some F35 info

[parsifal]

Id really like to hear what you come up with Greg

 

[GregP]

Might take awhile, might not. I'm JUST now starting a new job.

I can say this, a twin engine aircraft is always going to be safer tahn a single atfer failure of one engine. At least SOME of the twins will land uneventfully, probably on an airport. The single will all have a forced landing.

That being said, the single that experiences a forced landing will usually be more surviviable than a twin in a forced landing situation. In general aviation, that is because the singles all have a lower stall speed than the twins and the probability of survival is inversely proportion to the speed of arrival. Faster is less survivable.

If your trusty single-engine steed is an F-104, you are SOL. Best glide in an F-104 engine-out is around 270 knots! That's NOT a good speed at which to hit rocks. A dry lake like Edwards might be OK ...

But MOST people these days aren't flying F-104's, even if they are military. In the military, I'd say fighters in general are not very survivable in a forced landing situation as their power-off stall speeds are high enough to kill King Kong. I'd rather glide down in a military Beech King Air than a T-38, though, as it would definitely arrive much more slowly.

I did a quick-look at the AIB reports for FY 2000 and the most prominent accidents were from the F-16 crowd. There were 23 Class A accidents in FY 2000. 13 were single engine, 8 were twin engine, and 2 were 4-engine (C-130 and a JSTARS).

Of the 13 singles, 9 were F-16s. Haven't completed the investigation yet but, so far, 1 was a mid-air, 1 was during an airshow when the pilot failed to recognize a high rate of descent from a low-altitude split-S and impacted the ground before pull-out was accomplished. So far, two have been compressor stalls which failed to restart after 2 - 3 tries in the air and the pilots ejected. Seems like there was a particular lot of F-16 engines that had a welding splash degrade the fan blade attach point. They were supposed to all be inspected, but one of the two was JUST outside the serial number range and experienced a fan blade failure. The other one was in the range but had yet to be inspected. Still have a few more to look at.

Perosnally, I'd expect most losses to be due to pilot error or systems other than the engines since there are so many systems on a modern fighter that have a shorter MTBF than the engines do.

I'll make one observation about WWII type piston engines. I have been working the Planes of Fame airshow for nine years. During that time we have had about 30 WWII planes per show, flying on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday to the tune of about 50 sorties per day, plus a practice day.

Ignore the practice day. That is about 1,350 sorties and we have had 5 aborts or non-starts. One was an F4U Corsair that couldn't get a wing down ... failed hydraulic valve. One was a flat tire. One was a C-47 that lost an engine after liftoff and struggled around the pattern on one and landed safely. If he had been a single, it would have force-landed in a pasture. The other two were engine-related. One was a rough eninge on a Tigercat who aborted on takeoff, He flew later after changing spark plugs. The other was a non-start. I don;t really count the non-start because it gave fair warning and was fixed before it ever started. The fix was simple.

So that's less than 0.5% of the sorties that didn't go and only 1 with a failed airborne engine.

And these engines are all 75 - 80 years old! In my humble opinion, that ain't bad.

The turbines are MUCH more reliable ... but, yes, they DO occasionally fail. People occasionally keel over and die, too. Not often, and less often without some prior warning, but they do.

Engines are like that. They usually, but not always, give you a warning or three before failing outright.

I have not a lot of flying hours compared with someone who flies for a living but have had a partial engine failure in a Cessna 172. The engine started running rough, and then quit. I switched tanks and nothing happened. I played with the mixture and nothing happened. Then, for no reason other than a desperate try with an engine-related system, I tried the primer handle and got a shot of power. So I pumped the primer handle all the way to the nearest airport and landed.

Turned out to be sugar in the gas tank and it had partially plugged up the carb and was about to foul all the plugs had it needed to run much more. So I got a "failure" of sorts, but it wasn't the engine's fault and wasn't a complete failure because the primer circuit allowed sufficient power to land. Since it was a rental, I had them come pick me up in another plane and declined to pay for it unless I got to fly back. As it happens, I flew back and got checked out in a C-210 along the way, all for the price of a C-172. What more can you ask for?

