|
iyaayas01 posted:It's an ease of maintenance thing. The B-2's RAM coating is old enough technology that it will almost literally melt off in the rain (okay, not like if it flies through a cloud it's going to instantly not work but there's a reason we spent the money to build B-2 sized climate controlled hangars at all of the FOLs we could theoretically be operating them from). I'm going off my experience with the F-22 here, I assume the F-35's RAM is roughly the same. The Raptor can and has been operated outside/without climate controlled cells for all the jets all the time, they have deployed to Guam and other places for months at a time and operated outside, it's just that leaving them in the elements for an extended period of time drives an increased LO maintenance tempo. When you are dealing with "non-LO" jets, the biggest thing you have to worry about when you leave them parked outside is corrosion/general wear and tear, which is a months to years type maintenance concern. When you are dealing with LO it is gradual deterioration of the LO surface, which is a weeks to months type maintenance concern. Supposedly the coating on the 22 is still tough to take care of, but nothing like the B2. Some Lockheed guy was bragging the other week (I think it was reported on Danger Room and Flight Global) about how the 35 is supposed to be a massive leap forward from the 22, even claiming that it gets stealthier with time... I'm not so sure about that but I hope it stands up to carrier deployments. (I'm not holding my breath)
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:33 |
|
|
Geizkragen posted:Supposedly the coating on the 22 is still tough to take care of, but nothing like the B2. Correct. I've got experience with the Raptor and I've got friends who have experience with the B-2, and it's nowhere close. The Raptor is still maintenance intensive (LO is by far the biggest maintenance driver on the jet; it's literally a 24/7 operation) but it's nothing like the B-2. Geizkragen posted:even claiming that it gets stealthier with time... Unless LockMart has somehow also developed magic pixie fairy dust, bullshit. Seriously, I know I say it all the time, but gently caress LockMart. They've lied about pretty much everything with the F-35, but at least they kept it somewhat in the realm of reality...now they are just completely making poo poo up. Geizkragen posted:I'm not so sure about that but I hope it stands up to carrier deployments. (I'm not holding my breath) The USN/USMC is in for a rude awakening when it comes to LO maintenance. Actually, all F-35 users who have no experience with LO (so everyone but the USAF) are in for a rude awakening. The Raptor has what's called the Signature Assessment System, which is basically a computer program that takes inputs regarding the condition of the jet and uses it to calculate how "stealthy" the jet is. Once it hits a certain value the jet goes in the red signature wise but can still be otherwise FMC (assuming there's nothing else broke.) Because busted LO is a pretty significant mission impact and because we have the facilities/manning to keep the jets in the green, the USAF as a general rule doesn't fly operational jets (I have no idea how the training world operates down at Tyndall) that have busted SAS; the scheduled maintenance routine is intended to keep all jets within SAS limits at all times (excepting when they're in LO maintenance or depot or whatever obviously.) I would assume that the F-35 will have a very similar system, and I am going to predict that the USN/USMC will operate jets more regularly with deficient LO (going so far as to do so as a normal operating procedure as opposed to only when their maintenance falls behind), just because they aren't going to have any other choice given the increased degradation from the corrosive nature of operating at sea and the limited maintenance space on the boat (I have no idea how you are going to manage several jets worth of 24 hour must be completely dry climate controlled cure time on a carrier, much less an amphib.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
We've had plenty of warmup experience with the RAM on the Super Hornet. We added plenty of manpower to Corrosion shops years ago in E/F-land to deal with the extra hassle. Having seen how undermanned all USMC hornet squadrons are I feel sorry for them. I don't think it's going to be that big of a deal really, or at least not as big of a deal as other unforeseen issues maintenance-wise. Consider this: Lockheed has built stealth before, and has now two generations of experience with the coatings; Lockheed has never built a carrier aircraft. I'm far more concerned about the latter statement. As for 24 hour dry, climate controlled, etc...I'm snorting with laughter thinking about how poorly that requirement would go down with ships company. What you are describing, short of a new carrier design, is literally impossible onboard. There's got to be major differences between the 22 and 35 because that kind of maintenance ain't gonna work for the hangar Chiefs and the fire crews running drills. Geizkragen fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
