com/translate? ... &sandbox=1