User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:20:02 AM EDT
The F-35 may be about to face a huge source of delays
The Air Force has not announced that the ejection seat needs to be replaced, but Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch told DefenseNews Friday that they may seek new sub-contractors to redesign the F-35’s ejection seat system, which causes potentially fatal whiplash when deployed. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/28/f-35s-latest-hurdle-could-send-it-back-to-contracting-purgatory/#ixzz4CywylKBh At the root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds. The problem with the ejection seats has been known since at least October. But fixes from Martin-Baker have focused on small issues without resolving the overall design flaw that could cause the fatal whiplash, according to two anonymous officials who spoke with Defense News.
In light of this, the F-35 program has begun to look at other manufacturers for its ejection seats. Chiefly, the program is looking at the United Technologies ACES 5 model. Should the F-35 project decide to replace the F-35's ejection seats, costs of the program could increase and the aircraft could take longer to deliver. Martin-Baker is a British company, and its role in the construction of F-35 jets allows Britain to reap economic benefits from being a part of the F-35 program. Should the project decide to scrap Martin-Baker and use United Technologies, a US company, then the UK could demand a greater work share in other portions of the F-35. http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-ejection-seat-woes-2016-6?r=UK&IR=T |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:21:10 AM EDT
[#1]
So in 2132 when it's finished, it'll be the best fighter 100 years ago!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:30:12 AM EDT
[#2]
Is it less dangerous than not ejecting?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:30:25 AM EDT
[#3]
Does this mean arfcom is going to reconsider when to eject?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:30:29 AM EDT
[#4]
Doesn't matter. They won't need to eject since they will just kill everything.
Including their pilots. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:32:17 AM EDT
[#5]
Seriously... You would think that an ejection seat would be the easiest challenge of the whole damn program. I mean didn't they pretty much perfect them 30 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:33:09 AM EDT
[#6]
the f35 needs the to be junked
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:35:09 AM EDT
[#7]
Martin Baker seats have and continue to suck. Unfortunately Martin Baker seats are popular with the USN and foreign customers, so they are installed on the JSF. Also the JSF has the stupid ejection process where you go through the canopy instead of blowing it off. Thanks Lockmart engineer drone #8563 who wanted the hinge point to be on the forward point of the canopy. Actually I believe its in the forward point because of the jacked up USMC variant. They couldn't hinge it at the rear because that's where the lifting fan is installed, and since there was to be interoperability between versions to the MAX all F-35 variants suffer as a result.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:35:29 AM EDT
[#8]
Do fighter pilot helmets use anything like a HANS device? Serious question. I'm ignorant of fighter technology.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:36:17 AM EDT
[#9]
The root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds.
Simple solution is get bigger pilots. Oh that won't work, cause wimmen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:36:54 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seriously... You would think that an ejection seat would be the easiest challenge of the whole damn program. I mean didn't they pretty much perfect them 30 years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:39:10 AM EDT
[#11]
For what these things are costing, can't they just make them drones? Let the pilots fly them from the ground in a nice and safe air conditioned cubicle somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:40:56 AM EDT
[#12]
A.I will fix this ....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:42:54 AM EDT
[#13]
I thought the problem was the giant-ass heavy TIE fighter pilot helmet with all sorts of stuff on it was causing whiplash when the pilot ejected.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:42:59 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds. Simple solution is get bigger pilots. Oh that won't work, cause wimmen. F35 pilots have had to meet a 136 lb. minimum weight since last August because of this issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:43:16 AM EDT
[#15]
At the root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds.
The issue is most pronounced with lighter pilots, with those weighing under 136 pounds now barred from flying the aircraft for safety concerns related to the F-35's Martin-Baker ejection seat, Defense News reports. (snip) Reuters reported in October, however, that the risk from the ejection seats to even lighter pilots was still exceptionally small. Pilots weighing under 136 pounds had a one-in-50,000 chance of hurting their neck, while pilots weighing 146 to 165 pounds had a one-in-200,000 chance. Oh come on. I suppose it should be fixed, but is it a realistic reason to delay the aircraft? If we got our asses kicked in WWIII we might see a thousand ejections, but in reality it's likely to be much, much less than that over the service life of the F-35, so each pilot is running more like a one in a million risk of injury in this way. How much military equipment presents more than a one in a million risk of injury to the operator? Practically all of it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:43:41 AM EDT
[#16]
We should just buy seats from Russia.