I'm not sure that qualifies as an engine failure at all. There was nothing wrong with the original C-172 engine. It was caused by a deliberate act of sabotage by a human. They caught him ... and I flew that same plane later with no more trouble. Turns out there is NO WAY to detect sugar in the gas if you do a standard drain-the-fuel-into-the-cup type check anyway, but it never happened again at that flying club while I belonged to it. So, the reliablity of flat 4 - 6 piston single in my own experience has been rather high ... 100% if I discount the sugar-in-the-tank experience due to being a man-made issue.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Now that's what I'm talking about!

Now take those F-16 engine failures and bounce them against hours flown and you could almost use the term "foolproof," although we know that could be an oxymoron! Now combine that with an engine that's designed to be twice as reliable as an F110 (F135) and one could see why the DoD moved away from the "twin engine naval combat aircraft requirement." Some folks were just obtuse to see that!

 

[Lucky13]

Any comments?

More Bad News for the F-35, the Plane That Ate the Pentagon.

It's the Yahoo News though....

 

[Lucky13]

I hope that you didn't choke on your morning coffee!

This is just out of curiosity, but....how much bang do get for the money with the -35, compared to the hottest birds in the -60's, -70's, -80's and -90's and the money back then, what's the pricetag on the F-8 Crusader F-4 Phantom and F-14 Tomcat in today's dough, or maybe the F-111 is a better example, it also suffering a bit of a bumpy road at first...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Any comments?

More Bad News for the F-35, the Plane That Ate the Pentagon.

It's the Yahoo News though....

I saw that yesterday, more rubbish from a civil servant. There many "simulated" exercises that don't use live ordnance and so what if the deck of the carrier was cleared of other aircraft? How conveniently the article omitted that during the exercise the aircraft were operated at about a 90% MC rate.

 

[Lucky13]

I saw that yesterday, more rubbish from a civil servant. There many "simulated" exercises that don't use live ordnance and so what if the deck of the carrier was cleared of other aircraft? How conveniently the article omitted that during the exercise the aircraft were operated at about a 90% MC rate.

MC rate?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

MC rate?

Mission capable - This is the percentage of the fleet that's available for sortie. When an aircraft is mission capable it will be ready to accomplish the mission but may have an item or two inoperative. FMC is fully mission capable and it means everything on the aircraft works. Although it is desired to have everything 100% MC, sometimes you have to set a level for routine maintenance and operating costs. Some USAF aircraft fleets are required to be in the 80 percent range while others are a lot lower - for example the B-2 is only required to be 50% MC the last time I looked.

 

[Lucky13]

Thanks Joe!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I hope that you didn't choke on your morning coffee!

This is just out of curiosity, but....how much bang do get for the money with the -35, compared to the hottest birds in the -60's, -70's, -80's and -90's and the money back then, what's the pricetag on the F-8 Crusader F-4 Phantom and F-14 Tomcat in today's dough, or maybe the F-111 is a better example, it also suffering a bit of a bumpy road at first...

Some numbers from Wiki and other military forums...

An F-4E cost $2.4 million in 1965 which would be about $19 million in today's dollars.

An F-111F costs 10.3 million in 1973, which would be about $57 million in today's dollars.

An F-8 cost about $1 million in 1965, which today would be about $7.5 million in today's dollars.

An F-14 cost about $38 million in 1998, which today would be about $55.3 million in today's dollars

Some things to consider;

These prices may not include "GFE" (Government Furnished Equipment, engines, avionics, etc.)

The labor rates to produce these aircraft were probably a lot lower than what you're seeing today. When I started at Lockheed back in January 1980 I was making $8.35 an hour which was more than a structural assembler was making. $8.35 in 1980 equates to about $25.00 an hour today. LMCO structural assembles start at $29.00 an hour.