Geizkragen posted:We've had plenty of warmup experience with the RAM on the Super Hornet. We added plenty of manpower to Corrosion shops years ago in E/F-land to deal with the extra hassle. Having seen how undermanned all USMC hornet squadrons are I feel sorry for them. Just take away their jets already  Duplication of effort and special jet models for special snowflakes  The F-35B served its purpose in Die Hard 4, now, please, stop LM  (Never going to happen, but I can dream)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
movax posted:Just take away their jets already We go through this every 20 years, when Strategic Air Command was first being formed the Navy threw a hissy fit about money being re-directed towards bombers instead of their precious carriers. War. War Never Changes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So I just spent my first drill weekend with my new guard unit, E-8?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
Yeah, the CF-35 is turning into a gigantic poo poo-show for the current Government. Mainly because the current government was elected on promises that 65 CF-35s would cost no more than 18 billion dollars. And now it's nearly triple that. You know it's bad when an ombudsman says "Welp it's 42 billion" and the government shits bricks, hires a private company to disprove those figures...and ends up proving them right, plus another 4 billion. They hosed up massively, and are desperately trying to do damage control. It wouldn't be the first time a military spending fiasco killed a government.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 21:04
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:E-8? Yes. Your late
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
Geizkragen posted:We've had plenty of warmup experience with the RAM on the Super Hornet. We added plenty of manpower to Corrosion shops years ago in E/F-land to deal with the extra hassle. Having seen how undermanned all USMC hornet squadrons are I feel sorry for them. I knew there was some RAM on the Super Hornet but I didn't realize it was extensive enough that your maintainers had significant experience working with it. That's good. With the F-35 RAM supposedly it's "baked in" to the composite so in theory "LO maintenance" on the F-35 will be less like LO maintenance as practiced today (like described in that AF story I posted a link to earlier) and more like traditional non-LO fab/structural maintenance. I'll just say I have my doubts and leave it at that. Also that article makes me want to drop a couple of JDAMs on a certain office building in Fort Worth. gently caress LockMart and their exaggerations/half-truths/outright lies so much. CommieGIR posted:We go through this every 20 years, when Strategic Air Command was first being formed the Navy threw a hissy fit about money being re-directed towards bombers instead of their precious carriers. Well, to be fair it was less the Navy throwing a hissy fit about money going towards bombers instead of carriers and more them responding to SAC going "do we really need a Navy...or a Marine Corps...or an Army?" MA-Horus posted:It wouldn't be the first time a military spending fiasco killed a government. The Chief says hello. e: Bill Sweetman wrote a typically well written piece about black US UAV programs and the NGB/LRS program(s) last week (although also typically there were zero on the record sources). Among the claims/revelations: - J-UCAS died because the USAF wanted a larger aircraft with more range/persistence than would be able to fit on a carrier. - A contract NG got a few years back that was assumed to be for a scale technology demonstrator to prove a design for a follow-on NGB airframe was actually for an unmanned penetrating ISR/strike aircraft with LO capabilities. - LockMart is developing a "NGB" that is not a part of the LRS-B program. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Yeah, the CF-35 is turning into a gigantic poo poo-show for the current Government. Just read in the paper today that they've scrapped the purchase and are now going to do a proper competitive tender. Some G-man said they could still end up with F35s if they end up being the best for the job and price, but now they're actually forced to consider other options. I wonder if there were any penalties to be paid for pulling out? Probably. I wonder which ministers aren't going to get their exclusive golf club memberships courtesy of Lockheed now as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
Better start making the CF-104's again!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Just read in the paper today that they've scrapped the purchase and are now going to do a proper competitive tender. Some G-man said they could still end up with F35s if they end up being the best for the job and price, but now they're actually forced to consider other options. Woah. Where did you see this? I'm expecting the tender to be something like "oh BTW: all planes must be fifth generation  "
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Woah. Where did you see this? It's been in the works for awhile given the hammering that Harper's government has taken over it, but the final decision came down yesterday. And it's supposed to be an independent review (as opposed to letting Defence make all the decisions) so I doubt that the fifth generation caveat will be in there this time, seeing as how that was a large part of the decision to go sole-source last time with the F-35.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Well, except for Credible Sport.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 01:14
