Back to Squawk list
  • 7

The F-35 Can't Run On Warm Gas From A Fuel Truck That Sat In The Sun

The F-35 program continues to work through a litany of problems, but this one is almost laughable. According to the USAF, the troubled fighter cannot use gas from standard green colored USAF fuel trucks if it has been sitting in the sun. Considering that these jets will most likely find themselves operating in the desert or in somewhere in the scorching Pacific, this is a big problem. ( Mehr...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

btweston 5
preacher1 4
What about after the plane gets fueled and sits in the heat for a bit. Fix the fuel problem on the hunk of junk.

[This poster has been suspended.]

preacher1 2
Waste of money but probably the best thing for it.
Ricky Scott 4
Boeings bid was test ready and Build ready. It didnt need to be designed. It was just ugly, the military didnt want ugly. But it Functioned as requested for all the requirements.

This Lockheed Boondogle was a political choice.
Park in the shade.
BaronG58 2
Yea...I'm surprised Washington or Lockheed hasn't blamed the warm gas problem on global warming....."Not our Fault"
preacher1 7
So many billions of $ and we are choking on warm gas????????????????????????? Junk the thing, take our losses, fire the ones responsible and lets move on.
Shenghao Han 1
I am sure they will do that if they didn't presold so many planes to UK, Japan, Canada and many other countries lazy enough to build their own. (or want to kiss someone's ****)
Jeremy Chen 2
No offense this is one of the most sketchy websites that I have seen...
btweston 1
I'm pretty sure the target audience consists of the sort of people who masturbate to Soldier of Fortune.
BaronG58 0
Kind of a sketchy post...explain
preacher1 2
Is this for real or did the article come from the onion?
joel wiley 5
About the fuel truck or the F-35 itself?
BaronG58 1
Good one Joel !!!
joel wiley 1
Harry S. Truman's adage "if you can't stand the heat,stay out of the kitchen" comes to mind.
jesse murga 1
Wouldn't wrapping the tankers in a reflective material, like a 'Space Blanket' be more cost efficient than repainting the tankers?
preacher1 1
idk, it cost $4000 to repaint one. At gov't prices a space blanket would cost at least $10000, if not more. LOL John, I know you made a valid post but is this for real?
bbabis 1
So, as I read it, if you're on a mission and getting low on fuel, you shouldn't sweat running out because before that happens you'll overheat and EXPLODE!

Cool the avionics and sub-systems with fuel? Who thinks this stuff up?
preacher1 1
Sounds about right to me. Weren't hydraulics included in that cooling part too or to save weight? I would hope this whole story was from the onion or such. Sad part is, there is just enough truth in there to be believable. If this mess is all true, it will make the $40 toilet seat seem like child's play.
Torsten Hoff 1
The plane uses the fuel in the hydraulics system to save weight.

Personally I'd be more concerned about what a leak in the F-35's hydraulic system does, than it needing to be fueled with tepid fuel.

[This poster has been suspended.]

linbb 1
Then the 747s? Makes no sense or you spelled wrong.


Haben Sie kein Konto? Jetzt (kostenlos) registrieren für kundenspezifische Funktionen, Flugbenachrichtigungen und vieles mehr!
Diese Website verwendet Cookies. Mit der Weiternutzung der Website drücken Sie Ihr Einverständnis mit dem Einsatz von Cookies aus.
Wussten Sie schon, dass die Flugverfolgung auf FlightAware durch Werbung finanziert wird?
Sie können uns dabei helfen, FlightAware weiterhin kostenlos anzubieten, indem Sie Werbung auf zulassen. Wir engagieren uns dafür, dass unsere Werbung auch in Zukunft zweckmäßig und unaufdringlich ist und Sie beim Surfen nicht stört. Das Erstellen einer Positivliste für Anzeigen auf FlightAware geht schnell und unkompliziert. Alternativ können Sie sich auch für eines unserer Premium-Benutzerkonten entscheiden..