I mean, they are WELL tested. Usually once per airshow! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:43:59 AM EDT
[#17]
The helmet weight is the root cause, not the seat.
On a sidenote I wonder why ejection seats have not progressed to the point of having a g-meter and throttle-able rockets. I imagine it is for ease of function / less things to go wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:44:49 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds. Simple solution is get bigger pilots. Oh that won't work, cause wimmen. Somebody finally understand the issue...wow!!! All cockpit are design around a set of specifications, primary male. Most "normal" pilots, when fully equipped, helmet, gear, vest, chute will weight more than 200 pounds, up till recently. Nothing to do with punching thru the cockpit, it have been a standard backup, in case the cockpit ejection fail, and the break thru charges fail. The primary issue is under-weight pilots, which will experience much higher acceleration than :normal" pilot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:44:55 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The US hasn't bought a new aircraft with a martin-baker ejection seat in ages. All the newer aircraft pretty much have an ACES seat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Seriously... You would think that an ejection seat would be the easiest challenge of the whole damn program. I mean didn't they pretty much perfect them 30 years ago. USAF uses ACES. Navy has always liked Martin Baker. F-18s (legacy and superbug) use Martin Bakers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:47:06 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh come on. I suppose it should be fixed, but is it a realistic reason to delay the aircraft? If we got our asses kicked in WWIII we might see a thousand ejections, but in reality it's likely to be much, much less than that over the service life of the F-35, so each pilot is running more like a one in a million risk of injury in this way. How much military equipment presents more than a one in a million risk of injury to the operator? Practically all of it? Quote HistoryQuoted: At the root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds. The issue is most pronounced with lighter pilots, with those weighing under 136 pounds now barred from flying the aircraft for safety concerns related to the F-35's Martin-Baker ejection seat, Defense News reports. (snip) Reuters reported in October, however, that the risk from the ejection seats to even lighter pilots was still exceptionally small. Pilots weighing under 136 pounds had a one-in-50,000 chance of hurting their neck, while pilots weighing 146 to 165 pounds had a one-in-200,000 chance. Oh come on. I suppose it should be fixed, but is it a realistic reason to delay the aircraft? If we got our asses kicked in WWIII we might see a thousand ejections, but in reality it's likely to be much, much less than that over the service life of the F-35, so each pilot is running more like a one in a million risk of injury in this way. How much military equipment presents more than a one in a million risk of injury to the operator? Practically all of it? Hey, while we are throwing missiles with explosions on the end of them and bullets everywhere at each other we need to be really really really safe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:47:27 AM EDT
[#21]
Just don't eject
Problem solved, I'll mail you my bill. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:50:16 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do fighter pilot helmets use anything like a HANS device? Serious question. I'm ignorant of fighter technology. No, and I'm sure it has to do with mobility. They need their heads on a swivel, like all birds of prey. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:55:25 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, and I'm sure it has to do with mobility. They need their heads on a swivel, like all birds of prey. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do fighter pilot helmets use anything like a HANS device? Serious question. I'm ignorant of fighter technology. No, and I'm sure it has to do with mobility. They need their heads on a swivel, like all birds of prey. Not in F-35. No need for a towelbar - can't see rearward anyways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:56:10 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Somebody finally understand the issue...wow!!! All cockpit are design around a set of specifications, primary male. Most "normal" pilots, when fully equipped, helmet, gear, vest, chute will weight more than 200 pounds, up till recently. Nothing to do with punching thru the cockpit, it have been a standard backup, in case the cockpit ejection fail, and the break thru charges fail. The primary issue is under-weight pilots, which will experience much higher acceleration than :normal" pilot. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds. Simple solution is get bigger pilots. Oh that won't work, cause wimmen. Somebody finally understand the issue...wow!!! All cockpit are design around a set of specifications, primary male. Most "normal" pilots, when fully equipped, helmet, gear, vest, chute will weight more than 200 pounds, up till recently. Nothing to do with punching thru the cockpit, it have been a standard backup, in case the cockpit ejection fail, and the break thru charges fail. The primary issue is under-weight pilots, which will experience much higher acceleration than :normal" pilot. If the pilot is too light, make them add weight to the seat... grab a plate from the gym when you gotta fly