|
|
|
Isn't the F-35B supposed to replace Hornets? Does this mean F-35Bs will be operated on carriers like the Hornet was? Or are the Marines supposed to operate F-35Cs as well?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Isn't the F-35B supposed to replace Hornets? Does this mean F-35Bs will be operated on carriers like the Hornet was? Or are the Marines supposed to operate F-35Cs as well? Both, sort of. The Marines are the only US service that will operate -Bs, and they'll only do it on their amphibs (NAVAIR briefly considered split operations on big deck carriers with both CATOBAR and STOVL jets operating simultaneously before they realized just how retarded that idea was), but the Marines are still buying some -Cs (last numbers I saw said they agreed to 80/five squadrons worth) that they will operate from big deck carriers integrated with the Carrier Air Wing just like they do now with Hornets. e: No Super Hornets since the Marines haven't bought any.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 01:26
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
Other than the level of LO maintenance, what else about that article do you consider to be complete bullshit? I'm aware that many of the systems the VP is bragging about are not actually operational at this time, but there was some stuff in there that I hadn't heard about before that sounded pretty impressive. Ability to pull 9Gs with a full combat load? Hardcore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
The F-22 was a nightmare to work on. Everything and I mean everything tool twice as long as it did on the F-15 not even including the convoluted way you had to remove, transport, and store panels and screws removed from the aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 02:19
|
|
|
Oh, Lockheed, you used to be so very good...
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
Paddyo posted:Other than the level of LO maintenance, what else about that article do you consider to be complete bullshit? I'm aware that many of the systems the VP is bragging about are not actually operational at this time, but there was some stuff in there that I hadn't heard about before that sounded pretty impressive. Ability to pull 9Gs with a full combat load? Hardcore. quote:The fighter’s capabilities will make it a three- or four-for-one asset, said the Lockheed briefers, meaning that it will be able to simultaneously perform the roles of several different aircraft types—from strike to electronic attack, from command and control to battlefield surveillance. Even if the three/four to one bit was true (it isn't; look at the planned buy for the USAF vs the inventory of jets it's replacing...it isn't 1 to 1 but it definitely isn't 4 to 1), a single seat aircraft is not going to be able to perform all those roles simultaneously, nor is the F-35 going to be able to perform all of those simultaneously with one aircraft's worth of stores (so you are going to have to tailor the weapons/payload to the mission), and if there's anything that history has shown us, it's that jack of all trades aircraft tend to be masters of none (to varying degrees, granted, and multi-role aircraft are becoming the norm, but an F-16 is not as effective a CAS aircraft as an A-10, not as effective an air to air fighter as the F-15, and is not as effective an interdiction strike aircraft as the F-15E, all of which were purpose built.) Furthermore, a lot of the stuff that the F-35 allegedly can do isn't something solely specific to the F-35, it's a function of the increased processing/computing power available in tactical aircraft, coupled with the proliferation of powerful AESA radars along with other IR and/or EO sensors. So yes, compared to legacy fighters like the teen series the F-35 is more capable, but "4.5 generation" aircraft like the Euro-canards are going to have a lot of the same capabilities. Making it sound like the F-35 is head and shoulders above every other airplane out there in this respect is LockMart marketing bullshit. quote:O’Bryan pointed out an important truth about air combat: Fourth generation strike aircraft assigned to hit targets guarded by modern anti-access, area-denial systems (A2/AD, in military parlance) require the support of "AWACS, electronic attack, sweep airplanes, SEAD" (suppression of enemy air defenses) aircraft and cruise missiles. Such a package could run to dozens of aircraft. Bullshit. For starters, you'll notice he doesn't touch on stuff like tankers and CSAR support, which are going to be required no matter what. So making it sound like you are going from a legacy fighter, which requires a package of "dozens" of aircraft, automatically, without any possible alternatives or other options, to the F-35 which can do everything ever in all roles and will be able to conduct deep strike missions completely autonomously without any other support is total bullshit. There is no way in hell the USAF will employ F-35s (or any other strike aircraft) without standard enabling support like AWACS, EA/jammers, and SEAD. Period. You might (might) be able to reduce the size of the package due to some of the unique characteristics of the F-35 compared to legacy fighters, but making it sound like the USAF would just start flinging F-35s against an advanced IADS without any other