Salary: Aircraft Assembler | Glassdoor

Like your car, consider the costs of all the fancy electronics. Depending who you talk to, avionics and onboard computers could add up to 50% of the cost of an aircraft in today's world.

Lastly - longevity;

F-8 Crusader - 9 years of service for about 1,300 units built

F-4 Phantom - over 55 years in service (still in service with some air forces) US service 47 years, over 5,100 units built

F-111 - 31 years in service with the USAF, 37 with the RAAF, 565 units built.

F-14 - 32 years in service with the USN, still in service with the IAF, 712 built, 79 operated by Iran, about 44 remaining.

If a 2,500+ F-35 fleet is fielded and the aircraft remotely performs as advertised and last for 50 years (with a 10% attrition rate), it will definitely be worth the 90 million per unit price tag.

 

[buffnut453]

Mission capable - This is the percentage of the fleet that's available for sortie. When an aircraft is mission capable it will be ready to accomplish the mission but may have an item or two inoperative. FMC is fully mission capable and it means everything on the aircraft works. Although it is desired to have everything 100% MC, sometimes you have to set a level for routine maintenance and operating costs. Some USAF aircraft fleets are required to be in the 80 percent range while others are a lot lower - for example the B-2 is only required to be 50% MC the last time I looked.

Good description Joe. We had similar definitions on the flip side for NATO TACEVALs - a sortie was counted towards the squadron's total if the aircraft was "wartime MC" even if the aircraft could not be safely flown under peacetime regulations. For example, the aircraft's civilian transponder may have been inoperable which would have prevented flying, or the engine was near to peacetime service limits.

 

[Torch]

Need to hit the breakfast buffet before you fly .........Exclusive: F-35 Ejection Seat Fears Ground Lightweight Pilots

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Need to hit the breakfast buffet before you fly .........Exclusive: F-35 Ejection Seat Fears Ground Lightweight Pilots

Kind of funny because the same seat (MB MK 16) is used on the T-6, Typhoon, NASA T-38Ns and USAF T-38 upgrades and no mention of those aircraft.

 

[GrauGeist]

Kind of funny because the same seat (MB MK 16) is used on the T-6, Typhoon, NASA T-38Ns and USAF T-38 upgrades and no mention of those aircraft.

Do you get the impression that these "reports" look to be an attempt to dig up anything possible to make the F-35 look bad?

Next thing you know, there'll be an exclusive report that the F-35 has the "same green colored light" on it's wing as Malaysian flight MH370...

 

[GregP]

Over the years it hasn't been very difficult to make the F-35 look bad. Perhaps this is simply a reaction to reports that are less than satisfactory after all the years of problems.

You can like or not like the F-35 (another thread I don't wish to pursue in here), but it HAS been plagued with delays, performance reductions, and cost increases as a matter of public record. Cost increases always gets up people's dander even if nothing else does, so I'm not surprised.

There were a significant number of people screaming for the F-4 Phantom to have a gun early-on, but the apologists kept saying it wasn't needed. That lasted until the F-4s started getting shot down in South Viet Nam by MiG-17s. The F-4E and ALL later variants had the gun that was asked for at the start.

The F-35 is showing many of the same signs ... lots of people sweeping the objections under the rug with one-liner replies. Time and service will tell whether or not the objections that have been raised are valid or not. To do that, it has to GET into service and see what events transpire.

I'm still wondering what the real RANGE is until the fuel supply gets so small that it gets overheated to the point of shutdown by the idiotic decision to use the fuel for a heat sink in the first place.

Maybe when they get into service we can get the real range from some country who will tell us the truth. You can't seem to find it in the USA from any reliable source. We can find the fact that the fuel needs to be there to act as a heat sink, but not how far it can fly until that point is reached. We may never KNOW that until the F-35 is long in the tooth since it is a parameter of interest to our enemies as well as to our friends, but it a given that it won't fly the previously-stated range because that range is with fuel used down to minimum reserves.