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:56:41 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: the f35 needs the to be junked People say that about every new aircraft. "It is unproven junk" Yeah, so would the replacement aircraft. I remember back in early 2000 when most people here were bashing the F22, complaining that it was junk and should be scrapped because the F35 was going to be so awesome. Now that the F22 has had time to get the bugs worked out of it people are speaking positively about it and wish the F35 would just go away because it still has bugs. Aircraft are platforms and can be upgraded as needed, especially with the modern electronics and technology. Having it designed great on a computer doesn't mean it will actually work that way in real life once it is built. But these bugs won't be known until you start building them, using them, and see if the design theory can be proven. That's the stage the F35 is at. Just look at SpaceX and Blue Orgin reusable rockets. The design on paper is easy. Once they started launching their rockets in the real world all sorts of problems came up, which is expected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:57:06 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Somebody finally understand the issue...wow!!! All cockpit are design around a set of specifications, primary male. Most "normal" pilots, when fully equipped, helmet, gear, vest, chute will weight more than 200 pounds, up till recently. Nothing to do with punching thru the cockpit, it have been a standard backup, in case the cockpit ejection fail, and the break thru charges fail. The primary issue is under-weight pilots, which will experience much higher acceleration than :normal" pilot. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds. Simple solution is get bigger pilots. Oh that won't work, cause wimmen. Somebody finally understand the issue...wow!!! All cockpit are design around a set of specifications, primary male. Most "normal" pilots, when fully equipped, helmet, gear, vest, chute will weight more than 200 pounds, up till recently. Nothing to do with punching thru the cockpit, it have been a standard backup, in case the cockpit ejection fail, and the break thru charges fail. The primary issue is under-weight pilots, which will experience much higher acceleration than :normal" pilot. Stupid observation here, but how about just putting in a custom seat pad for the wimmenz? A few sheets of lead should get the weight up to 200+. ETA: Dang, beat! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 12:10:04 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not in F-35. No need for a towelbar - can't see rearward anyways. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do fighter pilot helmets use anything like a HANS device? Serious question. I'm ignorant of fighter technology. No, and I'm sure it has to do with mobility. They need their heads on a swivel, like all birds of prey. Not in F-35. No need for a towelbar - can't see rearward anyways. Wanna know how I know you don't know what you are talking about? Every damn Air Force related thread brings people out of the woodwork who talk like they are experts, but have no idea. Not just talking about the above quote either... The heavy helmet is because it has a HMDS that displays what the pilot sees THROUGH the aircraft from sensors mounted on the airframe. Also, we should've never let MB get the contract for providing the seats in the F-35. I guess that was part of the deal to get other countries to buy them. ACES II is already established and in every one of our fighters and most of our bombers. MB is junk and always has been. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 12:47:44 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Martin Baker seats have and continue to suck. Unfortunately Martin Baker seats are popular with the USN and foreign customers, so they are installed on the JSF. Also the JSF has the stupid ejection process where you go through the canopy instead of blowing it off. Thanks Lockmart engineer drone #8563 who wanted the hinge point to be on the forward point of the canopy. Actually I believe its in the forward point because of the jacked up USMC variant. They couldn't hinge it at the rear because that's where the lifting fan is installed, and since there was to be interoperability between versions to the MAX all F-35 variants suffer as a result. why do you think they suck? They have a proven track record. MB's are also installed on USAF aircraft, T-38's , T-6's and the A-29 we gave to Afghanistan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 12:50:19 PM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 12:51:28 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For what these things are costing, can't they just make them drones? Let the pilots fly them from into the ground in a nice and safe air conditioned cubicle somewhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 12:51:57 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The helmet weight is the root cause, not the seat. On a sidenote I wonder why ejection seats have not progressed to the point of having a g-meter and throttle-able rockets. I imagine it is for ease of function / less things to go wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 12:53:36 PM EDT
[#32]
Well was it specified in the reqs that the seat NOT kill pilots?