support is ludicrous. Also I'm really interested to know how a four ship of F-35s equipped for a strike mission (so two air to air missiles a piece, total of 8) is going to be able to self escort..."oh poo poo, the bad guys launched nine fighters, looks like we're hosed!" Finally, even if we stipulated that the F-35 could in fact do all of this stuff (even though I think I've clearly shown that they can't), as I pointed out above there is no way that one single four ship is going to be able to do all of that. You are going to run into task saturation issues...as one example, the LockMart executive pretty clearly implied that an F-35 can replace an AWACS. Even if we stipulate that the F-35's sensors are literally going to be as effective as the sensors on an AWACS, there are 12+ mission crew on an AWACS to receive, interpret, and disseminate that information. Even if we allow for a very generous amount of automation reducing the workload, do you really think that one person is going to be able to do all that, much less while simultaneously conducting electronic attack/jamming, counter-air, and/or strike AND while employing a fighter in combat? Riiiiiight. I'm not saying that the F-35's sensors aren't going to be very capable (assuming they can get DAS working) or that it won't have some C2-ish type capabilities, but the argument the LockMart executive put forward was that the F-35 would be able to regularly operate against an advanced IADS without AWACS (or any other) support. That is ludicrous. quote:Stealth, said O’Bryan, has to be "designed in from the beginning" and can’t be added as an afterthought or upgrade. Bullshit. Yes, all other things being equal, an aircraft designed from the ground up to have LO properties is going to probably be more effective at it than an aircraft that has it added on after the fact, but all things aren't equal when you're talking about aircraft design or procurement. For starters, the F-35 isn't the only Western aircraft currently in production that was designed from the ground up to take LO into account. Sure, they aren't necessarily going to be as effective as an aircraft like the F-35 that has more traditional "stealth" features (internal weapons carriage, extensive shaping, etc) but making it sound like your only choices are "stealth" (F-35) or "completely not stealth at all" (everyone else) is bullshit...although it does play nicely into LockMart's bullshit "the only 'fifth generation' fighter currently in production" marketing schtick. Everything with tactical aircraft (or any other type of aircraft, honestly) is a tradeoff, from air to air capability vs air to ground capability to size to price to overall performance vs LO capability to a hundred other things. quote:He did say, however, that F-35 requirements call for it to go into battle with "no support whatever" from these systems. [citation needed] I have never, ever seen anything that indicated that the JSF's requirements called for it to be able to singlehandedly penetrate an advanced IADS with zero support. I can tell you that according to the program office's own website the F-35 is explicitly intended to "complement" both the Super Hornet and Raptor...so I guess I'm kind of confused how an aircraft that is explicitly intended to "complement" other aircraft was also intended to be able to operate in the highest threat environment there is without any assistance (setting aside the issues I raised above about enablers like AWACS, SEAD, etc). quote:Asked about the Air Force’s plans, O’Bryan answered with several rhetorical questions: "Are they investing in a big jammer fleet? Are they buying [EA-18G] Growlers?" Then he said, "There’s a capability here." There has been a jammer sized hole in the USAF's inventory ever since the '90s when we prematurely retired the Spark Varks. I don't know what the EA capabilities of the F-35 are (and obviously I wouldn't be talking about them here even if I did) nor do I know what the USAF's intentions are regarding EA/EW aircraft/capabilities (it's changed so much in the past couple of years I don't think anyone truly does), but making it sound like this is some recent development that is clear evidence of intentions to use only the F-35 in the role is some nice marketing spin (also we didn't buy EA-6Bs after we retired the Spark Varks, we operate them cooperatively with the Navy...why would Growlers be any different?) quote:The F-35’s electronic attack capabilities, said O’Bryan, allow the fighter to penetrate into "places that other airplanes can’t go" and therefore "hold strategic targets at risk." These capabilities are unique to the F-35, he asserted. [citation needed] The F-35 is the only aircraft that will be able to hold strategic targets at risk...wonder why the USAF doesn't feel the same way...looks like we can just go ahead and mothball these and cancel this entire program then! quote:As F-35s criss-cross enemy airspace, they also will automatically collect vast amounts of data about the disposition of enemy forces. They will, much like the JSTARS, collect ground moving target imagery and pass the data through electronic links to the entire force. This means the F-35 will be able to silently and stealthily transmit information and instructions to dispersed forces, in the air and on the ground. Again, the issue with information isn't really the ability to collect or the