That is interesting because the F-35B version only has a stated combat radius of 469 miles ... or 900 miles range total. I'm still wondering how the radius can be 469 miles when twice that exceeds the 900 mile range ... somebody's numbers don't add up. But we know the real range is relatively short, at least for the F-35B, which is the STOVL version.

Hopefully at some point we'll have active duty F-35's doling some missions. Since it weas declared combat ready in August, maybe some reports will surface soon and we can see what has happened in the first active month of the F-35's service life.

I'll withhold all opinions until I see some real numbers. I hope it does well, and we aren't that far away from the multinational partners also have a shot at using it actively, either. Perhaps we will hear some things by year's end.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

OK - there's a lot of things here Greg I have to thow my two cents at...

Over the years it hasn't been very difficult to make the F-35 look bad. Perhaps this is simply a reaction to reports that are less than satisfactory after all the years of problems.

You can like or not like the F-35 (another thread I don't wish to pursue in here), but it HAS been plagued with delays, performance reductions, and cost increases as a matter of public record. Cost increases always gets up people's dander even if nothing else does, so I'm not surprised.

The F-35 had some major issues and is still not out of the woods - HOWEVER many of the issues were either half reported or flat out wrong. Part of the contract was cost plus, the DoD tried to put a cap on that amount but that doesn't work when you're developing a new technology and can't give a development number until you develop the article! Most of the cost over-runs were at the government's discretion and had to be approved by the DoD, so it wasn't like LMCO just ran wild with taxpayer's money. I'll repeat again - all of the F-35s predecessors had issues and cost over runs during development. The F-14, F-16 and F-22 all had class A mishaps during their development. The First F-14 was lost after it's third flight. So many forget the grounding of the F-15 weeks after entering service and the F-18 cracking vertical stabilizers

There were a significant number of people screaming for the F-4 Phantom to have a gun early-on, but the apologists kept saying it wasn't needed. That lasted until the F-4s started getting shot down in South Viet Nam by MiG-17s. The F-4E and ALL later variants had the gun that was asked for at the start.

this is a myth. True, pilots wanted a gun in the F-4. 3/4's of the F-4's initial dismal performance was due to the ROEs imposed by the politicians. Another 1/4 of their problem was the poor performance of the Sparrow missile. In the book "And Kill MiGs" there is a list of MiG kills and gun kills account for a small percentage (I believe only 6) out of 165 MiGs claimed. Even the famed F-8 Crusader "The last gunfighter" only downed 4 of their 17 MiGs with a cannon. The Navy never put a gun in their F-4s.

The F-35 is showing many of the same signs ... lots of people sweeping the objections under the rug with one-liner replies. Time and service will tell whether or not the objections that have been raised are valid or not. To do that, it has to GET into service and see what events transpire.

What people can't get their heads wrapped around is this is not 1970. What was deemed impossible or foolish to develop 40 years ago is common place today. Compare an F-4s INU to a GPS today, it's like comparing a rock to a cruise missile.

I'm still wondering what the real RANGE is until the fuel supply gets so small that it gets overheated to the point of shutdown by the idiotic decision to use the fuel for a heat sink in the first place.

Greg, this has been addressed over and over again. The USMC had no issue with the F-35B running low on few a few weeks ago.

Maybe when they get into service we can get the real range from some country who will tell us the truth. You can't seem to find it in the USA from any reliable source. We can find the fact that the fuel needs to be there to act as a heat sink, but not how far it can fly until that point is reached. We may never KNOW that until the F-35 is long in the tooth since it is a parameter of interest to our enemies as well as to our friends, but it a given that it won't fly the previously-stated range because that range is with fuel used down to minimum reserves.

With over 300 built and a second production line going in Italy, I'm sure these concerns have been well addressed.

That is interesting because the F-35B version only has a stated combat radius of 469 miles ... or 900 miles range total. I'm still wondering how the radius can be 469 miles when twice that exceeds the 900 mile range ... somebody's numbers don't add up. But we know the real range is relatively short, at least for the F-35B, which is the STOVL version.

