First F35s to Marham 5th June

[jingernut]

It sounds to me (as a layman) as though you and they are working on a very high probability of a loss.

Maybe this will help?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/0 ... m_delayed/

[Talldan76]

Any word as to if they are on their way today?

Surely they would have to be in the air already if they are to reach Marham today...

[cg_341]

Beaufort opens...well, now...so we should find out soon enough.

[verreli]

Harriers only had one engine...

True, but if you were a naval aviator, would you rather have one or two?

Redundancy is relative: The Pegasus was painstakingly designed to reduce the common causes of failure (surge, sand ingestion, bird strikes and FOD, etc) and to have very simple relight characteristics. The size of the fan made relighting far more likely as it sucked a fair amount of air simply freewheeling. The nozzle control systems were as simple as can be, chain drive with a solid connection between all four nozzles. While there were early occasions where a nozzle would come off in flight, there have been zero cases of the nozzle control system failing. I know it’s easy to say two engines are safer, but if your single engine is very well thought out, as 50 years and counting with the Harrier proves, one engine is perfectly sufficient.

Interesting read. I'm not sure redundancy is relative but if you're saying would I rather have one reliable engine rather than two unreliable, that's more difficult to answer. Jet engines are pretty simple things, once in a steady state if you keep feeding them fuel they will keep generating thrust and the forces are pretty constant (assuming good balance) so fatigue is minimised for a long reliable life. That the US Navy have gone with a single engine on the C suggests that statistically the probability of loss though engine failure is minimal but then again, if you're a pilot in the middle of a very big ocean, at night, would you be happier with one or two reliable engines? Having said that, plenty of F-16 drivers regularly conduct night ops and is landing in the drink any worse than landing in a tree?

[138EAW]

Mean while over in South Carolina. Tanker up for the F-35

[Big Eric]

ZZ330 (one of the tankers) is showing on ADS-B Exchange heading East and just crossing the South Carolina coast.

[danspuggti]

Voyager ZZ330 airborne over Charleston just NE of NAS Beaufort.

[verreli]

Sunset landing at Marham? Forecast is clear skies.

[CJS]

See whatever you think of the aircraft, it's just a little bit exciting that they seem to be one the way, isn't it?!

[Brevet Cable]

So...is it correct that one of the RAF tankers is up & it's ZZ330 ?

[Jakesplanes]

Harriers only had one engine...

True, but if you were a naval aviator, would you rather have one or two?

Redundancy is relative: The Pegasus was painstakingly designed to reduce the common causes of failure (surge, sand ingestion, bird strikes and FOD, etc) and to have very simple relight characteristics. The size of the fan made relighting far more likely as it sucked a fair amount of air simply freewheeling. The nozzle control systems were as simple as can be, chain drive with a solid connection between all four nozzles. While there were early occasions where a nozzle would come off in flight, there have been zero cases of the nozzle control system failing. I know it’s easy to say two engines are safer, but if your single engine is very well thought out, as 50 years and counting with the Harrier proves, one engine is perfectly sufficient.

Interesting read. I'm not sure redundancy is relative but if you're saying would I rather have one reliable engine rather than two unreliable, that's more difficult to answer. Jet engines are pretty simple things, once in a steady state if you keep feeding them fuel they will keep generating thrust and the forces are pretty constant (assuming good balance) so fatigue is minimised for a long reliable life. That the US Navy have gone with a single engine on the C suggests that statistically the probability of loss though engine failure is minimal but then again, if you're a pilot in the middle of a very big ocean, at night, would you be happier with one or two reliable engines? Having said that, plenty of F-16 drivers regularly conduct night ops and is landing in the drink any worse than landing in a tree?

Very true. The bottom line now as then, is that confidence comes via a long testing period, which is certainly what the F35 is getting. The P.1127 Harrier prototype flew in 1960, first deck landings in 1963 and production Harrier GR.1s were crossing the Atlantic in ‘69. Bearing this in mind, 50 years later, a single engined jet should also be able to do the same these days without too much hassle... right?

[Jakesplanes]

I meant fixed wing and the Do31 was hardly a world beater

It did the job very effectively though. Politics stopped the 31, not its ability. Bear in mind we are talking 50 years ago now. It was a massive triumph of engineering, an incredible, foresighted design and deserves more recognition and respect.

[st24]

See whatever you think of the aircraft, it's just a little bit exciting that they seem to be one the way, isn't it?!

Nope.

[verreli]

See whatever you think of the aircraft, it's just a little bit exciting that they seem to be one the way, isn't it?!

The Voyager is currently North East of Rhode island with 5 chicks at 26,000ft.

I, for one, quite like the F-35. With a slightly different cockpit canopy design it could have been quite a good looking aircraft. From some angles it still is. I never cease to be amazed at any aircraft that can hover. One of my lasting memories was seeing the Harrier's last RAF flight with groups of 3 hovering at Cottesmore. Amazing.

[danspuggti]

Voyager's ZZ331 & ZZ335 up out of Gander International Airport.
Assume they'll be taking over/assisting the tanking duties across the pond.

[Big Eric]

Voyager's ZZ331 & ZZ335 up out of Gander International Airport.
Assume they'll be taking over/assisting the tanking duties across the pond.

That's correct as far as I know, they'll have 2 F35s each and I presume the 5th one is an airspare and will turn back.

[keithjs]

Do you think there's any chance of seeing them OTT when they get into UK air space? Any idea which way they'll route to Marham?
Be interesting to see them even if they're still at 20,000....
Thanks.

[capercaillie]

I, for one, quite like the F-35. With a slightly different cockpit canopy design it could have been quite a good looking aircraft.

With a slightly different cockpit it could have been even worse as well. We value your opinion even when it is clearly so wrong.

[138EAW]

Do you think there's any chance of seeing them OTT when they get into UK air space? Any idea which way they'll route to Marham?
Be interesting to see them even if they're still at 20,000....
Thanks.

Lands End > Brize > Alconbury > Marham

[Aviation94]

A400 ZM401 is up out Bangor (Maine not Wales!). Don't know if it's related?

[davidjones533]

.

[keithjs]

Do you think there's any chance of seeing them OTT when they get into UK air space? Any idea which way they'll route to Marham?
Be interesting to see them even if they're still at 20,000....
Thanks.

Lands End > Brize > Alconbury > Marham

Thank you. Bit too far north for us then...

[jonny7]

Anyone got an Idea of their ETA...can't access the radar sites as they are too overloaded. Cheers...

[Spiny Norman]

Do you think there's any chance of seeing them OTT when they get into UK air space? Any idea which way they'll route to Marham?
Be interesting to see them even if they're still at 20,000....
Thanks.

Lands End > Brize > Alconbury > Marham

Always suspected they were short of range but that's getting ridiculous.

[GertrudetheMerciless]

Some people just cannot accept that decisions are made for good reason. Unless you have been involved in a trail you will never see the big picture.

I think we have to remember a very large proportion of forum users will have no real professional connection to aviation at all. With that in mind, you second point is extremely valid!