I thought not. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 12:54:40 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds. Simple solution is get bigger pilots. Oh that won't work, cause wimmen. when this was first announced that there was a weight problem it only affected 1 pilot in the F-35 program and it wasn't a woman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 12:56:30 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Martin Baker seats have and continue to suck. Unfortunately Martin Baker seats are popular with the USN and foreign customers, so they are installed on the JSF. Also the JSF has the stupid ejection process where you go through the canopy instead of blowing it off. Thanks Lockmart engineer drone #8563 who wanted the hinge point to be on the forward point of the canopy. Actually I believe its in the forward point because of the jacked up USMC variant. They couldn't hinge it at the rear because that's where the lifting fan is installed, and since there was to be interoperability between versions to the MAX all F-35 variants suffer as a result. A standing joke in the Survival and Flight Equipment industry is that the motto of Martin Baker is "Why use one part when 20 will do?". 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 12:57:29 PM EDT
[#35]
Didn't the F-14 have similar issues in 1986? Wait, never mind.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:01:37 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Martin Baker seats have and continue to suck. Unfortunately Martin Baker seats are popular with the USN and foreign customers, so they are installed on the JSF. Also the JSF has the stupid ejection process where you go through the canopy instead of blowing it off. Thanks Lockmart engineer drone #8563 who wanted the hinge point to be on the forward point of the canopy. Actually I believe its in the forward point because of the jacked up USMC variant. They couldn't hinge it at the rear because that's where the lifting fan is installed, and since there was to be interoperability between versions to the MAX all F-35 variants suffer as a result. Not how it works. I literally just spent my morning redesigning something to be shittier so that it's backward-compatible with things that are being phased out and to make the one item in it that almost never breaks slightly more accessible at the expense of everything else. The F-35 is a "Brazil"-esque nightmare of poor management not recognizing the limitations of design intent, written on a global scale. "So what do you want this thing to do?" "EVARRRRRYYYTHING!!!!!" <sigh> |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:02:16 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
why do you think they suck? They have a proven track record. MB's are also installed on USAF aircraft, T-38's , T-6's and the A-29 we gave to Afghanistan. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Martin Baker seats have and continue to suck. Unfortunately Martin Baker seats are popular with the USN and foreign customers, so they are installed on the JSF. Also the JSF has the stupid ejection process where you go through the canopy instead of blowing it off. Thanks Lockmart engineer drone #8563 who wanted the hinge point to be on the forward point of the canopy. Actually I believe its in the forward point because of the jacked up USMC variant. They couldn't hinge it at the rear because that's where the lifting fan is installed, and since there was to be interoperability between versions to the MAX all F-35 variants suffer as a result. why do you think they suck? They have a proven track record. MB's are also installed on USAF aircraft, T-38's , T-6's and the A-29 we gave to Afghanistan. My experience on MB seats is on the version installed on F-4s. They are heavy, bulky, and complex in both safeing and maintenance. The ACES series of seats is everything the MB is not. Egress shops are simpler maintaining ACES instead of MBs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:03:50 PM EDT
[#38]
Hasn't ejecting always been kind of dangerous?
Further, 1 in 200,000 isn't terrible considering that its not likely a lot of them occur. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:06:34 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does this mean arfcom is going to reconsider when to eject? It said "under 200 pounds" ARFCOM is safe, very safe |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:10:03 PM EDT
[#40]
Why not just add some ballast to the seat?