Do you realize the range might be shortened because the F-35B had the ability to be operated with wing pylons?

Hopefully at some point we'll have active duty F-35's doling some missions. Since it weas declared combat ready in August, maybe some reports will surface soon and we can see what has happened in the first active month of the F-35's service life.

Well there have been reports and of course the marine brass praised the aircraft, Pentagon watchdog groups said the initial combat simulations were flawed (see my earlier post)

 

[GregP]

Hi Joe,

Most of my entire point was that since it has had a lot of problems, any small "glitches" will bring out the nay-sayers. What the F-35 needs is some good old sterling performance in the field with no or very few glitches in order to silence anyone who doesn't like it.

Maybe we'll see some numbers after a quarter or so. They may or may not be real numbers when we see them since DOD has a vested interest in sprucing up the numbers a bit so things look good. I doubt we'll see false numbers from Australia, but you never know.

The issue might come to light if we turn out to have vastly superior performance numbers to other users of the same aircraft. Then it might stat to smell a bit. Otherwise, if we see similar numbers across the board, it might be close to true numbers. If so, it doesn't mean the F-35 is good or bad. It probably means they are using it correctly for the intended application, which usually produces good numbers.

The first time we use it in a limited political situation and the ROE dictate close to WVR, it might turn out differently. I hope they're smart enough to not DO that.

 

[Lucky13]

Some numbers from Wiki and other military forums...

An F-4E cost $2.4 million in 1965 which would be about $19 million in today's dollars.

An F-111F costs 10.3 million in 1973, which would be about $57 million in today's dollars.

An F-8 cost about $1 million in 1965, which today would be about $7.5 million in today's dollars.

An F-14 cost about $38 million in 1998, which today would be about $55.3 million in today's dollars

Some things to consider;

These prices may not include "GFE" (Government Furnished Equipment, engines, avionics, etc.)

The labor rates to produce these aircraft were probably a lot lower than what you're seeing today. When I started at Lockheed back in January 1980 I was making $8.35 an hour which was more than a structural assembler was making. $8.35 in 1980 equates to about $25.00 an hour today. LMCO structural assembles start at $29.00 an hour.

Salary: Aircraft Assembler | Glassdoor

Like your car, consider the costs of all the fancy electronics. Depending who you talk to, avionics and onboard computers could add up to 50% of the cost of an aircraft in today's world.

Lastly - longevity;

F-8 Crusader - 9 years of service for about 1,300 units built

F-4 Phantom - over 55 years in service (still in service with some air forces) US service 47 years, over 5,100 units built

F-111 - 31 years in service with the USAF, 37 with the RAAF, 565 units built.

F-14 - 32 years in service with the USN, still in service with the IAF, 712 built, 79 operated by Iran, about 44 remaining.

If a 2,500+ F-35 fleet is fielded and the aircraft remotely performs as advertised and last for 50 years (with a 10% attrition rate), it will definitely be worth the 90 million per unit price tag.

Cheers Joe!

 

[GrauGeist]

By the way, good points about cost per unit and longevity.

The B-29 cost $639,188 per unit ($8,431,967 in 2015 dollars) and was in service for about 15 years.

The B-36 cost $4,000,000 per unit ($43,685,953 in 2015 dollars) and was in service for about 10 years.

The B-52 cost $14,000,000 per unit ($123,122,397 in 2015 dollars) and has been in service for about 60 years.

The B-2 cost $737,000,000 per unit ($1,091,150,340 in 2015 dollars) and has been in service for 18 years.
* costs shown above, is flyaway price when first introduced *

I know these examples are not fighters, but they illustrate just how much money can be spent per unit on aircraft and how often folks will say "oh, so and so aircraft only cost X dollars back in 19 whenever..." but don't realize that a dollar is a dollar, no matter what the year...military equipment is expensive, it always has been, it always will be.

 

[Lucky13]

The B-2's been is service for 18 years!!??
Ok, it's official.....I'm old!