technical aspects of a datalink, it's the ability to interpret and disseminate that information to the people who need it. While I recognize the advantages inherent in having advanced sensors on a fighter aircraft that can get closer to the fight/target than a lumbering 707, I don't see how replacing a double digit mission crew with one pilot/WSO/sensor operator/everything else is an improvement, unless you think that just firehosing all available information out to everyone on the network at all times is the best option. quote:He noted that, in a close-turning dogfight with modern missiles, even a 1960s-era fighter such as the F-4 can get into a "mutual kill scenario" at close range with a fourth generation fighter. That’s why the F-35 was provided with the ability to fuse sensor information from many sources, triangulating with other F-35s to locate, identify, and fire on enemy aircraft before they are able to shoot back. Awesome 180 degree off-boresight missile shots require a fairly advanced helmet mounted sight to be effective. Good thing the F-35's HMS isn't having any issues or anything! quote:If the situation demands a turning dogfight, however, the F-35 evidently will be able to hold its own with any fighter. That is a reflection on the fighter’s agility. What’s more, a potential future upgrade foresees the F-35 increasing its air-to-air missile loadout from its current four AIM-120 AMRAAMs to six of those weapons. SIX AMRAAMS?!?!?!? If only we had a fighter already in the inventory that could already carry six AMRAAMs internally (and two Sidewinders)! That should do it, basically the entire thing is one big sales pitch on par with your average used car salesman that ranges from half-truths that sound really good if you don't really examine them to just out and out bullshit. The Bill Sweetman piece I linked above is a good read about the F-35's many shortcomings, as is the QLR report that identified all the issues he discusses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:Oh, Lockheed, you used to be so very good...  Thankfully I never had to deal with them, but the old guys still have nightmares.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:Oh, Lockheed, you used to be so very good... In the U.S. at least, they don't really have anybody to keep them honest anymore. Every now and again the special operations divisions and the less-important second-line roles pick up an aircraft designed (or sometimes even built) far outside the country and I'm completely down with that concept expanding to more roles if it means our defense contractors keep their poo poo together better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Yeah, the CF-35 is turning into a gigantic poo poo-show for the current Government. Linedance posted:Just read in the paper today that they've scrapped the purchase and are now going to do a proper competitive tender. Frankly, I'm pretty shocked that they ever went with F-35s at all when the Super Hornet was out there. One of the key reasons Canada went with the -18 in the first place, instead of the -16 or similar, was because it has two engines and "arctic sovereignty" (  ) requires long flights over desolate, isolated terrain where ditching would be almost as bad as ditching in the ocean. The -35 throws that one out the window. Plus, I'll bet it would be way easier to sell the government on what looks like just an upgraded Hornet than a clearly new airframe -- the USN sure bought it right up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 06:53
|
|
|
As EW guy I find some of that stuff iyaoyas was referring to be patently ridiculous. First off, hanging jammers of an LO aircraft is huge waste of that aircraft's capabilities. So theres that. Then the idea that a division of F-35s is going to be able to penetrate a sophisticated IADS all on their lonesome selves is equally ridiculous. Granted, there arent a whole lot of them out there. However, remember this used to be a selling point of the first gen stealth aircraft and look what happened there. As far as the Air Force airborne EA programs go, USAF has truly dropped the ball there in my opinion. I remember being at being at an EW conference years ago and a civilian from the USAF program office that was supposedly developing a next gen jammer was giving a brief. She couldnt answer a single question from the audience at the end of her brief and it soon became obvious the program was nothing but vaporware essentially. The Navy offered the USAF buyin on the Growler program to allow us to keep operating our expeditionary squadrons in the same manner as we have been with the Prowler. The USAF said no and so DON said no more expeditionary support for you USAF but DoD stepped in at the last possible moment and put a temporary kibosh on that although we had already decommissioned one expeditionary squadron at that point. While I'm talking dumb EW decisions by the USAF, they were also offered buy-in on the AARGM program (next generation of HARM) and they politely declined instead opting to continue development on the next block of HARM along with HTS development. The HTS is a great system, but once the HARM comes off the rails its still just a HARM, ie not all that great. This of course percolates down into the various communities to the point where I once had a CG driver tell me he had no concerns about loitering in an SA-6 WEZ.  But yeah I find the entire F-35 program to be mostly a crock of poo poo. The EW stuff is just what I'm most familiar with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 06:57
