Jump to content

Eglin F-35 crash


BashiChuni

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, moabust said:

During the ejection sequence the “transparency removal system”/det cord embedded in the canopy fires to create a hole for the seat to go through. As the Elgin pilot found out, apparently this sends shards of plexiglass and whatever metal coatings are on the canopy both inside and outside the jet. If you’re wearing the issued flight suit and vest option (instead of the flight jacket), it sounds like this metal ends up going through the sleeves into the pilot’s skin 

Is this the result of the backwards-ass canopy and more fallout from the POS B model compromises?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. No hyperbole - the B model is at fault for the majority of design flaws. That’s a nearly universal belief amongst pilots of all services. Even worse is the USMC has no real operational need for the F-35 (it did need new aircraft, but there were better choices), and the primary role of USMC air is CAS; it’s no secret the F-35 is not the best choice for that mission set (assuming low threat stuff the USMC would actually find itself in while only having organic air available).

We should have built one model for AF/Navy (call it the C...DGAF about the A’s 9g capes) and the USMC should have purchased super hornets. We’d all be so much better off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, brabus said:

Yep. No hyperbole - the B model is at fault for the majority of design flaws. That’s a nearly universal belief amongst pilots of all services. Even worse is the USMC has no real operational need for the F-35 (it did need new aircraft, but there were better choices), and the primary role of USMC air is CAS; it’s no secret the F-35 is not the best choice for that mission set (assuming low threat stuff the USMC would actually find itself in while only having organic air available).

We should have built one model for AF/Navy (call it the C...DGAF about the A’s 9g capes) and the USMC should have purchased super hornets. We’d all be so much better off. 

It probably wouldn't have been as bad were it not for the obsession of Marines = VTOL.  Have they ever actually used that capability in a forward-deployed environment? (Not the ship, but a place that requires landing and taking off where there are no runways on land).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outside of taxing in the C, it's the best variant. More gas and bigger wings make such a large difference. 

Biggest issue is having three variants with multiple services and partner nations all pushing for different things.

Edited by DFNJ
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Det cord - Another example of no pilot input into the design process. Yeah sure, even though there’s a plethora of ejection success without Det cord, I totally would rather have an explosion 3” from my nugget and eject through shards of glass and flying metal as a result of said explosion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DFNJ said:

Outside of taxing in the C, it's the best variant. More gas and bigger wings make such a large difference. 

Biggest issue is having three variants with multiple services and partner nations all pushing for different things.

Being so weapons limited, I’d argue that the internal gun is damn near mandatory.., despite our gun chine problems and the questions about the accuracy of the HMD symbology... and don’t hit me with “external 9’s”... although the sidekick option is compelling.

so.. give me more thrust to weight (like.. a lot more)..and then the larger wing of the 35C... that way I can actually get out of trouble and execute some real L&L tactics if need be as opposed to being more reliant on the magic pants....I’d take a slight hit on gas for that... as I’m often running around with a ton of fuel and no amraams left during a DCA.  

Lots of nuances to this discussion I haven’t even touched on.. a bit of thread drift too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MIDN said:

Does anyone know if people have been hurt by the canopy det cord from ejecting from the T-6 or T-45? 

I’ve talked to a guy who ejected out of the T-6 a few years ago who also had the det cord explosives in the canopy basically turn it into a grenade going off right next to his body. Said he was filled will glass that he could feel underneath his skin for months. I don’t understand why it’s the new hotness in ejection seat design. Even if you actually fly with all your shit rolled down (which almost no one does) it still messes up the pilot when they have an explosive embedded in glass go off a foot away from them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Hawg15 said:

I’ve talked to a guy who ejected out of the T-6 a few years ago who also had the det cord explosives in the canopy basically turn it into a grenade going off right next to his body. Said he was filled will glass that he could feel underneath his skin for months. I don’t understand why it’s the new hotness in ejection seat design. Even if you actually fly with all your shit rolled down (which almost no one does) it still messes up the pilot when they have an explosive embedded in glass go off a foot away from them. 

Had bad wreck in high school   Lots of windshield in knee and arm joints.  You could feel it in there most days and then just randomly sitting around you'd look down and see a piece breaking the skin and would pop out.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Buddy Spike said:

Is this the result of the backwards-ass canopy and more fallout from the POS B model compromises?