Or a load adjusting ejection charge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:12:41 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why the 200-lb. pilot criteria? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The helmet weight is the root cause, not the seat. On a sidenote I wonder why ejection seats have not progressed to the point of having a g-meter and throttle-able rockets. I imagine it is for ease of function / less things to go wrong. Why the 200-lb. pilot criteria? It's an acceleration thing. For a fixed-force ejection thrust, lighter pilots accelerate faster (higher G). Seats will also have max pilot weights to ensure tail clearance over a broad ejection envelope. F=ma. And, it's not just the upwards acceleration vector, it's a combination of vectors from upward seat force and horizontal windblast. As a function of Mach and Altitude, the ejection envelope sort of looks like a map of the eastern Tennessee border. At lower altitudes, the maximum survivable Mach is lower than at higher altitudes (it's an air density thing). Now, add another dimension to that with pilot weight - the eastern TN border moves more to the west as pilot weight decreases [lighter pilots will have a narrower (slower) ejection envelope than their heavier counterparts]. Pilots below 170 pounds are currently thought to have a 1:200,000 risk of neck injury; pilots below 136 pounds a 1:50,000 chance. These odds are a function of airspeed as well, but stuff like that just doesn't convey well in a news article. Prior to something like 1990, USAF ejection seats had something like a 136 or 142 minimum pilot weight. A program known as LIGHTEST? (maybe LOWEST?) expanded this envelope down to something like 107 pounds, and it also expanded the maximum pilot weight to a value that allowed folks like our very own Bull-F16 arfcom member to fly (he's a big dude). ETA: Here's a .pdf with some history behind the ACES II pilot weight expansions ... http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiu79qK4c3NAhVKdD4KHerLCwgQFggjMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dlielc.edu%2Folc%2Fset%2FANC%2Favdocs%2Findex.php%3Fdir%3D35%2BEmergency%2BEgress%252F%26download%3DThe%2BACES%2BII%2BSeat.pdf&usg=AFQjCNG6At_0S6xudhAQ7mwzaMZNALS-2A&sig2=cc3Nwr5SRESO_M51otuIhg&bvm=bv.125801520,d.cWw |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:13:41 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doesn't matter. They won't need to eject since they will just kill everything. Including their pilots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:13:55 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SNIP Egress shops are simpler maintaining ACES instead of MBs. Not the case for Mk16's, which is whats in the F-35 and USAF MB equipped aircraft. I currently work both MB and ACES II and will take a MB any day over a ACES II. Simpler to work and maintain in every aspect. I cannot speak about the earlier Mk series or Navy NACES series of seats. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:15:48 PM EDT
[#44]
I would think most if not all engineering and design problems related to ejection seats would have been worked out years ago. What makes the 35 so unique? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:16:00 PM EDT
[#45]
Fun fact, when the B was unveiled at Eglin a few years ago there was no seat installed in the display bird at the ceremony. It was a cardboard box.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:23:52 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The US hasn't bought a new aircraft with a martin-baker ejection seat in ages. All the newer aircraft pretty much have an ACES seat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Seriously... You would think that an ejection seat would be the easiest challenge of the whole damn program. I mean didn't they pretty much perfect them 30 years ago. Wrong answer. ALL of the Hornets , T45s, and T-38C carry a M-B seat. F-15, F16,F22 and A10 carry the ACES II. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:23:56 PM EDT
[#47]
Use modular stackable ballast weights on the seat to bring the pilot+ballast total to 250lbs. This will reduce peak acceleration on the pilot and make it consistent for all pilots.
Bam, some Depleted Uranium ballast and I just solved a billion dollar problem. Fuck you, pay me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:26:45 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
USAF uses ACES. Navy has always liked Martin Baker. F-18s (legacy and superbug) use Martin Bakers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seriously... You would think that an ejection seat would be the easiest challenge of the whole damn program. I mean didn't they pretty much perfect them 30 years ago. USAF uses ACES. Navy has always liked Martin Baker. F-18s (legacy and superbug) use Martin Bakers. Meet your maker in a Martin Baker! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:30:56 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would think most if not all engineering and design problems related to ejection seats would have been worked out years ago. What makes the 35 so unique? It is not unique, the same issue will be across all the fleet. The F-35 is the latest and the greatest, so naturally, the media likes to pick on the program. The issue is the customer now have a specification change, not a contractor over-sight, but the news sell it off as contractor's oversight. It is not uncommon that each type of aircraft have physical limits and requirements put on the pilot. If we have program XXX tomorrow, the all the F-35 issues will disappear over-night, and Program XXX will be the POS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 1:31:32 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35's ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds. Simple solution is get bigger pilots. Oh that won't work, cause wimmen. How much does the average pilot weigh with G-suit, helmet, survival gear, etc... I'll venture a guess that no men would be affected at all. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