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:iyaoyas  vulturesrow posted:next gen jammer About that vulturesrow posted:The Navy offered the USAF buyin on the Growler program to allow us to keep operating our expeditionary squadrons in the same manner as we have been with the Prowler. The USAF said no and so DON said no more expeditionary support for you USAF but DoD stepped in at the last possible moment and put a temporary kibosh on that although we had already decommissioned one expeditionary squadron at that point. I did not realize the USAF had passed on the Growler. Ugh. vulturesrow posted:While I'm talking dumb EW decisions by the USAF, they were also offered buy-in on the AARGM program (next generation of HARM) and they politely declined instead opting to continue development on the next block of HARM along with HTS development. No, it's okay we've got JDRADM/NGM to solve all our missile woes. Wait, what was that about vaporware? vulturesrow posted:This of course percolates down into the various communities to the point where I once had a CG driver tell me he had no concerns about loitering in an SA-6 WEZ. indeed. Not as bad as the C-130 dudes from a certain country that will remain unnamed who saw nothing wrong with flying holding orbits in a threat ring...a double digit threat ring......at altitude.(In their defense there were some exercise-isms that kind of led them to do that, but still it wasn't like they were "well this would never happen in real life but we'll do it," it was more "what's the problem?")
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 07:34
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 12:02
|
|
|
grover posted:So what's the air force solution for jamming, then, call the navy? Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 12:29 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 12:27
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Pray that the Navy didn't leave anything an F-16 can't handle. So small bits of debris and anything looking at it funny?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 13:04
|
|
|
Linedance posted:
Do those tighten only?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 13:13
|
|
|
grover posted:So what's the air force solution for jamming, then, call the navy? vulturesrow alluded to it, but yeah, pretty much. There are joint USAF/USN expeditionary Prowler squadrons that are intended to support land based operations and which aren't tied to a specific Carrier Air Wing, that have USAF aviators integrated from the USAF Electronic Combat Squadron at Whidbey Island.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 14:38
|
|
|
Linedance posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 14:57
|
|
|
front wing flexing posted:Do those tighten only? No, You can remove them, you just can't apply as much torque as you can installing them  Those tri-wings come in four-wing too. I think the original idea was that you must select the correct bit and correct torque to successfully do the job - or you'll pay bitterly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 15:25
|
|
|
Sir Cornelius posted:No, You can remove them, you just can't apply as much torque as you can installing them Do the four-wings look like... Nazi screws?!?!?! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:Do the four-wings look like... Nazi screws?!?!?! I've heard them called that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 15:42
|
|
|
Linedance posted:
 No more. Never again. DC-10s are loving covered in the godamned things. front wing flexing posted:Do those tighten only? If the last rear end in a top hat that put them in over-torqued them, then yes. Extra fun when they're made of titanium, or stainless. Drilling titanium screws is one of those things they don't prepare you for in trade school.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:
At least you will know that the last rear end in a top hat that touched them used a correct tool but hosed up the torque. Find him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
What is the point of a fastener like that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:Do the four-wings look like... Nazi screws?!?!?!  term. MrYenko posted:Drilling titanium screws is one of those things they don't prepare you for in trade school.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
Lightbulb Out posted:What is the point of a fastener like that? QA. Torque and using correct, and correctly aligned, tools. For evaluating the work done, they beat Phillips pretty much. Edit: Oh, and the low profile head is probably nice for an aircraft too. Also a pretty good tip for loosening over-torqued fasteners is to apply a tad of this to your bits: http://www.amazon.com/Loctite-Clover-Silicon-Carbide-Grease/dp/B001HWA85M Sir Cornelius fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:33 |
|
|
Lightbulb Out posted:What is the point of a fastener like that? The removal can be aided by a design which incorporates little points on the anticlockwise drive side, with matching "teeth" on the driver bit, but only certain designs do that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 16:04
|
|