Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 11, 2017, 07:43:57 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Posts that, in my personal judgement, create too much conflict in the community, may be deleted - If members repost the same topic, they may be banned from future posts - Even though I have disabled the Registration, send me an email at:  vtgrandpa@yahoo.com if you want to register and I will do that for you
48306 Posts in 18299 Topics by 515 Members
Latest Member: phantom31
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Henry Raymond
|-+  World News
| |-+  Current Events
| | |-+  F35 Fuel Trucks
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: F35 Fuel Trucks  (Read 23678 times)
nhibbard
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 393


View Profile
« on: December 09, 2014, 07:58:08 PM »

This could be the most asinine solution to a simple problem. If direct heat is the problem, put up shade shacks. $3,900 in paint or shacks you can drive under that get you entirely out of direct heat. Seems to work pretty well anywhere in the world where people live in houses and seek shade from heat. Why was this never an issue until we got pretty new toys? Are we buying these planes with the same type of paint too?

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/air-base-prepares-case-f-35-cant-take-hot-fuel-n264876
Logged
mirjo
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 784



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2014, 08:06:47 AM »

After reading this news story, I can only say that it's entirely possible that the paint is the cheaper of the two--even though it sounds outrageous. We are talking about the military and there hasn't ever been  any expenditure that has made much sense in its history. I think the concept IS to over spend on everything to justify the budget. That said--I'm going with the paint being cheaper than putting up a structure of some sort.

I fully support the military; however, I never see congress saying "let's trim that bloated buget a bit and stop the unnecessary excessive spending!" Nope, it's always the elderly and disadvantaged they go after for entitlements. I think there are a few congressional entitlements that could be eliminated to level the playing feld a little.
Logged

If the world gives you melons, you might be dyslexic
nhibbard
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 393


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2014, 05:02:48 PM »

It's odd that this was never an issue before though. Hopefully all new trucks will come with that paint from the factory.
Logged
RidgeRunner
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 73


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2015, 12:58:00 PM »

Article refuting there are any issues with "hot fuel"

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/the-tale-of-the-f-35-and-hot-jet-fuel/
Logged
nhibbard
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 393


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2015, 06:25:02 PM »

It's crazy that they didn't refute the claim but backed it. I'm not sure the point of the article other than saying it wasn't an F35 issue but rather a greater issue where we need to reduce heat. If this was truly an issue, it would have been corrected years ago.
Logged
RidgeRunner
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 73


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2015, 08:21:09 AM »

“This is not an F-35 issue; there are no special restrictions on the F-35 related to fuel temperature. The F-35 uses the same fuel as other military aircraft. It can fly under the same temperature conditions as any other advanced military aircraft,” said Joe DellaVedova, program spokesman, in an email yesterday evening

The plane is now undergoing climate tests: heat, cold, rain, snow, ice etc. A lab test imposing temperatures in excess of 130 degrees was just completed “and the aircraft performed exceptionally well based on preliminary information collected,” Hawn wrote. Full climate results will be ready in the spring of 2015.

Sounds to me like there's no issue here...
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!