04 May 2025, 04:50 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 6 posts ] |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 100-th F35  Posted: 17 Dec 2013, 05:14 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/23/11
Posts: 2266
Post Likes: +2408
Company: Delta/ check o'the month club
Location: Meridian, ID (KEUL)
Aircraft: 1968 Bonanza 36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Cool.
I have a buddy working on that program in DFW. I may be looking that way for a job next year when I retire. The good news is that there are so many things wrong with that plane, there will be plenty of work for years to come!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 100-th F35 Posted: 17 Dec 2013, 06:21 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12129
Post Likes: +3030
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Cool.
I have a buddy working on that program in DFW. I may be looking that way for a job next year when I retire. The good news is that there are so many things wrong with that plane, there will be plenty of work for years to come!
Ben,
There has not been much press on the F35 that I have seen. So far the problems I have read are basically limited to the following generalizations:
-- Over budget
-- Late (by a few years)
-- Goal was 80% overlap in parts between variants. Actual overlap will end up between 20-30%
-- Some avionics issue where everything was failing tests (no details ever released on what was failing)
-- Air Force wanting more F22 and less F35 but Congress wanting more F35s
-- Some MX issue with part availability; just that planes were grounded for a while because they could not get some part. No details on what.
Did I miss any other news?
Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 100-th F35 Posted: 17 Dec 2013, 11:04 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12129
Post Likes: +3030
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: > Did I miss any other news?
Heavier than intended; goals changed.
Accelerates more slowly than intended in the transonic range; goals changed.
More vulnerable than requirements; goals changed.
Sustained turn perf goals not met; goals changed.
Helmet/weapons problems (cue'ing & targeting); goals changed.
We need another Col. John Boyd @ Fort Fumble. Doug, When I read that I just have to laugh. I guess I know what to do a little Google searching on later. Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 6 posts ] |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