That boat anchor fuselage is a result of the B model.  I had the opportunity to see the engine with it's gearbox that connects to the driveshaft that connects to and turns the lift fan and it's one ungainly large piece of machinery that has to be stuffed into the fuselage.  And that didn't include the actuators and crap for the lift fan doors.  RAND did a study and said building 3 separate aircraft would have been cheaper.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, TreeA10 said:

That boat anchor fuselage is a result of the B model.  I had the opportunity to see the engine with it's gearbox that connects to the driveshaft that connects to and turns the lift fan and it's one ungainly large piece of machinery that has to be stuffed into the fuselage.  And that didn't include the actuators and crap for the lift fan doors.  RAND did a study and said building 3 separate aircraft would have been cheaper.

I don’t need a rand study to tell me that.... and I’m willing to bet the three separate aircraft would have each been better, too....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MIDN said:

Does anyone know if people have been hurt by the canopy det cord from ejecting from the T-6 or T-45? 

I know a couple people that ejected from T-45’s... none directly complained about that to me.

lots of folks have ejected from harriers, with no issue with the Det cord.

the F-35 TRS Det cord is probably “improved”.. the pilot from the Eglin mishap did say he had tin shards embedded in his skin... so there’s that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you in aircraft with det cord in the canopy:  is there any talk... officially or unofficially... that when you are in a controlled ejection, you jettison the canopy manually, and THEN pull the ejection ring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HuggyU2 said:

For those of you in aircraft with det cord in the canopy:  is there any talk... officially or unofficially... that when you are in a controlled ejection, you jettison the canopy manually, and THEN pull the ejection ring?

Haven't heard any discussion about it as a T-6 & T-45 stud nor in the F-35.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HuggyU2 said:

For those of you in aircraft with det cord in the canopy:  is there any talk... officially or unofficially... that when you are in a controlled ejection, you jettison the canopy manually, and THEN pull the ejection ring?

I flew the t-45C about 15 years ago... I don’t recall that discussion.

Currently flying the F-35A... and no- no discussion on a manual TRS pull prior to controlled ejection.  I don’t know that it would change anything.

In both aircraft, they have canopy breakers on the seat as well... just like the other 4th gen “normal” jets I’ve flown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vandy01 said:

I flew the t-45C about 15 years ago... I don’t recall that discussion.

Currently flying the F-35A... and no- no discussion on a manual TRS pull prior to controlled ejection.  I don’t know that it would change anything.

In both aircraft, they have canopy breakers on the seat as well... just like the other 4th gen “normal” jets I’ve flown.

Is the canopy breaker shorter than many pilot’s helmets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you in aircraft with det cord in the canopy:  is there any talk... officially or unofficially... that when you are in a controlled ejection, you jettison the canopy manually, and THEN pull the ejection ring?


The T-6 can’t jettison it’s canopy; It wouldn’t even come open if you unlocked it in flight. Maybe we should teach ELPs...

Now, if it did jettison, why wouldn’t the ejection sequencer just do that instead of blowing it up in the pilot’s face?

Man, if we bought a screw driver, we’d end up paying $300 for a drill with no bits. smh

When I retire, I’m starting a business for the sole purpose of selling overpriced shit to the government.

~Bendy




Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites




Now, if it did jettison, why wouldn’t the ejection sequencer just do that instead of blowing it up in the pilot’s face?


I'd be willing to bet the reason for det cord over canopy jettison is requirement driven-specifically to attain a 0-0 capability and improve the overall ejection envelope while reducing weight to meet other requirements.

Probably a lot easier to improve the ejection envelope by engineering "blow up the canopy in 0.1 seconds and shoot the seat through the hole" than figuring out how to jettison the canopy away (1 or 2 seconds? to clear the cockpit as ground speed zero, as well as all the other pitch/roll/speed combinations in flight) and then fire the seat.

Problem gets compounded when trying to improve cockpit visibility by having a one piece bubble canopy- now you'll have a huge piece of glass to move if you want to reliably jettison the canopy in all phases of flight and on the ground. Or pay a significant weight penalty for whatever explosives needed to blow the canopy away compared to det cord. That weight penalty then affects other performance, such as range.

My philosophy has always been that if I needed to use the ejection seat (in the T-6), I was in a situation where I was going to be dead anyways so it's a second chance at life. I was always a visor down/mask up/sleeves down/gloves on when in the seat kinda guy, but then again the T-6 air conditioner worked pretty well. But my experience with ejection seats has been in the training world, where you can work hard to stay at the center of the flight envelope, and there's generally no reason to push the bounds of safety, so my perspective is probably different than a fighter guy.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...